PDA

View Full Version : Der Spiegel on Der Obama


BlackHills
12-02-2009, 07:56 PM
It appears that the foreign press is less and less enthused about the POTUS.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,664753,00.html

Never before has a speech by President Barack Obama felt as false as his Tuesday address announcing America's new strategy for Afghanistan. It seemed like a campaign speech combined with Bush rhetoric -- and left both dreamers and realists feeling distraught.

One didn't have to be a cadet on Tuesday to feel a bit of nausea upon hearing Obama's speech. It was the least truthful address that he has ever held. He spoke of responsibility, but almost every sentence smelled of party tactics. He demanded sacrifice, but he was unable to say what it was for exactly.

An additional 30,000 US soldiers are to march into Afghanistan -- and then they will march right back out again. America is going to war -- and from there it will continue ahead to peace. It was the speech of a Nobel War Prize laureate.

For each troop movement, Obama had a number to match. US strength in Afghanistan will be tripled relative to the Bush years, a fact that is sure to impress hawks in America. But just 18 months later, just in time for Obama's re-election campaign, the horror of war is to end and the draw down will begin. The doves of peace will be let free.

It was a dizzying combination of surge and withdrawal, of marching to and fro. The fast pace was reminiscent of plays about the French revolution: Troops enter from the right to loud cannon fire and then they exit to the left. And at the end, the dead are left on stage.

Slugo
12-02-2009, 08:04 PM
I actually disagree and believe the president did the best he could offer. Yea, I know a real switch for the old racist! The liberal Dems are against him on this and he's doing what I believe is the best to get the fuck out of Afghanistan. The Afghani government is nothing more than a bunch of drug lords and we're giving them free protection. Fuck that!!

Touche to Stymie on this one...

BlackHills
12-02-2009, 08:35 PM
I actually disagree and believe the president did the best he could offer. Yea, I know a real switch for the old racist! The liberal Dems are against him on this and he's doing what I believe is the best to get the fuck out of Afghanistan. The Afghani government is nothing more than a bunch of drug lords and we're giving them free protection. Fuck that!!

Touche to Stymie on this one...

Interesting. I agree with Der Spiegel. I found it strange that he wanted to link the justification to continue to the cost. It's either right or wrong and the cost should be secondary. A war can't be run on a budget....either spend what's necessary to win or pull out

I also think the idea of a 'surge' followed by a timetable to withdraw doesn't make any sense. Setting a timetable tells them we're weak. The bad guys now know they just have to hold out a little longer and we'll leave. They don't win if we defeat them....but if we don't defeat them in the timeframe then we'll just walk away. It's silly to send extra troops there for a year and then start to withdraw them. The situation on the ground might call for that but it can't be set it in stone. As much as I loathe him at least FDR didn't tell the Axis powers "We'll fight until 1944 but then we're packing up and going home".

What message does that send to the grunt sitting in Afghanistan today? That their mission is worth dying for now but it's not a year from now whether they accomplish the mission or not?

Pistolero
12-02-2009, 08:40 PM
Glenn Beck today showed an interesting video of Howard Dean giving a speech somewhere in Europe recently. As head of the DNC, he said that in previous administrations, they would only go into "campaign mode" for one year leading up to the election. But now, they are going to be in "campaign mode" for the entire four years.

This had lots of implications as to how policy, events and crisis are going to be handled.

Slugo
12-02-2009, 09:10 PM
giving them a drop dead date is neither fish nor foul in my simple mind. We're wasting our time there and can never claim a victory no matter what we do. Remember, the Soviets left and they weren't hamstrung with all kinds of horseshit like a ban on torture. The country is way too big to control and again, we're protecting a bunch of thugs that will turn around and cut our throats, just like the rest. Fuck it, it's time to set the exit machine in motion...

///Mike
12-02-2009, 09:43 PM
I actually disagree and believe the president did the best he could offer. Yea, I know a real switch for the old racist! The liberal Dems are against him on this and he's doing what I believe is the best to get the fuck out of Afghanistan. The Afghani government is nothing more than a bunch of drug lords and we're giving them free protection. Fuck that!!

Touche to Stymie on this one...

Hmmmm....... Who is it on here who always says, basically ALL Presidents make the same decisions on National Security issues, because they know more than any of the rest of us. They have families they want to protect, and as corny as it sounds, at least in this regard, they choose to do what's in the best interest of our Country.

I still believe Clinton AND Obama would've fundamentally made the same choices as Pres Bush(s).

We, the people, and the MSM, only know a very small piece of the big picture....as it must be.

BlackHills
12-02-2009, 09:50 PM
giving them a drop dead date is neither fish nor foul in my simple mind. We're wasting our time there and can never claim a victory no matter what we do. Remember, the Soviets left and they weren't hamstrung with all kinds of horseshit like a ban on torture. The country is way too big to control and again, we're protecting a bunch of thugs that will turn around and cut our throats, just like the rest. Fuck it, it's time to set the exit machine in motion...

I guess I'll just agree to disagree. I do think we need to change the way we're doing things there....reading this (http://www.wickedwatercooler.com/showthread.php?t=6172) opened my eyes to some ideas that I do think would work and wouldn't require as many people or cost what we're spending now. The ROEs need to be fixed as well, they're totally screwed up the way they are.

However, I'm with you that we need to pull out if we're only going to do it half-assed. If that is the case though, why send more troops there and then pull out? Start the process tomorrow.

TMK
12-02-2009, 09:54 PM
Lay off the crack pipe...Obama is the worst nightmare this country has ever seen...on his best day he's a lying sack of shit...and that's giving him a significant benefit of the doubt.

Sushi
12-03-2009, 07:17 AM
Another case of someone elevated to a position beyond his abilities, or is it the case of a man who, once cornered has to toe the party line and does what his advisers recommend - which is usually not the best course of action... look at Nixon... advisers shouldn't be guiding but restraining.

Pistolero
12-03-2009, 07:28 AM
It's not a case of his "advisors". He's trying to balance losing the support of the left wing idiots that were instrumental to putting him there and using any common sense whatsoever. This is a complete travesty. If you're not there to win, and he didn't use the word "victory" once in his speech (though he did say "I" 57 times), then he should have chosen that great military strategist, Joe Biden's, solution and just use drones.

You either give the military everything they need and turn them lose to win, or just don't go. Period.

Sushi
12-03-2009, 07:30 AM
You either give the military everything they need and turn them lose to win, or just don't go. Period.

Okay with that one I we can agree :D

Pistolero
12-03-2009, 07:30 AM
Like I said earlier in another thread, we couldn't do worse if Brava was sitting in the White House.

Or Frank, he's at least got the experience. He's done everything else. :D

Max__Power
12-03-2009, 07:33 AM
because we could not invade Iran and Saudi Arabia. The plan was to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam in a matter of hours, destroy the military, and occupy the country at for as long as it suited us. This was to send the message to Iran and Saudi that the US was not to be fucked with and that they needed to stop their support of AQ and Hezzbollah. We were sending a message to the other two by making an example of IRaq. The Gulf tyrants quaked in fear of the US after Gulf War I. They are not afraid of the US anymore. We wasted the "fear factor" with Gulf War II. Those guys aren't so afraid anymore.

Pistolero
12-03-2009, 07:43 AM
I don't disagree with any of what you said. But the reason Iraq was picked was because given Saddam's behavior after the Gulf War, it was just a matter of time before he was going to become a real problem for us. Remember, we thought he had the WMDs going back to at least the Clinton administration because he thought he had them. Nobody, including himself, knew his scientists were lying to him about them to save their lives.

He was a fair target under Bush's proclamation to target "and those that support terrorism" and there was plenty of evidence Saddam was doing that, al-Qaida notwithstanding.

Max__Power
12-03-2009, 07:57 AM
because he is playing music too loud. If he is just being loud, they bang on the door and tell him to turn the music down. However, if he is on record as claiming to have an arsenal in his house and he will kill any cop who comes to his door, it's the SWAT team that is delivering the message.

Pistolero
12-03-2009, 08:00 AM
Well, he was "lighting up" or firing on our planes as they patrolled the no-fly zones.

Shoot at police cars as they drive down the street and see who shows up at your door. :D

Heimir
12-03-2009, 08:50 AM
You either give the military everything they need and turn them lose to win, or just don't go. Period.

First you need to define what "win" means.

Heimir
12-03-2009, 08:54 AM
I don't disagree with any of what you said. But the reason Iraq was picked was because given Saddam's behavior after the Gulf War, it was just a matter of time before he was going to become a real problem for us. Remember, we thought he had the WMDs going back to at least the Clinton administration because he thought he had them. Nobody, including himself, knew his scientists were lying to him about them to save their lives.

He was a fair target under Bush's proclamation to target "and those that support terrorism" and there was plenty of evidence Saddam was doing that, al-Qaida notwithstanding.

No disrespect but thats totally bullshit.

The French and the Germans said he did not have WMD. They asked to give Hans Blix more time to prove that. Hans Blix said Saddam had no WMD. Saddam said he did not have any before the invasion.

Bush knew Saddam had none either. The so called evidence presented to the UN was totally made up and it has been pretty much confirmed by both Powell and Wilkerson.

The Iraq war was a huge mistake that we will be paying for.

Heimir
12-03-2009, 08:55 AM
We did not invade because of that so its irrelevant.

Slugo
12-03-2009, 08:56 AM
First you need to define what "win" means.

best observation yet! What exactly is a win in Afghanistan!?! We're protecting the bad guys behind curtain #1. Fuck that, that's winning...

///Mike
12-03-2009, 02:11 PM
First you need to define what "win" means.

What if the "definition" is a matter of National Security?

Pistolero
12-03-2009, 02:17 PM
It was part of his belligerent attitude towards us. Let's just say it didn't help him any.

Heimir
12-03-2009, 02:37 PM
What if the "definition" is a matter of National Security?

Then dont expect to get the people or your own military behind it.
That makes no sense by the way.

///Mike
12-03-2009, 03:26 PM
Then dont expect to get the people or your own military behind it.
That makes no sense by the way.

Just saying, we haven't a clue my friend.

Pistolero
12-03-2009, 03:43 PM
Well, in my mind it would be to remove the Taliban's ability to influence the government and assist al-Qaida. But in his universe, the Taliban isn't the "enemy" any more, just al-Qaida. And for the most part, they're living in relative obscurity in Pakistan anyway. So, beats the hell out of me. ;)

We'll just sacrifice young men and women until the middle of 2011 and then leave without accomplishing anything. Yep, sounds like a good plan to me.

Bald1
12-03-2009, 08:02 PM
Nothing like having an Apologist in Chief with a white hanky in hand occupying the White House. God help us all.