Obama's adress on Afghanistan...
By xfahctor
@xfahctor (14118)
Lancaster, New Hampshire
December 2, 2009 5:39pm CST
Since no one else chose to comment on this, I thought I'd put my own out there. Here are some random ramblings, notes and thoughts.
First, was the theater surrounding it. Someone PLEASE tell Obama he won the election and he can stop campaigning now. There was absolutely no need for the fan fare in this. For what little he had to say on Afghanistan, he could have just as easily done it from the oval office desk.There was no need for dragging up the economy, didn't need to fly to west point for it, etc, this was to be a strategy address on afghanistan. I heard maybe 5 minutes worth of afghanistan and that was mostly stuff we already knew.
I Think if a general asks for 60 thousands troops and says this is what he needs to have to do the job, then for cripe sakes gove him 60 thousand. I also don't ever remember seeing in mititary writings through out history where it was considered strategic to tell your enemy when you plan on with drawing, or when you plan on inserting reinforcements for that matter.
I have to praise him on one thing. for the first time I heard him praise our nations acomplishments in the world and the sacrifice we have made in blood for other nations, acknowlege the world at large has never really apreciated it, and do all this witgh out describing all of these things as "mistakes" or "cowboy" diplomacy. He in effect told the world, albight in a subtle way, we DO in fact do a lot of good in the world. It was refreshing to not hear this in the form of repeated apologies.
3 people like this
8 responses
@Lindalinda (4111)
• Canada
4 Dec 09
It is refreshing to hear you actually say something positive about your president. I am not American and it really puzzles me why you people are always so hard on your presidents. I don't knock criticism and analysis but what I find upsetting is that people can spread outright lies and rumours about people who are in office without giving references of offering proof to back up their statements.
For instance all the ghastly stuff that was said about President Bush, the most outlandish assertion I read was" "he is related to Osama bin Laden, that is why bin Laden has not been caught".
Now there is a new President in office, I think he has his hands full and one man alone cannot do all things right for all people, but why is he maligned so much already?
Now I have read:
"Oh, he is a Muslim. As far as I know it can be verified that for 20 odd years he has attended a Christian church. I don't think you can be a "secret" Muslim. There are certain things you must do as a Muslim and it would be obvious very fast if you were a Muslim. For instance prayers at set times of the day and on Fridays which cannot be missed or changed.
"The latest tidbit:" Oh, there will be no Christmas tree at the White House, only a Holiday tree and the National Tree is also a Holiday tree. Religious ornaments will be destroyed and letters have gone out to the artists who supply ornaments."
To date no single such letter has been produced as proof that it was sent from the White House. In fact a Christmas Tree was delivered to the White House on Nov. 30.
" The absolute most bizarre statement: I read yesterday in a post on Mylot:
"Obama is a shareholder in the company that produces the vaccine for H1N1 flu", that is why he wants you to get vaccinated.
I don't know about the USA but in Canada people who run for office and have interests in industry and other assets must put them in a blind trust and have no dealings with this trust while in office.
I realized I digressed a bit from the subject at hand but I was really surprised and pleased to read your positive remarks.
I think America is in a mess with Iraq and Afghanistan and Mr. Obama has based his decision on what he has heard from all sides. I don't know if he will be a good or bad President, it is way too early to tell, but I think he is a good listener and a very smart man.
@Lindalinda (4111)
• Canada
5 Dec 09
Fair enough. I do understand the philosophy, what astonishes me though is that people can make allegations with impunity without feeling the obligation to back up their statements with proof of what they are saying. Then these statements spread like wild fire on the internet without ever being substantiated. All rights are usually paired with obligations. So, should the obligation not be to supply proof that can be verified.
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
4 Dec 09
Well, it's a little more convoluded here. Bush and Cheney had interest in oil companies and other ventures, so Obama holding shares in a pharmacutical company may not be too far off the truth.
We do critisize our leaders, ALOT. Granted some of the stuff gets rediculous, but a lot of it isn't. We are of the mentality here that government is subserviant to us, especialy the federal government. We were never intended to see government as a ruler, but as a servant, simple employees with limited and strictly defined powers and duties. In fact, the "right of revolution" is written directly in to my own state's constitution. It is also written in to our national declaration of independence, not just as a right, but as a civic duty.
I will give credit when it is due, unfortuneatly, it is due less and less these days.
1 person likes this
@jb78000 (15139)
•
3 Dec 09
well i have my own opinions on afghanistan but when i saw this story what i thought first was here we go again - exactly how different is this new president to the last one? (i know that the amount of power the figurehead has is greatly exaggerated, so perhaps the question should be how different is this new party to the old one?) and the answer really appears to be not that much.
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
4 Dec 09
*BING*
give the rabbit a carrot. There IS no difference, republican party, democratic party, nothing more than two factions of the same party. We do not in fact have a two party system, we have one party with a left and right faction, both with the same authoritarian ideology.
That being said, since we did get in to afghanistan, I think we should have done it right. I think it is absolutely imoral to send soldiers in to battle with out the nessesary numbers to ensure victory and keep your casualties to a minimum and to send them with rules of engagement that rediculously restrict them is equally as imorral. War should be RARE, but if you are going to do it, do it right or don't do it at all.
1 person likes this
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
3 Dec 09
you want to know the scarey truth?
There is NO difference at all.
@laglen (19759)
• United States
3 Dec 09
I agree with your points. The part that got me the most was the time line. This bothers me as well. Didnt we cover this during Bushs admin? Also, I noticed no passion in his speech. A leaders job is to motivate and inspire. I didnt see anything there.
@Sourceseeker (1197)
• United States
14 Dec 09
The president is doing what he must do but is still not addressing what the biggest issue is in the battle for world supremacy. In essence this is a religous war. Like the Pagan Romans attempting to maintain power against a new religion called ChristianityAmerica must and can deal with Islamic Fundamentalist in a effective manner and lessen their impact on the world. We must study their religion with our scholars and give it an American interpretation. Troops are fine to promote order but until you can address the hearts and mines of the people America and the world will not be effetive.
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
14 Dec 09
it's true, there are deep religious anles to this war. Another issue we fight is we are dealing with a country that has never had a central government. The talliban could have been argued to be a central govt but, only barely so and they weren't there that long either. What we are fighting in addition to religion, is essentialy the differences among the various tribe and warlords. It doen't get much more wild west than Afghanistan. I fear as long as there is a central government that all these tribes can't find common ground with and rally around, there will never be true peace and prosperity. I think Afghanistan could well be ripe for a restructuring as a federal republic. That way regions could retain a certain amount of peacefull autonomy, much like our won states do, and still retain a central government for inter-tribal.state issues, national issues and international relations.
@wlee9696 (595)
• United States
3 Dec 09
At least we are sending troops - I support that decision completely. I wish we were sending a larger force as the general requested. I wish we would wait to speak with withdrawal until we have accomplished our goal. I was uninspired by his speech - but then I have yet to be inspired by any of his speeches. He attempted to use the cadets as props to make it appear he had the support of the military - instead in light of his actions and former statements - it came off as false and made it even more evident that he doesn't have the support or respect of the military.
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
3 Dec 09
Well he's almost doing the right thing as he's sending some troops, but his speech was weak and uninspiring. It was read word for word from a teleprompter. Teddy Ruxpin would have given a similar delivery. There was no passion, no genuine emotion, and no mention of victory.
Aside from that he did exactly what no leader should ever do. He telegraphed his punches. He even stated the time he planned to leave. Frankly, he is proving that he's all politician, and no commander in chief. I got the distinct impression that he doesn't believe in what he's doing and he's only trying to placate the majority, and I'm betting I'm not the only one who feels that way.
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
4 Dec 09
I am going on the hope that there is much more below the surface we don't know about. I am also of the mind that the "witrhdrawl date" is just an aritrary goal but not set in stone and maybe even something to placate his left ended base. It may well be a ploy, this isn't uncommon in war strategy, so I am hoping there is far more than we know about.
1 person likes this
@scottcoleson (578)
• Pilot Mountain, North Carolina
3 Dec 09
I agree with you wholeheartedly on everything you had to say about the President's speech. When Barack Obama first started campaigning, I actually liked him. That changed pretty quickly though. I can understand that during his campaign, he had to work to get his name out there and there was a lot of fanfare and media hype, but I think his main problem is that he is still in campaign mode. He is still trying to convince the American people that he belongs in the White House rather than actually doing something with his new position! His whole administration is built upon media hype. I think that's why so many people can't stand him. It's not necessarily his politics (because we don't even know what he stands for because he never really says) that people don't like, we are just sick of watching his "pep rallies" on a daily basis when he needs to just be our President. He has a great opportunity to do some awesome things for our country and the American people. I just hope and pray he steps up to the plate and does something about it.
