nonniey Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 A lot of posters here still bend themselves into pretzels in defense of the Indecisiveness of the President. Now that our closest ally is raking Obama for this as well are the posters that have been denying he is weak, still willing defend this weakness? Bob Ainsworth criticises Barack Obama over Afghanistan Bob Ainsworth, the defence secretary, has blamed Barack Obama and the United States for the decline in British public support for the war in Afghanistan. Mr Ainsworth took the unprecedented step of publicly criticising the US President and his delays in sending more troops to bolster the mission against the Taliban. A “period of hiatus” in Washington - and a lack of clear direction - had made it harder for ministers to persuade the British public to go on backing the Afghan mission in the face of a rising death toll, he said. Senior British Government sources have become increasingly frustrated with Mr Obama’s “dithering” on Afghanistan..... Click Link for the rest of the article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/6646179/Bob-Ainsworth-criticises-Barack-Obama-over-Afghanistan.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 I'm wondering why the word "dithering" is in quotes, when that is not a direct quote attributed to anyone in this article... Anyway, here's what Ainsworth actually said: “We have suffered a lot of losses," he said. "We have had a period of hiatus while McChrystal's plan and his requested uplift has been looked at in the detail to which it has been looked at over a period of some months, and we have had the Afghan elections, which have been far from perfect let us say. “All of those things have mitigated against our ability to show progress... put that on the other side of the scales when we are suffering the kind of losses that we are." “I hope and believe that we are about to get an announcement from the USA on troop numbers and I think that that will be followed by contributions from many other Nato allies and so we will be able to show that we are going forward in this campaign to an extent that we have not been able to in recent months with those issues still hanging,” he said. You can read into that as much or as little as you want... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 America leads here and all others follow. There is nothing to follow since March this year when a "plan" was established but not enabled. End it and give it ALL to nato Up it and kick ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellis Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 I'd really like to see Obama implement a strategy similar to the surge that was deployed in Iraq. Upon success, the US needs to secure key areas of entry to deny the Taliban entry into the better parts of the country. Keeping the Taliban from being able to "set up shop" is crucial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 "Defense" stupid English need to learn to spell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellis Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 it's from the UK, dude. lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 A lot of posters here still bend themselves into pretzels in defense of the Indecisiveness of the President. Now that our closest ally is raking Obama for this as well are the posters that have been denying he is weak, still willing defend this weakness? Gee, like all of the chickenhawks, such as Cheney and Beck, who are criticizing Obama? Weakness? So, is that what you call deliberate decision making? Weakness? :doh: Bob Ainsworth criticises Barack Obama over AfghanistanBob Ainsworth, the defence secretary, has blamed Barack Obama and the United States for the decline in British public support for the war in Afghanistan. Huh. I wonder if the lack of succcess by NATO, more so, has to do with a drop in the UK's public support. I've been following their news for a while, and this decline in support has nothing to do with it. It is weak for Bob Ainsworth to blame this on Obama. Go and talk with any UK citizen that is disgruntled with the war, and ask them if Obama's "indecision" has to do with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 So its not every other Nation nor the defence secretary.. It's Nato fault? and Deliberate? The plan was made it March. The 8 meetings and then scrap it all after they are done? 10 Months = deliberate? Were not talking going to war so a year to deliberate is still crazy but fine.. Were talking the exact amount to send.. TOO many and we bring some back.. Too few and we need to send more? or quit.. I prefer way to many as we learned with Iraq... and Rumsfeld's follies. Lets not repeat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellis Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 10 months is BEYOND more than enough time to get a strategy together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 10 months is BEYOND more than enough time to get a strategy together. It hasn't been 10 months. General McChrystal requested the additional troops at the end of September (i.e., just 2 months ago). Moreover, Obama has unofficially decided to send 34,000 more troops to Afghanistan. The announcement is expected to made official within a few days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted November 25, 2009 Author Share Posted November 25, 2009 "Defense" stupid English need to learn to spell. Ok, that is funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 I'm wondering why the word "dithering" is in quotes, when that is not a direct quote attributed to anyone in this article... Anyway, here's what Ainsworth actually said:You can read into that as much or as little as you want... It's interesting how differently these quotes sound outside the "Obama sux" context provided by the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 It hasn't been 10 months. General McChrystal requested the additional troops at the end of September (i.e., just 2 months ago). Moreover, Obama has unofficially decided to send 34,000 more troops to Afghanistan. The announcement is expected to made official within a few days. Yesterday, Glenn Beck's show make a big deal about this issue and the possible war "surtax." Then he had the nerve to go on about "sacrifice" and how folks from San Francisco should serve in the military and all of this other arm-chair chickenhawk baloney. To him, it doesn't matter if Obama is sending more troops: Obama is still "undermining" the mission as far as he is concerned. Maybe we should have thought about more troops before we, say, invaded Iraq. Maybe one fight at a time was a better idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 "Defense" stupid English need to learn to spell. The Brits make take offence at that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 "Why do we care what other nations think of us?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljs Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 "Why do we care what other nations think of us?" haha good one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted November 25, 2009 Author Share Posted November 25, 2009 "Why do we care what other nations think of us?" Us? You mean the President? Well if it effects our interests or policies yes then we should care. Bottomline, the world thinks our President is weak and they, both our enemies and friends, will formulate their actions based on that that premise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Us? You mean the President? Well if it effects our interests or policies yes then we should care. Bottomline, the world thinks our President is weak and they, both our enemies and friends, will formulate their actions based on that that premise. You are delusional. Obama is as close to universally respected as it gets. Your boy Bush is/was universally hated. Seventy-seven percent of Europeans supported Obama’s handling of foreign policy, a stark contrast to European perceptions of President George W. Bush’s approach. In 2008, just 19 percent approved of Bush’s handling of international affairs. The American president’s approval rating jumped 80 percentage points in Germany, 77 points in France, 70 in Portugal, and 64 in Italy over Bush’s ratings–the largest gains in the survey’s eight-year run. http://wvgazette.com/News/politico/200909090105 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Us? You mean the President? Well if it effects our interests or policies yes then we should care. Bottomline, the world thinks our President is weak and they, both our enemies and friends, will formulate their actions based on that that premise. You missed the point. This has been the mantra of the right-wing: "Why do we care what other nations think of us?" That is why they criticized what they deemed as the "apology tour." Also, the world doesn't think Obama's weak. Most non-Americans applaud his effort for greater diplomatic overtures. It's the right-wingers who feel that way -- they just assume that everyone else shares their views. Ask the Somali pirates if they think Obama is weak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted November 25, 2009 Author Share Posted November 25, 2009 You are delusional. Obama is as close to universally respected as it gets. Your boy Bush is/was universally hated. http://wvgazette.com/News/politico/200909090105 You mean liked (Which is different than respected). Yep Bush was/is universally hated/disliked. And he is not my boy (I was disappointed in many, many things he did). But neither has anything to do with being thought of as weak. And Obama is thought of as weak (not the First time an ally critized his weakness - ie the French a few months back). And it is you that is being delusional to think that is not the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 You mean universally liked (Which is different that respected).Yep Bush was/is univerallay hated/disliked. Add he is not my boy (I was disappointed in many, many things he did). But neither has anything to do with being thought of as weak. And Obama is thought of as weak (not the First time an ally critized his weakness - ie the French a few months back). And it is you that is being delusional to think that is not the case. Yes, Bush is/was your boy. That's why you voted for him twice and continue to advocate his failed policies in this thread. Bush was not respected, and our enemies didn't fear him. Your entire strength/weak arguments are nothing more than Republican chest thumping. It accomplished nothing for us over a period of 8 years, quite the opposite in fact. You're going to have a difficult time changing the annals here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted November 25, 2009 Author Share Posted November 25, 2009 Yes, Bush is/was your boy. That's why you voted for him twice and continue to advocate his failed policies in this thread.Bush was not respected, and our enemies didn't fear him. Your entire strength/weak arguments are nothing more than Republican chest thumping. It accomplished nothing for us over a period of 8 years, quite the opposite in fact. You're going to have a difficult time changing the annals here. I'm not even going attempt to change how Bush is thought of here or anywhere else. Of course that doesn't have anything to do with Obama being thought of as weak by our allies and enemies alike. And judging from your response I kinda suspect that you sorta fear he is weak yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 Yes, Bush is/was your boy. That's why you voted for him twice and continue to advocate his failed policies in this thread. I'm no fan of faux-conservative Bush but everything coming out from our allies and even off-the-record Senators is that there is respect for Bush and an wariness with which they regard Obama. "Reptilian" is the word I've seen used. Also, it's interesting that in Old Europe (Rumsfeld's appellation) that all of Bush's allies won their spots, in Berlusconi's case actually coming back into office after an absence. Ask the Poles how they feel about Obama withdrawing missile defense on the VERY ANNIVERSARY of the invasion by the Soviets. To say nothing of being so embarrassing that they have to NOT print the photo of his bowing to the Emperor in Japan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpyaks3 Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 I'm not even going attempt to change how Bush is thought of here or anywhere else. Of course that doesn't have anything to do with Obama being thought of as weak by our allies and enemies alike. And judging from your response I kinda suspect that you sorta fear he is weak yourself. Where the hell are you getting that Obama is though of as weak by enemies and allies alike? Other then right wing media in the United States and in Britain this hasn't been the sentiment at all. Put up a source to back up your claim hopefully something from a leader fully quoted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehogs Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 day to day in Britain when Afghanistan comes up for discussion the average person rarely mentions the US/Obama etc. Its basically a feeling that the war has no direction and seems doomed to go on for years. Throw in a lot of stuff about equipment not matching needs and the attitude over here is one of getting out - now. Even if Obama sent more troops that attitude would still prevail here. The hidden message by our Minister is that we are struggling to keep people in Britain 'on side' and he is clutching at the idea that a 'surge' tactic in Afghanistan by the US would change opinions here. At this stage I dont see it happening and as I mentioned Obama and US military issues are rarely discussed by the 'average' person in the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.