Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Cheney Rips Obama's Afghan Stance  
User currently offlineFuturePilot16 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2035 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1321 times:

Seeing as the admin that he was vice president for did nothing at all to help win the Afghan war, or even further it, he should be one of the last people to criticize Obama's approach, but I agree that Obama needs to stop messing around and make a decision about Afghanistan.

BTW, am I the only one that saw this quote as funny

Quote:
The strategy Obama announced in March bore a "striking resemblance" to what the Bush administration review had found, the vice president said.


So if they had this plan in place, why didn't they do it during their time in office? Rather than dump in on the current admin along with another laundry list of problems.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33426929/ns/politics-white_house


"The brave don't live forever, but the cautious don't live at all."
21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineFlyDeltaJets87 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1318 times:



Quoting FuturePilot16 (Thread starter):
Seeing as the admin that he was vice president for did nothing at all to help win the Afghan war, or even further it

Just because most of the media and the American people didn't think about Afghanistan and chose instead to focus on the Iraq war does not mean "nothing at all" was done in Afghanistan to "help win the war" by the Bush Administration. Now that the Iraq war has been drawing down, the media and the public are turning their focus back to Afghanistan. But just because you or others chose to think about Afghanistan second, if at all, while Iraq was going on doesn't mean it was ignored by Bush, his administration, or the people running and fighting the war.


User currently offlineFuturePilot16 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2035 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1315 times:



Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 1):
But just because you or others chose to think about Afghanistan second, if at all, while Iraq was going on doesn't mean it was ignored by Bush, his administration, or the people running and fighting the war.

I always thought Afghanistan was the more important war and was always troubled by the fact that there was no focus on it. Don't blame the media because the previous admin practically choose to ignore Afghanistan to install their "Democracy" (puppet gov't) in Iraq.



"The brave don't live forever, but the cautious don't live at all."
User currently offlineFlyDeltaJets87 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1307 times:



Quoting FuturePilot16 (Reply 2):
Don't blame the media because the previous admin practically choose to ignore Afghanistan to install their "Democracy" (puppet gov't) in Iraq

Did they (the Bush Admin) ignore Afghanistan? Or did the media put the focus on Iraq because it was more controversial? More people thought about Iraq because that's what they saw the most about in the news.

On October 9, 2004, Afghanistan elected Hamid Karzai President in its first direct elections. The following year, Afghans conducted the Afghan parliamentary election, 2005 on September 18, 2005. Since the invasion, hundreds of schools and mosques have been constructed, millions of dollars in aid have been distributed, and the occurrence of violence has been greatly reduced.

While military forces interdict insurgents and assure security, Provincial reconstruction teams are tasked with infrastructure building, like constructing roads and bridges, assisting during floods, and providing food and water to refugees. Many warlords have participated in an allegiance program, recognizing the legitimacy of the Government of Afghanistan, and surrendering their soldiers and weapons, though some of their subsequent actions have led to serious questions about their true loyalties.

The newly activated Afghan National Army, Afghan National Police, and Afghan Border Police are being trained to assume the task of securing their nation. However, the Taliban still wields strong influence in many regions, and Karzai's government is believed to hold little real power outside the capital city of Kabul.


Yea, sounds like the administration did "nothing" to help win the war there. Is the war over? No, as obviously indicated by the last sentence in the part I've quoted. But that doesn't mean "nothing" was done or happened or any progress made from October 7, 2001 to January 20, 2009.

What's sad is you probably sit there and think you're adding constructive discussion to the topic even when you say "The Bush Administration did nothing to help win the war in Afghanistan".  sarcastic  But you'd rather just sit there and make yourself feel better about your Bush-bashing by saying "he did nothing", hoping if you say it enough, it will become the truth to others as well.


User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8021 posts, RR: 26
Reply 4, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1303 times:

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 1):
But just because you or others chose to think about Afghanistan second, if at all, while Iraq was going on doesn't mean it was ignored by Bush, his administration, or the people running and fighting the war.

Come on now dude, you have been selectively reading posts these last few years...not only were plenty of people in this very forum continually exasperated by lack of sufficient focus on Afghanistan, myself included, but it was perfectly obvious from 2003 on that it would be impossible to maintain the level of activity needed in South Asia to get needed results on a number of fronts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=levFw2UmlE8

Do you actually buy this stuff?? The Bush administration did bring significant aid dollars to the country and we as well as international organizations have done a lot in terms of health and other infrastructure but that's only half the battle. Unfortunately, the economic growth he's talking about is largely from an agricultural sector devoted the world's favorite opiates - what is it now, something like 1/3 of total GDP?? One only wonders what would have been possible without the wild misadventure in no-threat Iraq.

[Edited 2009-10-22 06:28:13]


If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8791 posts, RR: 24
Reply 5, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1303 times:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lVrkpOwnA4&feature=player_embedded

Quote:
In the fall of 2008, fully aware of the need to meet new challenges being posed by the Taliban, we dug into every aspect of Afghanistan policy, assembling a team that repeatedly went into the country, reviewing options and recommendations, and briefing President-elect Obama’s team. They asked us not to announce our findings publicly, and we agreed, giving them the benefit of our work and the benefit of the doubt. The new strategy they embraced in March, with a focus on counterinsurgency and an increase in the numbers of troops, bears a striking resemblance to the strategy we passed to them.

So Obama received on a silver platter a new strategy, based on the experiences of 7 years in Afghanistan, plus the experiences in Iraq (has nobody noticed that basically we won in Iraq?).

On top of that, Obama asks the Bush Administration to keep mum about it so that Obama can take the credit, and Bush agreed, for the good of the country and to give the new administration the semblance of hitting the ground running. Can anyone argue that Bush did not have class? Do you think that anybody in the current White House would do the same for an incoming Republican administration?

Thanks, Mr. Cheney, for reminding us of a time when adults were in charge.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1298 times:

There is one fact the thread starter seems to have forgotten. Bush kept the Taliban and AQ in Afghanistan off balance for years to try to rebuild the country. It has only been in 2009 that we have seen more coordination and stucture to the Talibban and AQ military tactics. This is why Gen. McCrystal has asked for the additional troops this year.

Did the 2008 US Presidential election influence the Taliban tactics this year because they viewed Obama as weaker than Bush? Maybe, or maybe not, that has yet to be determined.

Meanwhile, Obama has held big parties at the WH, pushed for the Olympics, and focused on cap and trade and health care while ignoring the troops in harms way.

He has spoken to McCrystal only twice now, in the 100 days McCrystal was given command of the troops there. I guess Obama is really showing what his political priorities really are, and increases in dead US troops are not it.


User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8021 posts, RR: 26
Reply 7, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1285 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 5):
has nobody noticed that basically we won in Iraq

If we measure "winning" by the narrowed dimensions and objectives of the last two years of occupation, sure. Mostly functional government, functioning police and armed forces and resumption of oil trade, suppressed insurgent activity, OK, one has to accept victory within that scope. But compared with the original objectives - a stable democracy, rejuvenated economy and infrastructure, and restoration of regional security - we are leaving with a lot undone and as yet undetermined. If you deny that reality you are simply intellectually dishonest. Have you even read any of the posts from some of our members who have served there??

Among a few of my sticking points:

- There is now a Shi'a majority government, undesirable and unprecedented cooperation and relations with Iran (when has that been the case in recent Iraqi history??) and enough instability and future uncertainty to be in the top 5 of the Failed States Index.

- Iraq developing into a possible equivalent foe of Israel greater than or equal to its status under Saddam Hussein is a potential further destabilizing element regionally (how ironic if they push that issue while acquiring the billions in US arms they've signed for in the last year!).

- A bi-product of the occupation has been strained relations with Turkey on a number of issues, and while both Ankara and DC seem to be talking the talk since 2007, there is much work to be done to make sure things are properly shored up. Who knows what a return to Iraqi destabilization and/or political shift would portend for our critical relationship with them.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineDXing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1267 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 5):
So Obama received on a silver platter a new strategy, based on the experiences of 7 years in Afghanistan, plus the experiences in Iraq (has nobody noticed that basically we won in Iraq?).

On top of that, Obama asks the Bush Administration to keep mum about it so that Obama can take the credit, and Bush agreed, for the good of the country and to give the new administration the semblance of hitting the ground running. Can anyone argue that Bush did not have class? Do you think that anybody in the current White House would do the same for an incoming Republican administration?

Thanks, Mr. Cheney, for reminding us of a time when adults were in charge.

 checkmark 

I wonder what the White House response will be to the spilling of the bean that their "new" strategy was actually worked out for them in advance of them taking office? Just as our withdrawl from Iraq was worked out in advance of them taking office.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 4):
Come on now dude, you have been selectively reading posts these last few years...not only were plenty of people in this very forum continually exasperated by lack of sufficient focus on Afghanistan, myself included, but it was perfectly obvious from 2003 on that it would be impossible to maintain the level of activity needed in South Asia to get needed results on a number of fronts.

And when you and others did I asked quite plainly how more boots on the gorund in Afghanistan was going to help when they had a border to hide behind. Never did get a logical answer to that. The focus of attention, because the liberals and the media wanted it to be was Iraq. It was always the evil twin to Afghanistan to them. Now that Iraq is pretty much in the bag and Afghanistan is it, and they don't have the previous administration to lean on for advice, it looks like their "good" war is floundering because the leader can't make up his mind.

I hope fomer VP Cheney keeps it up. If the current administration doesn't like the heat too bad, soldiers lives are on the line.


User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8021 posts, RR: 26
Reply 9, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1262 times:



Quoting DXing (Reply 8):

And when you and others did I asked quite plainly how more boots on the gorund in Afghanistan was going to help when they had a border to hide behind. Never did get a logical answer to that.

It was never about only boots on the ground - it was also about a massive campaign to turn the country from impoverished rocky wasteland to a place with something resembling a future, Taliban malcontents be damned. As you've stated yourself, never too early or late on that count where Afghanistan is concerned. But you can't even fathom an undertaking like that without more military support.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineFuturePilot16 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2035 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1260 times:



Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 7):
If we measure "winning" by the narrowed dimensions and objectives of the last two years of occupation, sure. Mostly functional government, functioning police and armed forces and resumption of oil trade, suppressed insurgent activity, OK,

Exactly, and hold on to your horses dreadnought, we're not sure peace is going to remain in Iraq. Next thing you know in six months all hell could break loose again.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 5):
So Obama received on a silver platter a new strategy, based on the experiences of 7 years in Afghanistan, plus the experiences in Iraq (has nobody noticed that basically we won in Iraq?).

So why didn't they present this plan during their administraion rahter than hand down another burden? It makes no sense. It's because they knew it wasn't going to work and rather than get criticized for it, they decide to let the current admin take all the heat. And sure the Taliban are being more bold because obviously they view Obama as weaker than Bush, which he is, that's why I say he needs to grow a pair and go after these SOB's.

That being said let's remain on topic. I think Cheney has some good points, but he can't expect that Obama will go straight after these guys, which aggravates me.



"The brave don't live forever, but the cautious don't live at all."
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8021 posts, RR: 26
Reply 11, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1258 times:



Quoting FuturePilot16 (Reply 10):
It's because they knew it wasn't going to work and rather than get criticized for it, they decide to let the current admin take all the heat.

That's just silly - there's no way of knowing, much less proving a baseless claim like that. If anything the previous administration was always far too positive about what was going to work and how.

Quoting FuturePilot16 (Reply 10):
So why didn't they present this plan during their administraion rahter than hand down another burden?

Pass the buck is a popular parlor game in Washington, didn't you know?



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8791 posts, RR: 24
Reply 12, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1239 times:

Quoting FuturePilot16 (Reply 10):
So why didn't they present this plan during their administraion rahter than hand down another burden? It makes no sense.


You can't understand it because you, like many others, are so partisan in your mind, and cannot understand that Bush was not that way. He worked very closely with the Obama transition team and basically did nothing that Obama would not agree with, including the bailouts. Bush was being something unusual in this political climate - a patriot.

The new strategy, which his people struggled over for many months to finalize, was completed shortly before he was to leave office. If he announced it as his own, its effect would be diluted by everyone knowing that a new guy was taking over in a few weeks, and that normally precedes a change in strategy, so nobody would actually bother seriously implementing it. But if you hand it over to the new guy and allow him to claim it as his own, there would be no such hesitation.

Except 6 months later when the President is asked to actually pony up. Then HE is the one hesitating.

A year ago it was just a joke. Obama had picked up a habit in the Illinois Senate of voting 'present', and avoiding tough decisions, having to decide yes or no. Everyone said, "You can't vote 'present' when you are in the White House." But sure enough, that is exactly what is happening. Obama is indecisive. The Taliban know this and are stepping up the pressure. I wonder what's going on in the minds of former insurgents in Iraq who have given up the fight - are they starting to see that with a weak US president, if they rise again, they might have a chance at winning, and overthrow the democratic government in favor of a neo-Baathist or an Iran-style theocracy? The world begins to wonder...

[Edited 2009-10-22 07:55:47]


Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8189 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1225 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 6):
while ignoring the troops in harms way.

Since Obama approved 20,000+ troop increases soon after being sworn in (the increase Bush refused?) it's not yet time to say he is ignoring the troops.

Especially when I was reading a week or so that the military has not finished deploying the original 20,000+ troops approved by Obama. The military is pretty well beaten down from Iraq. Too many deployments, too little time home between deployments. Now we're paying the price.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 6):
He has spoken to McCrystal only twice now, in the 100 days McCrystal was given command of the troops there. I guess Obama is really showing what his political priorities really are, and increases in dead US troops are not it.

Sorry Top, but I'm a strong believer in the chain of command. It may well be that Bush did a major disservice by increasing direct talks to commanders in the field. It tends to diminish those who are standing on the sidelines, but should be between the commander and CIC.

As for Afghanistan, the country doesn't have major oil reserves so it is no surprise that an oilman like Cheney would be more focused on getting into Iraq - especially one who had been told by Bush I that he wasn't going after Saddam.

Since the military hasn't been able to deploy Obama's original 20,000+ build-up I believe there is time for all voices to be heard and some decisions to be made on how to move forward. It also gives time for the election situation there to be worked out.

More importantly, it might give the military time to see where they are and how they would respond to another increases approved by the President. Let them sort out who deploys, and when. What procurements need to be made at multiple levels, even down to basic ammunition and personnel equipment.


User currently offlineSeb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 14, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1216 times:



Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 1):
Just because most of the media and the American people didn't think about Afghanistan and chose instead to focus on the Iraq war

And, why was there a focus on Iraq? Who made that possible? Was it the media?

Quoting DXing (Reply 8):
I asked quite plainly how more boots on the gorund in Afghanistan was going to help when they had a border to hide behind.

When the previous administration asked for more boots on the ground in Iraq, some asked how that would help. Now, it sounds like you are speaking out against more boots on the ground in Afganistan after your dear leader has proven that it works.

Other former officials had spoken out against the Bush administration and were told to shut up and support Bush and his decisions because supporting the president is patriotic. Therefore, Cheney needs to shut up and support the president because that is patriotic.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8791 posts, RR: 24
Reply 15, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1204 times:



Quoting Seb146 (Reply 14):
Other former officials had spoken out against the Bush administration and were told to shut up and support Bush and his decisions because supporting the president is patriotic.

I want to see that quote.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19411 posts, RR: 58
Reply 16, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1195 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 15):

I want to see that quote.

Um, there have been a few hundred articles on how the Bush White House allowed very little dissent from the President.

There have been more than one official who have come out and confessed that they were ordered to lie to the public about, for example, the WMD affair.

This is widely-known, public knowledge. Do a quick search.


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 17, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1180 times:



Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 7):
Who knows what a return to Iraqi destabilization and/or political shift would portend for our critical relationship with them.

Great summary Aaron, but don't forget the likely half a million death and 2 million refugees imposed mostly on the neighbours and another 2 million internally displaced.

And oil production still below 2000 levels. If that is success, the Iraqis are indeed lucky there was not a failure.

Meanwhile, Afghanistan was left to the warlords and the drug lords. The % I have read is 50% of GDP is heroin.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21526 posts, RR: 55
Reply 18, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1172 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 6):
Bush kept the Taliban and AQ in Afghanistan off balance for years to try to rebuild the country. It has only been in 2009 that we have seen more coordination and stucture to the Talibban and AQ military tactics.

You don't rise to the prominence that AQ and the Taliban have in Afghanistan overnight, or even in the span of several months. That's a result of years of allowing them to slowly build back their presence as resources were diverted to Iraq.

And people did mention that it was going on.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineDXing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1165 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 9):
But you can't even fathom an undertaking like that without more military support.

Aaron, we had 500,000 troops in Vietnam at the wars peak. Did we have the country secured? Why not? Perhaps, in large part, because the enemy could melt across a political border they knew we would not cross? And which is larger in size, the former South Vietnam or Afghanistan? Until the government of Pakistan took seriously the threat of the Taliban inside their borders, which they finally seem to be doing, we did not have enough troops to provide full security for Afghanistan even if we took every soldier out of Iraq and tranplanted them to Afghanistan. When that time does come we will have even less time than we had to get the job done in Iraq since the Afghan people have shown before they will not tolerate foreign soldiers in great numbers inside their borders.

Quoting FuturePilot16 (Reply 10):
Next thing you know in six months all hell could break loose again.

Tomorrow you could get hit by a bus. Does that mean that you don't try and better yourself today?

Quoting FuturePilot16 (Reply 10):
So why didn't they present this plan during their administraion rahter than hand down another burden?

The former Vice President made that clear.

"They asked us not to announce our findings publicly, and we agreed, giving them the benefit of our work and the benefit of the doubt," Cheney said. The strategy Obama announced in March bore a "striking resemblance" to what the Bush administration review had found, the vice president said

The Obama administration asked them to hand their findings down. On top of that they asked the Bush administration not to say anything about that. Must have been Joe Bidens idea. He has never had a problem plagiarizing other peoples work.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 12):
He worked very closely with the Obama transition team and basically did nothing that Obama would not agree with, including the bailouts. Bush was being something unusual in this political climate - a patriot.

And look what it got him. Nothing but blame and ridicule from the current President, democratic Congressional leaders, and liberal commentators. Even with all that he has for the most part held his tongue. The man is an example of class.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 14):
When the previous administration asked for more boots on the ground in Iraq, some asked how that would help.

No, they said it would be a disaster and they were wrong.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 14):
Now, it sounds like you are speaking out against more boots on the ground in Afganistan after your dear leader has proven that it works.

It worked in Iraq since the situation was completely different. In Iraq you had the insurgents largely operating in urban areas. In Afghanistan they operate in the rural areas. In Iraq they did not have a border they could cross and then rest and refit in relative comfort. In Afghanistan they do. The situations, strategically and tactically, are hardly comparable.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 16):
There have been more than one official who have come out and confessed that they were ordered to lie to the public about, for example, the WMD affair.

This is widely-known, public knowledge. Do a quick search.

If it's that easy why don't you provide the links? Make the accusation, back it up, now that's simple.

[Edited 2009-10-22 10:12:21]

User currently offlineCharles79 From Puerto Rico, joined Mar 2007, 1330 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1164 times:



Quoting FuturePilot16 (Thread starter):
but I agree that Obama needs to stop messing around and make a decision about Afghanistan.

Yes...pull out!

Honestly, I'm getting tired of the incompetence which has surrounded this war from the beginning (a war which, IMHO, should have never been started but that's another topic).

To the Bush lovers, please stop being so partisan and actually admit the fact that we had a terrible strategy in Afghanistan from the start and that we went in too quickly after 9/11 looking for blood without a careful analysis of the end state which we were after (and is there one?). Add to that the costly mistake of invading and occupying Iraq and it's no wonder that 8 years after the fact the war shows few signs of being useful (other than to firmly establish an extremely corrupt government and throw away $Billions).

To the Obama lovers, please stop being so partisan, blaming Bush for everything under the sun only works if he's in power. Obama IS the president now, whatever happens now is his responsibility. If he thinks that this war is a lost cause then so be it, pull out fast and swift. Otherwise lets pull up our pants, accept the responsibility, deal with Pakistan and its porous border, assign the number of troops needed and equip them, develop a sound strategy which includes schools and reconstruction, and do the job properly...

...which brings me to my last point: does the American public/government really has the will to commit the resources, time, money, troops, patience, energy, attention, and effort that are really needed to do the job right? I'm afraid that we probably don't... no 

My apologies if I sound a tad frustrated and/or pessimistic.

Charles


User currently offlineSA7700 From South Africa, joined Dec 2003, 3431 posts, RR: 26
Reply 21, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1154 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Members

Please continue your discussion in the existing Bleak Outlook For Afghan War thread. This thread is in essence a double thread and will now be locked. Please refer to Forum Rule 1j.

Any posts made after the lock, will be removed for housekeeping purposes.


Rgds

SA7700



When you are doing stuff that nobody has done before, there is no manual – Kevin McCloud (Grand Designs)
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Obama "Unlikely" To Widen The Afghan War posted Sat Jan 31 2009 17:37:53 by StasisLAX
Its A Small World (Obama And Cheney) posted Tue Oct 16 2007 17:00:05 by LAXspotter
Cheney's Fund Manager Rips U.S. Energy Policy posted Tue Feb 6 2007 02:04:48 by Falcon84
EWR Airport Worker Threatens Obama posted Wed Oct 21 2009 09:58:07 by JerseyGuy
Obama Authorizez 13,000 Troops To Afghanistan posted Wed Oct 14 2009 06:23:57 by Flanker
Obama Addresses HRC posted Sun Oct 11 2009 18:58:13 by DocLightning
President Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize posted Fri Oct 9 2009 02:39:16 by Airport
Generals: Dick And Liz Cheney Are Scaremongerers posted Tue Oct 6 2009 06:35:42 by Aaron747
Man Sells Anti-Obama Merchandise-Forced To Close posted Tue Sep 29 2009 11:01:51 by JBirdAV8r
Facebook Pulls "Kill Obama" Poll posted Mon Sep 28 2009 16:55:47 by FuturePilot16