Obamisms

[Cail]

We're too busy bitterly clinging to our Bibles and guns to notice? Remember, this is the same guy that hip-tossed both his grandmother and his pastor in front of a bus to save his butt.

[Prebe]

I agree that in Afghanistan the US has not been on its own.. There are 41 countries with troops there.

Exactly.

However they dont have the ability to do more than they have in those areas.

?

While other NATO countries have been keeping a stronger hand in Afghanistan, it freed up the US to concentrate on Iraq. However those per capita figures are going to change dramatically with the increase in US troops in Afghanistan.

Probably. And I believe that there are plans to send more from Denmark too.

Also I would like to also point out that the US is shouldering more than its share when you take Iraq into the computation.

US has 44.93 soldiers per 100,000
UK has 13.23 soldiers per 100,000
Denmark has 9.57 per 100,000

Probably, I wasn't talking Iraq though. I was trying to rectify the common mistake of believing, that the US is shouldering more of the war in Afghanistan than other contributors. Well, in absolute figures you are. And you should be, as you have the biggest population.

[SoulBiter]

However they dont have the ability to do more than they have in those areas.

?

Sorry.. I should have been more clear. Those countries troops are spread too thin in Afghanistan to do more than they are today.

[Prebe]

Sorry.. I should have been more clear. Those countries troops are spread too thin in Afghanistan to do more than they are today.

I'm still not sure what you mean here. What do you mean by "spread to thin"? And is there a complaint about what they are doing today, as in: "they are acheiving significantly fewer of their set goals than the US troops"?.

The way I read you is that "smaller special ops. units are useless".

Finally, IF indeed the non-us troops do not perform satisfactory, because they are "spread to thin", then that is a fault of the supreme NATO commanders of the operation and NOT the fault of the alliance countries supplying their proportionate amount of troops.

[SoulBiter]

Sorry.. I should have been more clear. Those countries troops are spread too thin in Afghanistan to do more than they are today.

I'm still not sure what you mean here. What do you mean by "spread to thin"? And is there a complaint about what they are doing today, as in: "they are acheiving significantly fewer of their set goals than the US troops"?.

The way I read you is that "smaller special ops. units are useless".

Finally, IF indeed the non-us troops do not perform satisfactory, because they are "spread to thin", then that is a fault of the supreme NATO commanders of the operation and NOT the fault of the alliance countries supplying their proportionate amount of troops.

Im not denegrating the job done by the nato troops that are there nor am I attempting to fault anyone. Im also not comparing the jobs done by US and non-US troops. You read alot into that statement that wasnt there. There are just not enough troops there to complete the mission. The area that has to be covered is just too large and the number of 'hotspots' are too many. Thus they are spread too thin.

[Prebe]

There are just not enough troops there to complete the mission. The area that has to be covered is just too large and the number of 'hotspots' are too many. Thus they are spread too thin.

That - if that is indeed true - can be said for the entire force in Afghanistan, and not just for the non-US troops, agreed?

[Avatar]

I don't think it's possible to be other than spread too thin in Afghanistan...ask the Russians.

--A

[Prebe]

I don't think it's possible to be other than spread too thin in Afghanistan...ask the Russians.

I did, and they said "Da!"

[Avatar]

--A

[Cybrweez]

Again, w/Obama bowing to another leader, taken by itself not a big deal. But I think when you start to accumulate quite a few gaffes, you can start to compare him to Bush. At least in the gaffe dept.

Altho w/the explanation after the fact being pretty bad, maybe its become a big deal. He's actually trying to tell us he wasn't bowing, but bending to shake the hand? If that's really true, that's a bald faced lie. No one would watch that and think he wasn't bowing. I actually have to believe O'Reilly is wrong.

[SoulBiter]

There are just not enough troops there to complete the mission. The area that has to be covered is just too large and the number of 'hotspots' are too many. Thus they are spread too thin.

That - if that is indeed true - can be said for the entire force in Afghanistan, and not just for the non-US troops, agreed?

Agreed...

If that werent the case then why oh why would anyone be sending more troops there?

Are you sure you werent a part of the Clinton defense team. "Define was 'is' is?"

[Prebe]

Are you sure you werent a part of the Clinton defense team. "Define was 'is' is?"

This might seem like a "weird semantic dance" to you too (thanks Vain), but:

Sorry.. I should have been more clear. Those countries troops are spread too thin in Afghanistan to do more than they are today.

....was the line which made me want the clarification which you have now provided. Thank you.
(boldface, mine)

[Vain]

As for the bow

atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/04/obama-lied-the-infidels-cried-obowa-bowed-.html

like they say...don't believe your lying eyes

Oh and this is the Obamism thread...not the "which army has the most people in afghanistan" thread....or the "who can outwit, outlast, or outplay" the other in some weird semantic dance - tie a yellow ribbon around it

[Prebe]

Oh and this is the Obamism thread...not the "which army has the most people in afghanistan" thread....or the "who can outwit, outlast, or outplay" the other in some weird semantic dance - tie a yellow ribbon around it

I think the ribbon has been tied Vain. So while I pardon the interruption, I respectfully yield the floor to your paranoid muslim conspiracy theories

[Avatar]

--A

[Vain]

hehe