Change we can believe in.
That is, I think, the Democrat candidate's slogan.
For some reason I don't exactly believe there will be much change.
Barack Obama has a handicap vis-à-vis his Republican challenger: a majority of Americans believes he cannot handle the responsibilities of commander in chief of the military.
So Obama had to do something about this.
Where John McCain pretends he will win both wars, in Iraq and in Afghanistan, Obama has pledged he will have most American soldiers in Iraq back home within 16 months of his mandate whereas in the same time he will send 15.000 more in Afghanistan.
Does anyone know what winning the war in Iraq or Afghanistan may ever mean?
Both wars are senseless and with no end in sight. I've already written a post about Afghanistan 8 months ago. What has been achieved since then? A hundred American Gi have been killed, which is next to nothing in terms of war fatalities of course. But what has been achieved? Me, I don't know.
A majority of Americans now believes going to Irak wasn't a wise thing to do and asks for a return of the troops but still, this Nation has been so thoroughly brainwashed into thinking that barbarian terrorists were out there only to destroy their country that too many Americans seem not to mind sending troops in Afghanistan. B. Obama certainly can't say to a war thirsty country that the US will retreat from both Irak and Afghanistan
Against which army by the way? S. Hussein's army wasn't top notch by 2003 but still, there was an army. But in Afghanistan???
This whole madness reminds me of Dino Buzzati's novel, The Tartar Steppe.
If Obama is elected, the Irak war will be prolonged for at least two more years, making a minimum of 8 years while Afghanistan will take the place of Irak as the perfect example of a foreign policy gone awry.
Seems like I'm not the only one to think this way. Look here and here.
So Obama will just make a shift in the deployment of the army but one way or another he will carry on a war against spooks. And he has come to Europe to ask for more European involment in this exercice in madness.
No thank you, and I hope the European staff officers will come to their sense and refuse.
As a reminder, the only terrorists who ever hit America were Saudis. Not Irakis and even less Afghans.
(Sorry for the poor quality of this post but I'm really knackered (and yes, I've learnt this word today)
For some reason I don't exactly believe there will be much change.
Barack Obama has a handicap vis-à-vis his Republican challenger: a majority of Americans believes he cannot handle the responsibilities of commander in chief of the military.
So Obama had to do something about this.
Where John McCain pretends he will win both wars, in Iraq and in Afghanistan, Obama has pledged he will have most American soldiers in Iraq back home within 16 months of his mandate whereas in the same time he will send 15.000 more in Afghanistan.
Does anyone know what winning the war in Iraq or Afghanistan may ever mean?
Both wars are senseless and with no end in sight. I've already written a post about Afghanistan 8 months ago. What has been achieved since then? A hundred American Gi have been killed, which is next to nothing in terms of war fatalities of course. But what has been achieved? Me, I don't know.
A majority of Americans now believes going to Irak wasn't a wise thing to do and asks for a return of the troops but still, this Nation has been so thoroughly brainwashed into thinking that barbarian terrorists were out there only to destroy their country that too many Americans seem not to mind sending troops in Afghanistan. B. Obama certainly can't say to a war thirsty country that the US will retreat from both Irak and Afghanistan
Against which army by the way? S. Hussein's army wasn't top notch by 2003 but still, there was an army. But in Afghanistan???
This whole madness reminds me of Dino Buzzati's novel, The Tartar Steppe.
If Obama is elected, the Irak war will be prolonged for at least two more years, making a minimum of 8 years while Afghanistan will take the place of Irak as the perfect example of a foreign policy gone awry.
Seems like I'm not the only one to think this way. Look here and here.
So Obama will just make a shift in the deployment of the army but one way or another he will carry on a war against spooks. And he has come to Europe to ask for more European involment in this exercice in madness.
No thank you, and I hope the European staff officers will come to their sense and refuse.
As a reminder, the only terrorists who ever hit America were Saudis. Not Irakis and even less Afghans.
(Sorry for the poor quality of this post but I'm really knackered (and yes, I've learnt this word today)
2 commentaires:
As I am a supporter our presence in Iraq, I am still upset on the free pass with the Saudis. They still allow to much money to be provided to terrorists today. But they have oil and we have an addiction.
obob,
Wouldn't an addiction with marijuana from Jamaica a nicer one?
Enregistrer un commentaire