Comments on: When Forever Comes Crashing

By: WarOnWarOff

WarOnWarOff — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:04:10 +0000

My father served three tours in Vietnam. You don’t know a goddamned thing about me.

By: mikeyhemlok

mikeyhemlok — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 18:53:17 +0000

Back in the day, I suggested dropping cheeseburgers instead of napalm over Vietnam.

I was being cute, but I’ll bet things would have turned out lots differently

You KIDDING? Who’d eat a cheeseburger when you have Pho?

Yuck…

mikey

By: paz3

paz3 — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 18:48:39 +0000

You sure don’t think much of the troops, cursing them like that…

By: perris

perris — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 18:01:58 +0000

Gates defined what we are there for as “ensuring that Afghanistan does not become a haven for terrorists.”

the only way to guarantee that take it over and make it another state

By: TarheelDem

TarheelDem — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 17:43:20 +0000

Gates defined what we are there for as “ensuring that Afghanistan does not become a haven for terrorists.” He also limited the theater at least for now to the seven provinces along the Pakistan border that currently have “security problems”.

I would not jump to the conclusion that this yet represents Obama’s policy. I read it, given Gates’s disclaimers, as Gates’s default position for discussions with Obama.

By: rwcole

rwcole — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 17:28:37 +0000

The main objective of any administration is to get the public to support whatever they want to do. It is not necessary, or even desirable, to tell them what you want to do.

By: selise

selise — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 17:27:12 +0000

lol. true. perhaps that is why i am especially irked to see gate’s propaganda treated as something other than what it is.

By: rwcole

rwcole — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 17:16:29 +0000

Can’t remember a time when americans were really told US foreign policy objectives. Wouldn’t want the WORLD to know em- and besides- that stuff is SO complicated- and easy to misunderstand- like the need to control oil producing reasons- lots of us won’t GET it.

By: selise

selise — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 17:08:41 +0000

The idea that the Secy of defense should be setting foreign policy objectives is WAY wrong….

i listened to most of the morning’s testimony. imo the hearing was not about foreign policy objectives or even tactics. it was a two-pronged propaganda effort. the first was aimed at americans to convince us not to oppose the occupation afghanistan and the second was aimed at the muslim word to convince them that obama’s foreign policy would be fundamentally different than bush’s.

our real national interests, our real strategy for the region, the expected humanitarian and financial costs (including opportunity costs) of our plans were never discussed during the time i was listening.

By: rwcole

rwcole — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 17:01:37 +0000

The idea that the Secy of defense should be setting foreign policy objectives is WAY wrong….