Surrender Monkey

[flash]

Looks like that piece of **** Obongo has decided to surrender in Afghanistan.

If the reports are true and he doesn't give the generals the troops they requested and he is handing over the parts of the country to the Taliban that enabled Bin Laden to carry out the attacks of 9/11/01 then that is paramount to surrender.

This decision will be the beginning of the end. It will not get better, only worse.

I knew the asshole didn't have the guts to fight the war. He never served in the military and he has no courage or convictions.

We need to get our troops out now before anymore die because of his weakness. He has no intention of winning the war and any future deaths will be in vain.

AP source: Obama focusing on al-Qaida, not Taliban - Yahoo! News

AP source: Obama focusing on al-Qaida, not Taliban


By JENNIFER LOVEN, AP White House Correspondent Jennifer Loven, Ap White House Correspondent – 1 hr 17 mins ago

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is prepared to accept some Taliban involvement in Afghanistan's political future and will determine how many more U.S. troops to send to the war based only on keeping al-Qaida at bay, a senior administration official said Thursday.

The sharpened focus by Obama's team on fighting al-Qaida above all other goals, while downgrading the emphasis on the Taliban, comes in the midst of an intensely debated administration review of the increasingly unpopular war.

Aides stress that the president's decision on specific troop levels and the other elements of a revamped approach is still at least two weeks away, and they say Obama has not tipped his hand in meetings that will continue at the White House on Friday.

But the thinking emerging from the strategy formulation portion of the debate offers a clue that Obama would be unlikely to favor a large military increase of the kind being advocated by the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal. McChrystal's troop request is said to include a range of options, from adding as few as 10,000 combat troops to — the general's strong preference — as many as 40,000.
Obama's developing strategy on the Taliban will "not tolerate their return to power," the senior official said in an interview with The Associated Press. But the U.S. would fight only to keep the Taliban from retaking control of Afghanistan's central government — something it is now far from being capable of — and from giving renewed sanctuary in Afghanistan to al-Qaida, the official said.

[Kiwi 1691]

Flash, do you seriously believe that America can win in Afghanistan. You can't, the Taliban is still very strong, Iraq and Afghanistan are very different countries. The Afghan people will not accept America's control ever, plus the government America set up is corrupt. the corruption was shown by the rigging of the last election.

[DC]

Ugh, the whole world may as well abandon Afghanistan to the Islamists and wait 10 years before going back in because Al Qaeda's blown up somewhere else. Even if he does decide to commit more troops, it's to late, his reluctance has meant now that the allies no longer want to commit troops. The war is winnable, the surge tactic worked in Iraq, and while the Taliban is stronger, it is also more conventional, and so more susceptible to conventional tactics.

[flash]

Flash, do you seriously believe that America can win in Afghanistan. You can't, the Taliban is still very strong, Iraq and Afghanistan are very different countries. The Afghan people will not accept America's control ever, plus the government America set up is corrupt. the corruption was shown by the rigging of the last election.

I trust General McCrystal's assessment on the war a whole lot more than yours. He said an Iraq type surge with 40,000 more troops would get the job done.

If this article is true then the Surrender Money is not taking McCrystal's advice and we are doomed to failure.

What is really pathetic is that he doesn't even have the courage to withdraw. He is trying to play this weak middle ground so as not to be construed as throwing in the towel. All that will do is encourage the enemy and get more of our troops killed.

This will not go down well among real America and especially the veterans of the WOT. If you think Obongo was hated before just wait until you see the disgust from the American people because of this decision.

[Kiwi 1691]

This will not go down well among real America and especially the veterans of the WOT. If you think Obongo was hated before just wait until you see the disgust from the American people because of this decision.

Well as a majority of Americans voted for Obama, I would think that real Americans support Obama.

[flash]

Well as a majority of Americans voted for Obama, I would think that real Americans support Obama.

No the majority of American did not vote for Obongo. Not by a long shot. The majority of the people that voted on Election Day voted for Obongo and there is a difference.

Many real Americans stayed home and did not vote because McCain was not that much of an improvement over Obongo.

Obongo will alienate a lot of people that voted for him with this decision and other things he has done. He will also energize the sleeping giant of American Conservatism.

[DTE]

First of all, there is no plan for what sucess would even look like in Afghanistan. Whats is the goal? To remove Al Quada? They're already moving into Pakistan, there's no endgame.

Secondly, as far as I'm aware Obama hasn't announced ANYTHING yet, and the rumour mill yesterday had him taking on the advice of McCrystal's report and committing the extra troops. Whether he does or not we'll have to wait and see. More disturbing is OUR strategy in Afghanistan, which seemingly involves doing whatever the Americans do whenever they plan on doing it. You want to talk about weak leadership Flash? Lets look at Gordon...

Third and finally Flash, first Obongo, which is borderline racist... and now you call him a surrender monkey? If you want to hide your predjuces through colourful language I have this advice for you: must try harder.

[flash]

First of all, there is no plan for what sucess would even look like in Afghanistan. Whats is the goal? To remove Al Quada? They're already moving into Pakistan, there's no endgame.

Secondly, as far as I'm aware Obama hasn't announced ANYTHING yet, and the rumour mill yesterday had him taking on the advice of McCrystal's report and committing the extra troops. Whether he does or not we'll have to wait and see. More disturbing is OUR strategy in Afghanistan, which seemingly involves doing whatever the Americans do whenever they plan on doing it. You want to talk about weak leadership Flash? Lets look at Gordon...

Third and finally Flash, first Obongo, which is borderline racist... and now you call him a surrender monkey? If you want to hide your predjuces through colourful language I have this advice for you: must try harder.

Sorry but McCrystal disagrees with your armchair general assessment.

The Left claimed that we couldn't win in Iraq but Bush listened to his real generals instead of the armchair generals and gave them the troops they requested.

We will never know if we could have won or not because Obongo has decided to surrender.

[flash]

More disturbing is OUR strategy in Afghanistan, which seemingly involves doing whatever the Americans do whenever they plan on doing it. You want to talk about weak leadership Flash? Lets look at Gordon...

I think you should get the hell out before more of your troops get killed for nothing.

Third and finally Flash, first Obongo, which is borderline racist... and now you call him a surrender monkey? If you want to hide your predjuces through colourful language I have this advice for you: must try harder

Thank you for your input but since I have no respect for the SOB I will call him whatever I want.

The Left, by the way, called Bush a Chimp all the time. Was that racists?

[DC]

I don't think the endgame was ever to defeat Al Qaeda, merely deny them a base of operations there and capture or kill the leadership, both objectives have so far been achieved. What is needed now is to A: Destroy as much of the Taliban as possible, B: Prevent as much of the populace as possible from joining or supporting the Taliban, and C: Support and defend the Government.

Now the fact that he hasn't made a decision either way is as bad as him saying no, he hasn't shown a strong face in respect to Afghanistan at all, and this has demoralised the efforts there, and convinced many, including the allies, that he has no intention of continuing the War effort whole-heartedly.

[DTE]

I notice Flash you don't counter my argument that there is no real objective in Afghanistan. I guess you agree then.

Thank you for your input but since I have no respect for the SOB I will call him whatever I want.

What about having respect for the office of US president? Has that gone as well, because I don't remember senators heckling Bush, even when he was announcing invading another sovereign nation to get back and the evil guy who tried to kill his dad. Boo who.

The Left, by the way, called Bush a Chimp all the time. Was that racists?

No, if anything it was a favourable comparison, chimp is one up on the intelligence scale from where Bush is. However, surely you are aware of the historical context of calling black people monkeys?

No?

Oh okay then.

[flash]

I notice Flash you don't counter my argument that there is no real objective in Afghanistan. I guess you agree then

The object in Afghanistan has been clear from the beginning of the campaign in 2001; hunt down those responsible for 911 and deny Afghanistan as a safe haven for the terrorist that protected those responsible for 911. NATO agreed with that objective and General McCrystal says we can accomplish that by an Iraq like Surge.

I appreciate your insight but I have a lot more confidence in McCrystal.

What about having respect for the office of US president? Has that gone as well, because I don't remember senators heckling Bush, even when he was announcing invading another sovereign nation to get back and the evil guy who tried to kill his dad. Boo who.

Actually it was a Representative that heckled Obongo when he called him a liar for saying that the stupid health care bill would NOT provide service to illegals. If you read the current versions of the bill and the one passed by the House you see that the bill does, in fact, give free health care to illegals. The heckler was right and Obongo lied to the American people.

I don't consider him to be my President. He is the President of an out of control Left Wing that is bound and determined to destroy America, just like Left Wingers world wide have destroyed every other country.

No, if anything it was a favourable comparison, chimp is one up on the intelligence scale from where Bush is. However, surely you are aware of the historical context of calling black people monkeys?

No?

Oh okay then.

OK then in your opinion the Left is justified in calling Bush a chimp but the Right is not in calling Obongo a Surrender Monkey? Do you know how blatantly hypocritical that is?

Surrender Monkey refers to him being a coward. It has hardly anything to do with race.

[DTE]

The object in Afghanistan has been clear from the beginning of the campaign in 2001; hunt down those responsible for 911 and deny Afghanistan as a safe haven for the terrorist that protected those responsible for 911. NATO agreed with that objective and General McCrystal says we can accomplish that by an Iraq like Surge.

So Bin Laden then? Hows that going? I would say its a safe assumption that those we are fighting now had nothing to do with 911. But each to his own.

Actually it was a Representative that heckled Obongo when he called him a liar for saying that the stupid health care bill would NOT provide service to illegals. If you read the current versions of the bill and the one passed by the House you see that the bill does, in fact, give free health care to illegals. The heckler was right and Obongo lied to the American people.

I don't consider him to be my President. He is the President of an out of control Left Wing that is bound and determined to destroy America, just like Left Wingers world wide have destroyed every other country.

When Bush delivered his state of the union adress claiming "clear connections" between Saddam and 9/11 I would imagine there were more than a few in attendance who suspected him of lying, but they had the resolve and grace not to heckle their democratically elected leader. Its a issue of respect for the position.

OK then in your opinion the Left is justified in calling Bush a chimp but the Right is not in calling Obongo a Surrender Monkey? Do you know how blatantly hypocritical that is?

Yes, but I don't care. Insulting Bush is always acceptable, in a way, by being a universally world ridiculed president, he brought the people together far more than Obama has.

Surrender Monkey refers to him being a coward. It has hardly anything to do with race.

Fair enough. I take it back. The Obongo stuff still thands though.

[flash]

Yes, but I don't care. Insulting Bush is always acceptable, in a way, by being a universally world ridiculed president, he brought the people together far more than Obama has.

I have significant problems with Bush but not for any of the reasons you would.

Obongo isn't fit to shine the shoes of Bush.

The fact that Bush is disliked by Socialists worldwide is a great indication that he was doing some things right.

Obongo is destroying America like no other person. He is dividing America worst than any President since the Civil War and that is saying a lot because that includes Clinton, which many American hated with a passion.

[enginetorque]

I have significant problems with Bush but not for any of the reasons you would.

Obongo isn't fit to shine the shoes of Bush.

The fact that Bush is disliked by Socialists worldwide is a great indication that he was doing some things right.

Obongo is destroying America like no other person. He is dividing America worst than any President since the Civil War and that is saying a lot because that includes Clinton, which many American hated with a passion.

Bush was a moron - he made the USA look as stupid as he was - he alienated the world and invoked the 9/11 attacks - he wasn't fit to shine MY shoes

[flash]

Bush was a moron - he made the USA look as stupid as he was - he alienated the world and invoked the 9/11 attacks - he wasn't fit to shine MY shoes

I think he was a moron too. He increased the size of government, spent more money than he took in, refused to seal the border, started several major worthless entitlement programs, gave money to Africa and he attacked Iraq when it was no threat to the US.

To me he was a moron because he acted like a Left Winger and destroyed the Conservative movement in the US. His lack of Conservative focus by the Republican Party is what handed the election to that asshole Obongo.

I can call him a moron because I voted for him twice. You Euros don't have the moral authority to call him names because, quite frankly, you have been doing all the same moronic left wing things that I dislike Bush for.

[enginetorque]

I think he was a moron too. He increased the size of government, spent more money than he took in, refused to seal the border, started several major worthless entitlement programs, gave money to Africa and he attacked Iraq when it was no threat to the US.

To me he was a moron because he acted like a Left Winger and destroyed the Conservative movement in the US. His lack of Conservative focus by the Republican Party is what handed the election to that asshole Obongo.

I can call him a moron because I voted for him twice. You Euros don't have the moral authority to call him names because, quite frankly, you have been doing all the same moronic left wing things that I dislike Bush for.

I can call ANYONE whatever I choose to - you may not like it but in your country - why you even had an ammendment for it

[flash]

I can call ANYONE whatever I choose to - you may not like it but in your country - why you even had an ammendment for it

You need to pay better attention. I wasn't questioning your right to voice an opinion on a discussion forum.

I was questioning your moral authority for attacking Bush for the doing the same things that you Euros have been doing for years.

It also seems to me that you Euros think it is your God given mission to spend 95% of your awake time bashing Bush. It is actually comical.

You need to pay attention to how Obongo is screwing things up in the world. That will cause you a lot more trouble in the long run than anything Bush ever did.

[enginetorque]

You need to pay better attention. I wasn't questioning your right to voice an opinion on a discussion forum.

I was questioning your moral authority for attacking Bush for the doing the same things that you Euros have been doing for years.

It also seems to me that you Euros think it is your God given mission to spend 95% of your awake time bashing Bush. It is actually comical.

You need to pay attention to how Obongo is screwing things up in the world. That will cause you a lot more trouble in the long run than anything Bush ever did.

Bush was truly terrifying in his inneptitude - here we lived in the shadow of 8 years of Bush's meddling - he made Europe dangerous - we ended up with the London attacks of 7/7 and others - innocent and innocuous student Juan Carloz Menezes was shot dead by a jumpy overzealous police force as he boarded a train - the WTC was destroyed on Bush's watch and because of his policies - he gets off very lightly just being 'verbally bashed' by Europeans - if Americans don't like Europeans criticising their premier then they best keep behind US borders and stop meddling in world affairs that the US mindset neither understands or cares about!

[flash]

Bush was truly terrifying in his inneptitude - here we lived in the shadow of 8 years of Bush's meddling - he made Europe dangerous - we ended up with the London attacks of 7/7 and others - innocent and innocuous student Juan Carloz Menezes was shot dead by a jumpy overzealous police force as he boarded a train - the WTC was destroyed on Bush's watch and because of his policies - he gets off very lightly just being 'verbally bashed' by Europeans - if Americans don't like Europeans criticising their premier then they best keep behind US borders and stop meddling in world affairs that the US mindset neither understands or cares about!

Your perspective is comical but way off base.

You do know that the World Trade was first attacked in 1993, don't you? If I remember correct that was under Clinton's watch, wasn't it? He did nothing by the way. Have you ever heard of Beirut or the USS Cole or the oil embargo of the 1970s? You do know that most of the planning for 911 and the subsequent terrorist attacks were made during the Clinton Administration don't you?

You Euros are pathetic in thinking that terrorism was created by Bush. Your attention span must only be 2 minutes long or else you never fully understand current events or history because of the biased Left View you get in your press over there.

I have to get ready and go to church this fine Florida Sunday morning. When I have some time later I will educate you in the real reasons why we were are fighting the Muslims. It actually goes back to June, 1967 and contrary to the hate you Euros have for him it was not Bush's fault. I hope you won’t commit suicide when I show you that the terrorism was not created by Bush. I know that will be such a psychological blow that you will consider suicide as the only viable option to save face but I would advise you not to do it. I know you don’t want to live in a world where Bush is not responsible for every evil but lighten up a little bit.

[Opinionated]

Your perspective is comical but way off base.

You do know that the World Trade was first attacked in 1993, don't you? If I remember correct that was under Clinton's watch, wasn't it? He did nothing by the way. Have you ever heard of Beirut or the USS Cole or the oil embargo of the 1970s? You do know that most of the planning for 911 and the subsequent terrorist attacks were made during the Clinton Administration don't you?

OK I'm no big fan of Clinton by any means but I feel compelled to point out that following terrorist actions on his watch he instigated daily briefings, which Bush cancelled almost as soon as he entered the oval office.

You Euros are pathetic in thinking that terrorism was created by Bush. Your attention span must only be 2 minutes long or else you never fully understand current events or history because of the biased Left View you get in your press over there.

Oh we understand terrorism quite well thank you, you forget that for many years your country surruptitiously funded attacks on us, including the failed (shame) attempt on Thatcher's life.

When I have some time later I will educate you in the real reasons why we were are fighting the Muslims. It actually goes back to June, 1967 and contrary to the hate you Euros have for him it was not Bush's fault. I hope you won’t commit suicide when I show you that the terrorism was not created by Bush. I know that will be such a psychological blow that you will consider suicide as the only viable option to save face but I would advise you not to do it. I know you don’t want to live in a world where Bush is not responsible for every evil but lighten up a little bit.

Why do you reduce history to a list of facts, everything's open to interpretation you know. Oh and I think you'll find it goes back to the crusades, slightly further back than the six day war (forgive me if I assume incorrectly and something more significant happened in that month I am unaware of)! Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with the Ottoman empire and Lawrence of Arabia or does one only lack historical knowledge if there are gaps in knowledge of the US's 233 years of history (or Israel's perhaps)?

[enginetorque]

Your perspective is comical but way off base.

You do know that the World Trade was first attacked in 1993, don't you? If I remember correct that was under Clinton's watch, wasn't it? He did nothing by the way. Have you ever heard of Beirut or the USS Cole or the oil embargo of the 1970s? You do know that most of the planning for 911 and the subsequent terrorist attacks were made during the Clinton Administration don't you?

You Euros are pathetic in thinking that terrorism was created by Bush. Your attention span must only be 2 minutes long or else you never fully understand current events or history because of the biased Left View you get in your press over there.

I have to get ready and go to church this fine Florida Sunday morning. When I have some time later I will educate you in the real reasons why we were are fighting the Muslims. It actually goes back to June, 1967 and contrary to the hate you Euros have for him it was not Bush's fault. I hope you won’t commit suicide when I show you that the terrorism was not created by Bush. I know that will be such a psychological blow that you will consider suicide as the only viable option to save face but I would advise you not to do it. I know you don’t want to live in a world where Bush is not responsible for every evil but lighten up a little bit.

YOU - are off to CHURCH...................( oh dear lord...........)!

That says SO so so much about you

[flash]

YOU - are off to CHURCH...................( oh dear lord...........)!

That says SO so so much about you

You make critical remarks about people that go to church. That says SO much about you.

[flash]

Why do you reduce history to a list of facts, everything's open to interpretation you know. Oh and I think you'll find it goes back to the crusades, slightly further back than the six day war (forgive me if I assume incorrectly and something more significant happened in that month I am unaware of)! Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with the Ottoman empire and Lawrence of Arabia or does one only lack historical knowledge if there are gaps in knowledge of the US's 233 years of history (or Israel's perhaps)?

The US wasn't around during the Crusades. We were not in conflict with the Arab/Muslim/Persian world very much until the late 1960s.

Up until the 1960s we had a very realistic and even handed approach to the Middle East. In fact we had even decided to sit out the Suez Crisis that the UK initiated with Egypt.

Although the US was sympathetic to the creation of Israel the US viewed the conflict between Israel and the Arab world as a distraction to the Cold War. In fact the US even had contingency plans to send a military force to the Middle East to do peace keeping.

That all changed in June of 1967 when the Israelis attacked the USS Liberty. There is tremendous proof that the Israelis did it on purpose but Lyndon Johnson gave them a pass on it because of the very influential Israel lobby.

When Johnson made that decision it changed the foreign policy of the US towards the Middle East. From that day on we abandoned the idea of being even handed in favor of supporting Israel.

All this did was piss off the Arab world. They gave us a big warning in the 1970s with the oil embargo but we didn't listen. The survival of Israel became the cornerstone of our foreign policy in the Middle East and all that did was piss of a billion people.

Over the years we gave the Israelis weapons and money and the Arab world didn't like it.

The Fundamental Muslims used the conflict with Israel to rally the masses and it worked. For instance, when the Iranians took over the American embassy Muslims were marching around shouting that the US was the Devil for supporting Israel.

Over time that hate of the US built up and there were a series of terrorist attacks against the US. It was done by different factions but it was hate towards the US for intervening in the Middle East.

If go and read the letters of the 911 hijackers they said the attack was because the US supported Israel. Bin Laden says it every time he speaks or writes a letter.

I really think the invasion of Iraq was done to provide security for Israel. Saddam was not threat to the US but he was to Israel and maybe also Saudi Arabia.

The US support of Israel has probably been the worst foreign policy decision ever made by the US. That is not our conflict and taking sides has caused us a lot grief over the years.

We should be listening to the advice of our Founding Fathers to stay out of foreign entanglements rather than the pro Israel (or anybody else) lobby.

[enginetorque]

You make critical remarks about people that go to church. That says SO much about you.

Not neccessarily ( although I have made critical remarks about 'people' that go to church over time.....) - my observation was that you appear to be a most uncharitable character, full of angst and anger, mixed in with a tinge of abject racism and little in the way of humility!

I think if you delve into your good book, you'll find those all to be at odds with its teachings!

So - in the shell of a nut (so to speak....) I'd like to say 'confused' - but that would me most disengenuous of me

[enginetorque]

The US wasn't around during the Crusades. We were not in conflict with the Arab/Muslim/Persian world very much until the late 1960s.

Up until the 1960s we had a very realistic and even handed approach to the Middle East. In fact we had even decided to sit out the Suez Crisis that the UK initiated with Egypt.

Although the US was sympathetic to the creation of Israel the US viewed the conflict between Israel and the Arab world as a distraction to the Cold War. In fact the US even had contingency plans to send a military force to the Middle East to do peace keeping.

That all changed in June of 1967 when the Israelis attacked the USS Liberty. There is tremendous proof that the Israelis did it on purpose but Lyndon Johnson gave them a pass on it because of the very influential Israel lobby.

When Johnson made that decision it changed the foreign policy of the US towards the Middle East. From that day on we abandoned the idea of being even handed in favor of supporting Israel.

All this did was piss off the Arab world. They gave us a big warning in the 1970s with the oil embargo but we didn't listen. The survival of Israel became the cornerstone of our foreign policy in the Middle East and all that did was piss of a billion people.

Over the years we gave the Israelis weapons and money and the Arab world didn't like it.

The Fundamental Muslims used the conflict with Israel to rally the masses and it worked. For instance, when the Iranians took over the American embassy Muslims were marching around shouting that the US was the Devil for supporting Israel.

Over time that hate of the US built up and there were a series of terrorist attacks against the US. It was done by different factions but it was hate towards the US for intervening in the Middle East.

If go and read the letters of the 911 hijackers they said the attack was because the US supported Israel. Bin Laden says it every time he speaks or writes a letter.

I really think the invasion of Iraq was done to provide security for Israel. Saddam was not threat to the US but he was to Israel and maybe also Saudi Arabia.

The US support of Israel has probably been the worst foreign policy decision ever made by the US. That is not our conflict and taking sides has caused us a lot grief over the years.

We should be listening to the advice of our Founding Fathers to stay out of foreign entanglements rather than the pro Israel (or anybody else) lobby.

Well we find common ground - I can't take issue with anything you've posted here - in fact I agree wholeheartedly!

[flash]

Not neccessarily ( although I have made critical remarks about 'people' that go to church over time.....) - my observation was that you appear to be a most uncharitable character, full of angst and anger, mixed in with a tinge of abject racism and little in the way of humility!

I think if you delve into your good book, you'll find those all to be at odds with its teachings!

So - in the shell of a nut (so to speak....) I'd like to say 'confused' - but that would me most disengenuous of me

I am actually a very generous person and give of my time and talents.

I volunteer my time to the VA hospital to help veterans. Have you ever done that? You do know there are veterans in the UK, don't you?

I give a tremendous of money to charity every year, probably a lot more than you do. How much do you give?

My wife and I usually spend both Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day working to feed the homeless. We have been doing it ever since our sons moved out of the house. Do you do that?

Each month my wife and I go to the store and buy food to donate to the shelters. Do you do that?

Each month my wife and I send several packages to the troops deployed overseas. Do you do that?

My Christian associates and friends are some of the most generous people you will ever meet.

I think you have the typical hate of people that don't have the same views as you. You seem to be very narrow minded. I feel sorry for you.

On another thread I posted a very good article based upon a study about how the Left is usually very selfish and unhappy. The Right usually gives more to charity and is better educated and happier than the Left. I suggest you go and look up that post and read the article.