posted October 07, 2009 11:49 PM         

Wed Oct 7, 9:24 am ET
NEW YORK (AFP) – A solid majority of Americans are willing to see some of their countrymen die to achieve a terror-free Afghanistan, but US misgivings about sending more troops remain, a poll released Wednesday said.

Sixty-five percent of US voters "are willing to have American soldiers 'fight and possibly die' to eliminate the threat of terrorists operating from Afghanistan," according to the Quinnipiac University poll. Only 28 percent said otherwise.

But 49 percent of those surveyed said the United States will not be successful in crushing the Taliban insurgency as it gathers steam, against 38 percent who projected success in the US-led mission.

The findings came amid growing public anxiety and party divisions over the course of the eight-year war against a backdrop of rising troop deaths and an Afghan election widely seen as fraudulent.

While most said the war in Afghanistan was the "right thing" for Washington to do, they showed concern: 50 percent expressed worries the United States would stay "too long" in the war-torn country and 32 percent said America was "headed for another Vietnam."

Of those surveyed, 28 percent said a large US military contingent should be in Afghanistan for less than a year.

Another 21 percent supported US involvement for one to two years, while 14 percent said two to five years and 30 percent backed keeping US troops there for "as long as it takes."

"The American people are deeply conflicted about the war in Afghanistan. Two-thirds of voters can tell you that the war is related to the 9/11 attacks and see the current effort there as worthwhile to prevent a reoccurrence," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

"But they don't want a prolonged military commitment and there is obvious nervousness about requests from the military to send more troops to Afghanistan."

Of those surveyed, just 38 percent want troop levels there increased, while 28 percent said they want to lower troop levels. Twenty-one percent want to maintain the current troop level.

The poll was released as President Barack Obama weighs a decision on a revamped strategy that could see him send up to 40,000 more US soldiers to Afghanistan, as requested by his war commander, General Stanley McChrystal.

A rift has emerged within the Obama administration between those backing further troop deployments to help secure the Afghan population and others, notably Vice President Joe Biden, said to back a more counterterrorism approach focused on targeting Al-Qaeda militants with mostly unmanned airstrikes.

The president is holding a series of meetings on his strategy, with a decision expected within weeks, and held talks with key Republican and Democratic lawmakers on Tuesday.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091007/ts_alt_afp/usafghanistanpoliticspoll

******

posted October 08, 2009 03:06 PM         

i would hesitate to send good troops to their deaths there, as it seems highly unlikely that we will ever reach a conclusion.

also, as there is evidence that bin laden has been dead for years, and our increased presence in afghanistan appears to be ADDING FUEL to the taliban's efforts, as well as willing members, what is the point?

posted October 08, 2009 03:57 PM         

Gutless demoscats said Bush took his eye off the ball, the real target, Afghanistan and went to war with Iraq.

Gutless demoscats said the "Real War" was in Afghanistan and that was the "War of Necessity" and that the war in Iraq was the "War of Choice".

So, since the feckless and lying demoscats couldn't throw the war in Iraq because Bush refused to lose the war there; some of those same lying demoscats are now refusing to fund any additional troops for Afghanistan.

We've heard this broken record before from lying cowardly demoscats. Their greatest moment, which lives on in their memories, was the defeat they hung on America in the Vietnam war. Just as North Vietnam was ready to throw in the towel and negotiate to end their attacks on the South, demoscats pulled the plug on our troops and threw the war in Vietnam.

It is incredible that O'Bomber who personally picked the General to supposedly win the war in Afghanistan only talked to the General one time for about 20 minutes..and not in person... before receiving the report asking for more troops. BUT...O'Bomber has talked to the disgusting David Letterman more than the General in charge of winning the war in Afghanistan...you know, Afghanistan..."The War of Necessity".

posted October 08, 2009 11:24 PM         

one day maybe you will see that the size of your gun doesn't have anything to do with your measure as a man...(tha's a metaphor for sure)

tell me did you know letterman was a dirty old man before he fessed up? d'you think obama knew ahead of time? would you have done the same, or maybe you think he should have shot the guy?

my theory is that afghanistan was not obama's idea but something the "team" pushed and he agreed to - deferring to people more in the "know" at the time. what he does about it remains to be seen.

posted October 09, 2009 09:17 AM         

LBJ and the demoscat Congress were not serious about Vietnam, didn't have the guts or desire to finish the job. As a result, 58,0000 US military service personnel lost their lives while LBJ and the morons in the demoscat Congress micromanaged the war from Washington..to the extent they ordered the targets to be struck...and also ordered targets that were not to be struck in North Vietnam. In other words, they tied US military hands behind their backs and continued to let Viet Cong and North Vietnam regular forces in the south be reinforced with both military supplies and manpower.

The feckless, lying and cowardly demoscats first started the war then made sure it would be a loss for America.

The thought of an American Victory gives demoscats heartburn and they do everything in their power to assure it doesn't happen.

You may like that katatonic. Sacrificing American lives to no purpose except to ring up a US military loss has been the wet dream of leftists for more than 60 years. They really are contemptible examples of humanity.

O'Bomber and the current crop of contemptible disgusting demoscats in Congress are merely examples of what happens when demoscats get control of the United States. They are more dangerous to America and Americans than any foreign enemy.

The purpose of my previous post was to show that demoscats have been lying through their teeth with their talk of the..."wrong war in the wrong place against the wrong enemy" bullshiiit; their talk of the Bush "War of Choice"..Iraq vs the "War of Necessity"..Afghanistan.

There may be something which you actually know something about katatonic. So far, you've been keeping your knowledge under wraps. We can add "manhood" to the growing list of things you know absolutely nothing about.

Eleanore, I'm in basic agreement with you about pulling US forces out...except the debacle of Vietnam would be repeated.

Millions, 2-3 million South Vietnamese and Cambodians lost their lives when the US pulled out of Vietnam. demoscats were told that would be the result and did it anyway.

The very same thing would have happened to Iraqis in Iraq and will most definitely happen if US forces are pulled out of Afghanistan. Anyone who helped US forces or allied themselves with a free Afghanistan, free elections and self determination of the people of Afghanistan will be slaughtered.

posted October 09, 2009 12:31 PM         

true it was mismanaged. but some people seem to forget that the PRESIDENT is the commander-in-chief NOT the generals.

and some people seem never to have noticed that i have at NO time been in favour of sacrificing ANY american lives in the interest of "finding and killing" someone who to all intents and purposes is ALREADY DEAD, and very likely physically as well! i thought afghanistan was a bad idea in 2001 and i still think so now.

as to my knowledge of manhood, well maybe in another life i would have firsthand knowledge but in this one all i can talk about are my preferences.

i prefer a man who can SORT out a problem with his presence without having to resort to violence. and i have seen the first vanquish the second many a time.

nor am i interested in bunching any group of people into one corner and listing their faults. or holding my position no matter how much proof i'm wrong is shoved under my nose.

posted October 10, 2009 10:35 AM         

Kennedy upped the ante and LBJ insisted on the Tonkin Gulf Resolution authorizing direct military action there.

In unbelievable leftist nonsense, leftists insisted on calling the War in Vietnam "Nixon's War"....and now katatonic, here you are trying to make Vietnam into "Eisenhower's War.

Ignorance reigns supreme in Leftist Land.

Yes katatonic, your idea of the Wussification of America are known. O'Bomber is your guy. Your ideas and O'Bomber's have caused more death and destruction in the world than any other.

Friday, October 09, 2009
Dems Change Stance on Military and Afghanistan
by Debra J. Saunders

At the Democratic National Convention in Denver last summer, then-Sen. Barack Obama pledged to "finish the fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan."

Lately Obama has toned down his rhetoric when it comes to succeeding in Afghanistan. "I'm always worried about using the word 'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur," the president told ABC in July.*** More Leftist ignorance. Emperor Hirohito DID NOT sign the surrender document to end the war against Japan. Hirohito wasn't even present at the signing.***

Apparently the "the audacity of hope" approach does not apply to the U.S. military fighting against al-Qaida and the Taliban.

I can only imagine the jeers that would have followed if Bush Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had suggested that dissident generals should give their "best advice to the president candidly but privately." Yet when Obama Defense Secretary Robert Gates said those words in response to reports that Gen. Stanley McChrystal believes NATO needs as many as 40,000 additional U.S. troops to turn the tide in Afghanistan, Democrats like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi agreed. Forget all that posturing about the need for generals to give their best assessment. In 2009, Pelosi is more focused on the "line of command."

On the other side of the aisle, Republicans -- yes, including me -- want the brass to go public with their wish lists.

McChrystal has bigger issues before him. He believes that if Washington fails to provide more troops, then Afghanistan will crumble into "Chaos-istan." The Taliban wins, al-Qaida wins and Americans win their eternal disdain.

In one camp, McChrystal advocates sending more troops to win over the Afghan population by wreaking less civilian damage. In the other camp, (The Great General O'Biden's camp), some Obama aides support keeping U.S. troop levels around the scheduled 68,000 through this year, while keeping al-Qaida at bay with drones and other air attacks that result in civilian casualties.

Honest people can disagree as to which strategy will succeed. But it's hard to understand how Obama can deliver on his 2008 campaign promises if he can't use the word "victory," and after he has talked to McChrystal only twice since June.

The New York Times reported Wednesday that Obama told GOP Sen. John McCain that he will not reach a decision on the Afghanistan strategy "leisurely." Good.

As Rep. Buck McKeon, R-Santa Clarita (Los Angeles County), and the ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, observed in a conference call after meeting with Obama on Tuesday, delay and doubt undermine the NATO effort. During a recent visit to Afghanistan, a general told him that every day his Marines get asked by civilians, "When are you leaving?"

McKeon agreed with Obama on Afghanistan in 2008. He agreed with Obama earlier this year. When it comes to Afghanistan, congressional Republicans will support Obama, as long as they believe he wants to win in the region. It's Democrats who may force the president to make not the best military decision, but the best political decision, he can muster.

posted October 10, 2009 04:03 PM         

During his term, Eisenhower will greatly increase U.S. military aid to the French in Vietnam to prevent a Communist victory. U.S. military advisors will continue to accompany American supplies sent to Vietnam. To justify America's financial commitment, Eisenhower will cite a 'Domino Theory' in which a Communist victory in Vietnam would result in surrounding countries falling one after another like a "falling row of dominoes." The Domino Theory will be used by a succession of Presidents and their advisors to justify ever-deepening U.S. involvement in Vietnam.

January 1955 - The first direct shipment of U.S. military aid to Saigon arrives. The U.S. also offers to train the fledgling South Vietnam Army.

July 8, 1959 - Two U.S. military advisors, Maj. Dale Buis and Sgt. Chester Ovnand, are killed by Viet Minh guerrillas at Bien Hoa, South Vietnam. They are the first American deaths in the Second Indochina War which Americans will come to know simply as The Vietnam War.

so yes, you are right, ike didn't send a bunch of troops. however he sent aid, advisors, and set down the rationale for upping the ante, which kennedy did (pretty tentatively).

but one doesn't go to war without the involvement of congress, by definition a combination of republicans and democrats, and congress seems ALWAYS ready to support a war effort, though getting OUT of war is not so easily agreed on.

i didn't say it was ike's war. i said he got it started. full stop.

as to your extrapolations about my motives and political leanings - once again they are yours. i never suggested committing our troops in afghanistan, or elsewhere.

posted October 10, 2009 09:32 PM         

i suspect, jwhop, that like you, those you love to hate think they are "saving" america, not destroying it.

can't help wondering - are you planning on growing up anytime in the near future?

posted October 11, 2009 06:26 PM         

quote:

---

Sacrificing American lives to no purpose except to ring up a US military loss has been the wet dream of leftists for more than 60 years.

---

posted October 12, 2009 12:35 PM         

They are foaming at the mouth leftists marching in lockstep.

Almost all self respecting liberal Democrats left the party several years ago...or even earlier. In fact, these loony-tunes leftists make most liberals want to throw up.

Don't attempt to cast yourself as a Liberal katatonic. We've heard that song before; coming out of the mouths of leftists posing as Liberals.

posted October 14, 2009 05:09 PM         

... c'est la lutte finale...
l'internationale sera le genre humain...

btw, it's soviets and allied who liberated europe in the 40'; soviets with 20 million deads, and US involved in 42, involved in 17 in WWI, just one year before the end. unlike the brits.