wrote in message
...
On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 19:27:59 -0400, H the K
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 15:05:53 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

The left has taken to calling Afghanistan "Obama's Vietnam." Well, if
we're going to let troops die as part of a PR stunt, then yes, it does
begin to resemble Vietnam.

Either we're going to give our troops every advantage in an effort to
allow them to win or we should, in fact, get out. If Obama has in mind
a Nixon-style "decent interval" where we are going to let troops be
killed in an effort not to win a war but to simply contrive a
politically-palatable "defeat with honor," then get them out of there.


I say, get them out of there. We have nothing to gain by staying.

If we really wanted to get Bin Laden the best way would have been to
ignore him until he stuck his head up and then just send in a small
team to shoot him.
We should have bombed Afghanistan with school supplies and other aid
after the Soviets left. They would have handed Bin Laden's head to us
on a plate.

I really wonder how much of this is driven by women's rights groups
and drug warriors.


You oppose womens' rights?


I support women's rights in this country but I don't think we have the
right to invade another country and impose our culture on them.

Tell that to Bush? Oh, too late....

It would have been cheaper to fly all the Afghani women who want their
rights here and buy them a nail salon.

Just a bit sexist, not to mention not much of an argument.

How many billion do you think we have wasted in Afghanistan for
virtually zero results? We have killed a lot of people but I don't
think we are a bit safer for it.

Thanks to Bush. Now we'll see what Obama can do.

I am old enough to remember the Vietnam rhetoric and it was basically
what we are hearing now. I was wrong then in supporting the war, I
don't want to be on the wrong side again.

It's a concern. My guess is that Obama has heard of VN.

--
Nom=de=Plume