Why did Obama escalate the war on terror by sending 17,000 more troops to the Middle?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DC Maximus
  • Start date Start date
D

DC Maximus

Guest
I thought he promised to end the war, not ramp it up. The left was seething with anger over the war when Bush was in office. Why not now when their leader is escalating the war?
Make that "Middle East".
 
You thought wrong. He promised to ramp it up. Were you listening?

He promised to get us out of Iraq, and that he would pursue the terrorists who attacked us wherever they are. And that's what he is doing. Ending US involvement in Afghanistan was never a promise of Obama's--it was something conservatives totally made up during the election to make him appear unwilling to act for our nation's security.

Good thing the republicans didn't win. Bin Laden would die of old age before they captured him--since they think working with or against Pakistan on this issue is unrealistic and naive. We need someone tough on national security.
 
Well, he still has them in the middle east if you know geography. He also promised to go after Bin Laden. Can catch him with voodoo witch magic. Pelosi isn't available 24/7 for that.
 
This question makes ZERO sense. Putting more troops in there to help makes it safer for the troops already there. I guess you haven't studied anything regarding the military whatsoever. Escalating? It isn't escalating it's called fighting a war. That's how you do it.
He did promise to end the war, in Iraq. And that's not right now, he needs way to much money for that (which he doesn't have). So he can't take the troops out of Iraq right now. Afghanistan is still going, if you don't know why then go and google "9/11" and see what comes up.

EDIT: wayfaroutthere, if the reps had won it would make no difference to capturing/killing bin Laden. They aren't the ones going after him, some guys carrying guns who you and I don't know about are the ones going after him. You honestly think that we aren't in Pakistan?
 
This question makes ZERO sense. Putting more troops in there to help makes it safer for the troops already there. I guess you haven't studied anything regarding the military whatsoever. Escalating? It isn't escalating it's called fighting a war. That's how you do it.
He did promise to end the war, in Iraq. And that's not right now, he needs way to much money for that (which he doesn't have). So he can't take the troops out of Iraq right now. Afghanistan is still going, if you don't know why then go and google "9/11" and see what comes up.

EDIT: wayfaroutthere, if the reps had won it would make no difference to capturing/killing bin Laden. They aren't the ones going after him, some guys carrying guns who you and I don't know about are the ones going after him. You honestly think that we aren't in Pakistan?
 
I'm laughing at the anti-war activists who voted for him. They got duped. HAHAHAHA
 
Because his cabinet is infested with neocons. Democrats should be pissed , but most are unaware or simply do not care.

I challenge the Democrats here to Google "neocons and Obama"...and take the god damn time to learn.
 
Yes, I was thinking the same thing. I thought the plan was to "do nothing" because according to liberals, anytime we do something to fight terrorism we only just make it worse...by fighting it.

We're supposed to appease the enemy like Barack Obama wants to do, not fight them. You know, like how appeasement worked for Neville Chamberlain in 1938 when he negotiated with Adolph Hilter....right?

Oh wait....
 
you should have been listening to him if you wanted to know what he was going to do. he said all along that he wanted to get us out of Iraq and on to the business of fighting terrorism. his predecessor said we were going to fight terrorists but went to Iraq instead, he's just fulfilling the agenda that was set but neglected 7 years ago.
 
now your fighting against the war? make up your mind. i've always supported fighting in Afghan. it's one of the things Bush got right.
 
Back
Top