It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Comedy Central's Jon Stewart on Wednesday absolutely tore apart President Obama's speech on Afghanistan for being a virtual rehashing of former President George W. Bush's 2007 address concerning a troop surge in Iraq.
In the opening segment of "The Daily Show," Stewart asked, "[I]s 30,000 troops the military equivalent of two Advil?"
From there, Stewart used videoclips to show just how much Obama's speech resembled what Bush said more than two years ago concerning Iraq.
"The Daily Show" host also surprisingly demonstrated how people on both sides of the aisle -- politicians and pundits alike -- hated what Obama had to say
You may indeed be correct, but then again maybe not. i don't see how you can just state this as a given. By stable I mean minimizing the prospect of wholesale revenge by the Taliban and open running warfare of tribal warlords for power. Would it work? Don't know, but I do feel the US has a moral responsibility to be very careful in our withdrawal.
Originally posted by liquidsmoke206
reply to post by OldDragger
You just say "stability"....but what does that even mean?
Fact of the matter is that the afghans want us to leave....just like the iraqi's did.
we're no there to help them, or stabilize them, I cant see how thats not blatantly obvious.
We JUST went through all this with Iraq. All the conditions were the same or similar. Anyone who really cares about the afghanis would do what they wish we'd do and just leave. Why dont they seem worried about stability?
By stable I mean minimizing the prospect of wholesale revenge bt the Taliban and open running warfare of tribal warlords for power.
Would it work? Don't know,
the US has a moral responsibility to be very careful in our withdrawal.
JON STEWART, HOST: We begin tonight in 2007. Our war in Iraq was going badly. So President Bush proposed a bold new strategy: a surge of nearly 30,000 troops. Flash forward, the war in Iraq seems to have stabilized, but the war in Afghanistan is going badly. This time, the problem will be tackled by a bold, new leader, with the audacity to change, hope, and do what we were waiting for which, YES WE CAN! What shall his answer be?
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: I have determined that it is in our vital national interests to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan.
STEWART: What the 30? What, is 30,000 troops the military equivalent of two Advil? No matter what the problem there? What, you got a problem there in Afghanistan? 30,000 troops. If it doesn't work, call my service.
Originally posted by OldDragger
I'll just reply with a post I made seperate from this thread as it expresses my feelings exactly.
I don't care what Stewart says:
This is something I feel strongly about, we OWE the Afghan people.
During the 80's we armed the Afghans to the teeth to fight the Soviet occupation.
We flooded their nation with arms and money, fiddled with their government and altered their internal power structure for our own ends, namely to oppose the Soviets. When the Russians pulled out, we suddenly lost all interest in Afghanastan, leaving the chips to fall where they may. It wasn't a pretty picture and contributed to the rise of the Taliban.
Fast foward to 9/11 and our invasion. Here we go again. The idea was to get Bin Laden, but Bush and the military blew it, outsourced the operation largly to Afghan locals, Bin Laden escaped to Pakistan and Bush ( in my view ) mistakenly did not pursue him. For 8 years now we have mucked about, fighting the Taliban, accomplishing little ( from our point of view), but majorly screwing with the Afghan people.
Now popular setiment seems to be get out. While I understand the desire to get out, I think we OWE Afghanastan to at least try to provide some stability before we go. The point is not if we should have gone there or not, or about Bush and 9/11.
This would be the second time we have interferred in Afghan affairs, basically wreaked havoc, then turned around and just said "bye"!
No matter what your politics, no matter who is to blame, don't we need to show some decency and commit ourselves to better this nation?
I look forward to any replies, comments, and constructive ideas in this direction.
Originally posted by andy1033
It was nice for Jon to actually tell the truth for a change.
Originally posted by Alaskan Man
I was glad to see the show actually disapprove of something Obama did.
I miss the days of them joking about Bush and his cronies, they were so funny, now its just Obama's great Obama's great, nice to see the shows turning it around.
[edit on 12/3/2009 by Alaskan Man]
Originally posted by OldDragger
You may indeed be correct, but then again maybe not. i don't see how you can just state this as a given. By stable I mean minimizing the prospect of wholesale revenge by the Taliban and open running warfare of tribal warlords for power. Would it work? Don't know, but I do feel the US has a moral responsibility to be very careful in our withdrawal.
Originally posted by liquidsmoke206
reply to post by OldDragger
You just say "stability"....but what does that even mean?
Fact of the matter is that the afghans want us to leave....just like the iraqi's did.
we're no there to help them, or stabilize them, I cant see how thats not blatantly obvious.
We JUST went through all this with Iraq. All the conditions were the same or similar. Anyone who really cares about the afghanis would do what they wish we'd do and just leave. Why dont they seem worried about stability?
Obama hasn't said what Bush said> Bush cloaked everything in a democracy/freedom curtain of bS. Obama hasn't said any such thing. I think Obama is simply trying to save lives.
Funny that most here constantly gripe about corrupt government, yet are critical when the President acts to try to prevent what could be genocide.
[edit on 3-12-2009 by OldDragger]
[edit on 3-12-2009 by OldDragger]