logo
 

Go Back   HuntingNet.com Forums > Non Hunting > Politics

Politics Nothing goes with politics quite like crying and complaining, and we're a perfect example of that.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-01-2009, 04:09 AM   #1
Boone & Crockett
 
The Rev's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Burleson Texas
Posts: 11,361
Default We F*#&n hate these Generals'

So if Rush and Sean are the voices for the conservatives, then Michael Moore is the Lib's Guru!


A Liberal Pleads With Obama to End the Afghanistan War: ‘We F*#&in' Hate These Generals’
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
By Susan Jones, Senior Editor



Film-maker Michael Moore
(CNSNews.com) - Even before he outlines his strategy on Afghanistan Tuesday night, President Barack Obama is taking flak from his fellow liberals on his reported decision to send more U.S. troops to Afghanistan.

On Monday, in an open letter to President Obama, liberal film-maker Michael Moore asks Obama if he really wants to become the "new war president.” Moore tells Obama, "It is not your job to do what the generals tell you to do."

In fact, Moore writes that Obama should have fired Gen. Stanley McChrystal when the general went public with his call for up to 40,000 additional U.S. troops. "Let me be blunt: We love our kids in the armed services, but we f*#&in' hate these generals," Moore said.

Gen. McChrystal’s request for additional troops came in a confidential assessment that was leaked to the Washington Post in September. McChrystal later spoke to the CBS program “60 Minutes” about the progress of war. He called for “a dramatic change in how we operate.”

In agreeing to the general’s request to send more troops to Afghanistan, President Obama will "destroy the hopes and dreams so many millions have placed in you," Moore writes. He says the “multitude of young people" who helped elect Obama president will become "disillusioned cynics" when they realize that "all politicians are alike."

"I simply can't believe you're about to do what they say you are going to do. Please say it isn't so," Moore wrote.

President Obama, in a prime-time speech to be delivered at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point Tuesday night, is expected to announce he is sending 30,000 to 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan, bringing the total number to around 100,000. He’s also expected to lay out a clear exit strategy for the troops, including a renewed focus on training Afghan forces to fight for their own country.

In fact, Obama campaigned on a promise to end the Iraq war and to shift resources – including more U.S. troops -- to Afghanistan, which he described as the central front in the war on terror.

But Moore, in his letter, tells President Obama “it doesn’t have to be this way.”

“You still have a few hours to listen to your heart, and your own clear thinking. You know that nothing good can come from sending more troops halfway around the world to a place neither you nor they understand, to achieve an objective that neither you nor they understand, in a country that does not want us there. You can feel it in your bones.”

Moore says he knows -- and Obama knows -- that fewer than 100 al-Qaeda members remain in Afghanistan: "A hundred thousand troops trying to crush a hundred guys living in caves? Are you serious? Have you drunk Bush's Kool-Aid? I refuse to believe it."

Moore says Obama's decision to expand the war for the sake of ending it will be his legacy -- and return the nation to "the hands of the haters," or Republicans.

"Your corporate backers are going to abandon you as soon as it is clear you are a one-term president and that the nation will be safely back in the hands of the usual idiots who do their bidding. That could be Wednesday morning,” Moore warned.

"We the people still love you. We the people still have a sliver of hope. But we the people can't take it anymore. We can't take your caving in, over and over, when we elected you by a big, wide margin of millions to get in there and get the job done. What part of ‘landslide victory’ don't you understand?"

Moore asks Obama to consider what Martin Luther King, Jr. would do – and what his own grandmother would do: They would not “send more poor people to kill other poor people who pose no threat to them, that's what they'd do. Not spend billions and trillions to wage war while American children are sleeping on the streets and standing in bread lines."

'Stop the madness'

“When we elected you we didn't expect miracles,” Moore writes. “We didn't even expect much change. But we expected some. We thought you would stop the madness. Stop the killing. Stop the insane idea that men with guns can reorganize a nation that doesn't even function as a nation and never, ever has.”

Moore tells Obama to “stop, stop, stop” for the sake of Americans’ lives and for the sake of his own presidency.

“Tonight we still have hope. Tomorrow, we shall see. The ball is in your court. You DON'T have to do this. You can be a profile in courage. You can be your mother's son. We're counting on you.”
__________________
My knife website
www.knivesbyjank.com
The Rev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2009, 04:21 AM   #2
Giant Nontypical
 
falcon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Comanche Co., OK
Posts: 8,889
Default

Besides being grossly obese, Moore is a sorry hunk of ultra liberal crap.
falcon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2009, 04:22 AM   #3
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: South of Mason-Dixon
Posts: 1,325
Default

Michael has had one cheeseburger too many. The cholesterol has cut off circulation to his brain.

Why do people always insist on prefacing an attack on troops with a statement that they support the troops? Honestly. Michael Moore's entire argument is an argument against what the troops in Afghanistan are fighting for. There really aren't a lot of options: 1.) You maintain the status quo over there, which is that more Americans are being killed right now than have been killed in that God-forsaken place since we invaded eight years ago, 2.) you send in additional manpower to get the job done and end the quagmire, or 3.) you bring all the troops home and let the Taliban and al-Qaeda resume control of Afghanistan, thus spitting in the face of every American soldier who has fought and died in that war so far.

Here's a newsflash for full of love for our kids Michael Moore: Those f*#&n generals are kids in the armed forces, too.
__________________
Politics, it seems to me, all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong. ~Richard Armour
Griswold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2009, 04:35 AM   #4
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location:
Posts: 3,726
Default

I'm not a Michael Moore fan and I'm not a Obama fan. On the other hand, I'm not sure our policy in Afghanistan is a Democrat versus Republican thing.

I have never heard a goal clearly articulated for our military involvement in Afghanistan. Nab Bin Laden? That's it, that's the principle military objective of our military involvement in Afghanistan? I think there are more effective ways to approach that problem than putting 100,000 American troops and all the supporting gear in Afghanistan. Like maybe pull everything out, leave some really capable special ops teams in place, and wait for Bin Laden to come out of his cave and cap him then.

I don't accept that the principle military objective of our Afghanistan mission is nab Bin Laden. What else could it be? Kill the 100 Al Qaeda forces in place there? I'm not sure that is worth the 100,000 American troops and all the supporting gear, and I'm not sure there might not be a more effective means for accomplishing this objective.

I don't accept this suggestion, either, that our principle military objectives are to (1) nab Bin Laden and (2) take out Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. After all, Al Qaeda is all over: isn't taking out Al Qaeda in Afghanistan just going to result -- like that game where you hammer heads only to have heads pop-up elsewhere on the board -- in Al Qaeda burgeoning in other places?

No, I'm pretty sure our idea is to turn Afghanistan so that (1) the Taliban (friends of Al Qaeda and Bin Laden) are eradicated and (2) a strong centralized government is established in Afghanistan.

I think it is very much in question whether this mission can be accomplished, by the US, by NATO, or by anyone else. I think there are strong arguments that can be made that we are further committing ourselves to a military engagement that cannot succeed. I don't think there has been any public discussion about what "winning" looks like -- how would you identify "winning" -- and what the real prospects are for "winning." I think people are thinking in terms of WW-II and signed papers of surrender -- Admiral Doenitz (correct me, historians, if I have the wrong name) signing the papers of surrender on behalf of the German nation and the ***anese diplomats signing the papers of surrender on-board the USS Iowa in Tokyo bay on behalf of the ***anese nation. That isn't going to happen in this case.

Of course, I'm not saying I'm correct. I have an opinion, expressed above, but I acknowledge my opinion may be wrong. I'm just saying that it is NOT a no brainer that increased involvement is the answer. There are certainly grounds for reasonable, intelligent men of any political stripe to disagree on prudent US policy in Afghanistan.

Last edited by Alsatian; 12-01-2009 at 04:39 AM.
Alsatian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2009, 04:53 AM   #5
Boone & Crockett
 
The Rev's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Burleson Texas
Posts: 11,361
Default

I have a short answer to the war in Afganistan... Squat or get off the pot!

I'm a Viet Nam vet, I saw first hand what politics do. Either give the generals what they need, or get the heck out! I don't want to see lives WASTED like Viet Nam.
__________________
My knife website
www.knivesbyjank.com
The Rev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2009, 07:21 AM   #6
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location:
Posts: 3,726
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rev View Post
I have a short answer to the war in Afganistan... Squat or get off the pot!

I'm a Viet Nam vet, I saw first hand what politics do. Either give the generals what they need, or get the heck out! I don't want to see lives WASTED like Viet Nam.
Right on! The question remains as to what is the best course -- get off the pot or squat. This is a question the generals really can't advise on, as it is a political question. The generals can tell you what the military CAN achieve, given specific resources of time, money, equipment, personnel, PROVIDED the goal is clearly defined. In the absence of well defined goals, the answers are going to be of questionable value.

But I agree, think it through, make a decision, and implement the decision vigorously. Don't linger in Afghanistan and try to straddle the fence between hawks and doves. This was part of the problem, I think, in Vietnam -- trying to satisfy too many constituencies and trying to fight according to silly political rules.
Alsatian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2009, 08:18 AM   #7
Giant Nontypical
 
vc1111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Land of Oz
Posts: 9,225
Default

Quote:
I have a short answer to the war in Afganistan... Squat or get off the pot!

I'm a Viet Nam vet, I saw first hand what politics do. Either give the generals what they need, or get the heck out! I don't want to see lives WASTED like Viet Nam.
Thank you. And while we're at it, lets give the troops what they need this time around too. No more of this "You go to war with the army you have" stuff and no more shortages of armored vehicles, helmets and body armor.

Clarify the objective, stick to it, gear up and kick butt.
vc1111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2009, 09:58 AM   #8
Typical Buck
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 593
Default

vc111

Couldn't agree more. Let's just be careful. Either you are in or you are out. General's always want more soldiers and more wars to fight, it is the responsibility of the CAC to make sure that he uses his tools wisely. The CAC is elected by the people, the General's aren't.

I am unable to form an opinion on Afghanistan. Too many things to predict. Will we end up like Russia and have to leave after 10 years. Will we have to yet wipe out another country and in the end spend a trillion and not get after those that attacked us. Do the people of Afghanistan want us or we will be thought of as intruders. Will we/Could we ever succeed with putting a government in place that is friendly to us.

Sure we could smash them and blow up the whole country and kill 100,000's but in the end what will we be stuck with?

The battle cry to just keep killing people because a group of terrorists attacked us is a dangerous theory to follow.

God bless BHO with this decision.
WillPA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2009, 10:14 AM   #9
Boone & Crockett
 
ipscshooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: The Republic of Texas
Posts: 10,257
Default

By "CAC," I assume you're talking about the "CIC"...
ipscshooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2009, 10:20 AM   #10
Boone & Crockett
 
The Rev's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Burleson Texas
Posts: 11,361
Default

Moore on his website today chastised Obamma. He told him that he was going to lose credibility with the young voters by sending in more troops, and I'm sure that Obammy doesn't give a rats behind what Moore thinks. That is a plus for Barry.
__________________
My knife website
www.knivesbyjank.com
The Rev is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

 

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:12 PM.