Thursday, October 8, 2009

Obama Surrendering in Afghanistan?

Reading this FoxNews article on the outcome of the "War Meetings" with Obama, it appears that Obama's strategy is surrender - allowing the Taliban to maintain warlord control over parts of Afghanistan... so long as they no longer work with or on behalf of Al Qaeda.

The official, in an interview with The Associated Press, also added that the president is prepared to accept some Taliban involvement in Afghanistan's political future, reiterating what Obama said in March.
WHAT????

Imagine the status of the world if NAZI's were allowed to take part in Germany's political future as a "reconciliation" for the US invasion of Nazi Controlled Europe. Or if we released Saddam to lead the Ba'ath Party in hopes of ending violence in Iraq...

What is the mission in Afghanistan?

Is the mission to stabilize the nation? If so, we pull out and let the Taliban back in... they will stabilize the country, alright... This is one step away from what Obama is doing... letting the enemy have some involvement with our retreat. God Bless Obama.

If we are not willing to fight a war and plan to begin the reintegration of the Taliban, we are surrendering and should pull out immediately. Let the cards fall where they may... the soccer stadiums will be stained with the blood of the murdered... the Taliban will assert their control and get revenge on their enemies... their involvement will be predictable.

When all is said and done, we will be back to September 10th, 2001... but with radical Islam as a rising religious force, islamic militia training camps speckled across the world, and a United States citizen less free and under more control and surveillance than King George could have ever hoped for.

Afghanistan... Obama's Korean War.

4 comments:

  1. "Afghanistan: Where Empires Go To Die."

    Gotta disagree with you on this one, Steve. It's a lost cause; always has been; likely always will be.

    Best thing to do would be to pick up a load of nice hashish, and then cut and run.

    As for what to do about terrorism, well, I think the likes of Ron Paul, Michael Scheuer, Larry Auster and Andrew Bacevich have it right. We must: 1) remove the cause of "blowback" (Chalmers Johnson), and this means a) stop creating a cause of offense by invading and exploiting Muslim nations and b) quit favoring, funding and arming the State of Israel; 2) insulate America from the Muslim world, and contain it. (This is the doctrine of "separationism" set forth by Auster, Srdja Trifkovic and others.)

    The pro-war, any war crowd do not have America's best interests at heart. Time to stop listening to them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Snaggle-Tooth JonesOctober 8, 2009 at 4:20 PM

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6865359.ece

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jonesie - I stated that if we are not willing to declare war and wage a war, then we SHOULD pull out... doing what Obama is doing is humiliation for the nation, the troops, and the "empire"... I would like to see more of an isolationist nation of the US, and with this example it is my hope that other nations follow along - leaving their fellow man to themselves...

    As it stands, my best friend is in Baghram right now fighting the war of appeasement... If it's Obama's plan to turn the country back over to the Taliban, let's start by bringing my brother home!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Snaggle-Tooth Jones writes:

    "As for what to do about terrorism, well, I think the likes of Ron Paul, Michael Scheuer, Larry Auster and Andrew Bacevich have it right. We must: 1) remove the cause of "blowback" (Chalmers Johnson), and this means a) stop creating a cause of offense by invading and exploiting Muslim nations and b) quit favoring, funding and arming the State of Israel; 2) insulate America from the Muslim world, and contain it. (This is the doctrine of "separationism" set forth by Auster, Srdja Trifkovic and others.)"

    For the record, I have never used the term "blow-back" except to criticize it. I regard "blow-back" as an anti-American term, used to imply that any hostile acts by Muslims are only a justified response to American "imperialism." My position is that that Islam must be removed from the West and that America should have as little to with the Islamic world as possible. This is the policy I call Separationism. But I advocate Separationism, not because I fear "blow-back," but because Islam is inherently dangerous to us and any close interaction between us and Islam is bad for us.

    ReplyDelete