[Rotavele]

This thread isnt worth getting warned over, Im editting out and i advise you to aswell as their all OOC attacks.

This post has been edited by Rotavele: 10 April 2009 - 10:05 AM

[turboflame]

It was largely about ending the war in Iraq, he did mention a number times that we need to focus on Afghanistan. Either way it's going to take time, if we pull out before Iraq can stand on it's own two feet anarchy ensues.

[Electron Sponge]

Obama said he wanted to focus on Afghanistan, he didn't mean focus on running away from the one legitimate war we've fought this decade.

[Kenadian_2006]

You fall on your face pretty early on. It was never about ending both wars. The Iraq war, whether you support it or not, was a strategic $%&@ up that pretty much crippled resources for Afghanistan. You know, the place that needs them. So he's winding down involvement in Iraq per his stated goals, per what people want and per what THE IRAQIS WANT. And he is then increasing resources devoted to Afghanistan where they are actually needed, where America's allies need them, and where Afghanistan needs them.

Kthxbai.

This post has been edited by Kenadian_2006: 09 April 2009 - 02:52 PM

[Lord GVChamp]

While Obama's foreign policy on this is contradictory and naive, since Iraq is of far greater importance than Afghanistan, he did say that he was going to boost troop numbers in Afghanistan and pull 'em out of Iraq

[El Pilchinator]

still have to fund it before you can end it.

[Rotavele]

This thread isnt worth getting warned over, Im editting out and i advise you to aswell as their all OOC attacks.

This post has been edited by Rotavele: 10 April 2009 - 10:06 AM

[rudekker]

how/why is Iraq important?

[Rotavele]

This thread isnt worth getting warned over, Im editting out and i advise you to aswell as their all OOC attacks.

This post has been edited by Rotavele: 10 April 2009 - 10:06 AM

[edikroma]

Well, nobody seemed to care when the Bush administration was borrowing this much money every year to fund the wars. But now that Obama wants it for Afghanistan?

1) Obama wants our troops out of Iraq.
2) Afghanistan, once forgotten by the Bush administration, requires a troops surge. If I remember correctly, the Republicans are all about the troop surge. Couldn't stop talking about the wonders it did for Iraq.
3) Like it or not, a war requires funding. Lots of funding.

[Ethan Smith]

Lord GVChamp, on Apr 9 2009, 08:55 PM, said:

While Obama's foreign policy on this is contradictory and naive, since Iraq is of far greater importance than Afghanistan, he did say that he was going to boost troop numbers in Afghanistan and pull 'em out of Iraq

However, affecting the environment in Afghanistan would decrease the number of "Arab Afghanis" who go to Afghanistan to train then leave to fight us in Iraq. Iraq is becoming increasingly more stable, and due to that needs increasingly less men. Add to that if the Obama administration gains more support from Iran he would be able to weaken Shi'iah resistance against us.

[Kenadian_2006]

Rotavele, on Apr 9 2009, 05:00 PM, said:

Americas resources? We owe, What? 11 trillion now? What resources?

Really? You don't even know what resources are in a military campaign context? *facepalm*

And GV, Iraq is not more important. Not in terms of where military assets are more necessary. Iraq has died down in terms of violence and has become more stable, Afghanistan has done the exact opposite.

This post has been edited by Kenadian_2006: 09 April 2009 - 03:20 PM

[Lord GVChamp]

Ethan Smith, on Apr 9 2009, 04:16 PM, said:

However, affecting the environment in Afghanistan would decrease the number of "Arab Afghanis" who go to Afghanistan to train then leave to fight us in Iraq. Iraq is becoming increasingly more stable, and due to that needs increasingly less men. Add to that if the Obama administration gains more support from Iran he would be able to weaken Shi'iah resistance against us.

But he's been saying this policy for years, since Iraq was unstable. It's hard for me to get behind that.


It's also hard to get behind "BUSH FORGOT AFGHANISTAN!" when some of our esteemed "allies" do very little there.

[Rotavele]

This thread isnt worth getting warned over, Im editting out and i advise you to aswell as their all OOC attacks.

This post has been edited by Rotavele: 10 April 2009 - 10:06 AM

[Rotavele]

EDIT: Double Post

This post has been edited by Rotavele: 09 April 2009 - 03:23 PM

[Ethan Smith]

Lord GVChamp, on Apr 9 2009, 09:19 PM, said:

But he's been saying this policy for years, since Iraq was unstable. It's hard for me to get behind that.


It's also hard to get behind "BUSH FORGOT AFGHANISTAN!" when some of our esteemed "allies" do very little there.

Yeah, I agree that when Iraq was unstable it was not a good policy. It's a good policy now, however, which is why I'm behind it.

The thing is that our allies in Europe have little interest in Afghanistan. They have no real reason to send troops there. If we were to increase relations with the Arab nations and especially Iran, they have far more interest in keeping Sunni extremism from gaining too much power.

[NewPoseidon]

Afghanistan was always the central front on the "war on terror," even if we pretend it is Iraq. Al Qaeda came from there, and it borders the world's biggest recruitment center for terrorists: Pakistan.

It is true that there is a political element to this. The far right in the US seems intent on putting forward vague accusations implying that Obama is somehow friendly towards terrorists. Reducing our troop level there will be impossible for him politically until we can score some kind of perceived victory.

[Lamuella]

Rotavele, on Apr 9 2009, 04:41 PM, said:

Was it me or was Obamas great campaign mainly about "Ending the War in Iraq, and Afghanistan!"

It was you. He didn't suggest ending the war in Afghanistan. Pay more attention in future.

[rudekker]

Rotavele, on Apr 9 2009, 04:03 PM, said:

Its not, Enless America is gonna try to turn them into a Japan kinda thing where we ally with them later? Idk... But anyways i did the math, if 84 billion dollar was given to the people, Everyone would get 280$. Thats including every baby and kid.

Thanks, but I was trying to get GV to answer. I've been against us being in Iraq since 2003, when no WMD's were found. And I'm not trying to ask a loaded question or anything, I'm really trying to figure out why righties are so gung-ho about getting in there. Honest!

[Kenadian_2006]

Rotavele, on Apr 9 2009, 05:21 PM, said:

Yes it does, So why is he sending MORE troops their? He sent 4,000 to Iraq, 17,000 to Afghanistan


Ok? So no one surged Iraq, So your saying we should go and kill people in Afghanistan for no reason? Were done their, Were trying to get out of war now.


Yes it does, So why is he sending MORE troops their? 17,000 to Afghanistan, 4,000 to Iraq.

EDIT:
Really? You didnt know resources cost money? *Facedesk*

Really? I had no idea. Obviously it hasn't been a problem for the past almost 10 years. The wars are not draining funds, economic bailouts are.