It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Obama 'Victory' Not Necessarily Goal in Afghanistan

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 11:57 PM

Obama: 'Victory' Not Necessarily Goal in Afghanistan

President Obama has put securing Afghanistan near the top of his foreign policy agenda, but "victory" in the war-torn country isn't necessarily the United States' goal, he said Thursday in a TV interview.

"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," Obama told ABC News.
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 23-7-2009 by SLAYER69]

posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 11:57 PM
What have I been saying?



OK if you're not up on the situation check out the two links below in my signature. The ultimate goal is to stay in the region and be a player in The Great Game.

Central Asia is the new play ground and everybody wants a part of it. We will be there for Years possibly decades. Russia and China and the US will be the major players.

Stay tuned.
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 12:10 AM
Yep, you nailed it.

I really don't believe victory has ever been the goal. Pretty evident over the past years and the way the war has been waged.

posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 12:13 AM
reply to post by jam321

The perfect little war.
Make money, Keep the military industrial complex going.
Stay in the game...

Oh and there is oil in them there hills just North.

posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 12:18 AM
We should have an additional Constitutional Amendment.

"Any conflict that continues beyond 12 months, and the Commander-in-Chief, all members of the Senate and House, and all General-grade officers shall likewise take their stations in the combat zone and personally lead our soldiers in combat operations, and remain until victory is obtained."

That would stop this damned stupidity.

posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 12:22 AM
reply to post by dooper

I honestly feel he is just prepping the American people that we will be there for the long hall. The question will be how long before the People get tired of this?

posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 12:25 AM
reply to post by SLAYER69

The question will be how long before the People get tired of this?

I think many people are already getting tired of it.

Won't be long we will see Usama's resurrection to try to convince the people why we need to stay longer.

posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 12:27 AM
I'll repost a segment from an earlier post for those who are not up on
"The Great Game"

Central Asia The oil reserves there shrink the gulf states to nothing. It will be the flash point of the future.

Undoubtedly Central Asia’s strategic importance in international affairs
is growing. The rivalries among Russia, China, United States, Iran, India,
and Pakistan not to mention the ever-changing pattern of relations among
local states (five former Soviet republics and Afghanistan) make the region’s
importance obviously clear. Central Asia's strategic importance for Washington, Moscow, and Beijing varies with each nation’s perception of its strategic interests.

Washington focuses primarily on Central Asia as an important theater in the war on terrorism. Additionally, it is viewed as a theater where America might counter a revived Russia or China, or a place to blunt any extension of Iranian influence. Moscow and Beijing view the region as a vital locale for defending critical domestic interests. This asymmetry of interest is


If you look closely at the above map you will notice the surrounding countries. Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Russia, China, and Pakistan. Both Iran and Pakistan are in "Play" We need our bad guys the "Taliban" back in the game. They tend to be pretty smart they don't want to hang around Afghanistan they tend to die there so they go back home to Pakistan.

Following me so far?

Pakistan pushes them back across the border so we can have our "Enemy". So we can still have an excuse to be in the Region.

China gets a huge chunk of it's oil from Iran. We are in Iraq and Afghanistan. China is desperate for oil.... Iran supplies that oil! It has supported their economic boom. Without it their boom goes bust.
It seems a great way to keep in check the power that holds most of Americas dept. Wouldn't you agree?

And they know it!

The fight with the "Taliban" is not supposed to end. It's an excuse to be in the region to be a player in the future of central Asia. Think of Good Cop/Bad Cop

Bush- Bad Cop!
Comes in through the front door guns a blazing. We are here to fight Terrorism! We take Iraq and invade Afghanistan.

Obama- Good Cop!
He will fix everything, Works all the back door channels. We stay in the region. Iraq war is pretty much over except for the occasional bombings. Doesn't really matter to us because they are mostly killing themselves. "HURRAY for Democracy"
We increase our numbers in Afghanistan and decrease our numbers in Iraq.

The New Great Game

Following me so far?

Russia needs the oil reserves in the region to either stop or have very low production rates.


Because they will be in direct competition with the future oil producers in that region! Russia's economy is desperate for the oil revenues. Apparently Communism was a flop! That's why. So that's their "Piece" in the "Game"

China needs oil desperately in order to keep the growth cycle going!
So they go around the world making oil deals. Venezuela Anybody?


Otherwise despite "Pop culture" view that China is the new world power their economy grinds to a halt without oil. That's Why! So that's their "Piece" in the "Game"

The US will be a player like it or not We are the only ones with the means to reach around the world and touch somebody! That's our "Piece" in the "Game"

They are all unhappy especially Iran about having the US in their collective backyards and they all know they cant really do squat about it!

The games a foot.

Correct me if I'm wrong but who exactly was one of the first person Obama went to see early on in his "Presidency"

I've been sitting here for days, weeks and months watching the headlines and reading everybody's responses here at ATS to this "action" or that "attack".

Whose to blame?

Was it the CIA, FSB, Mossad, The Iranians, The Chinese, The Taliban, Al Qaeda etc etc etc? Yadda Yadda Blah Blah Blah

The Answer is YES!

Understand what is really going on!

What about the present situation in Iran? Remember Chaos as you well know is always a good thing in the "Game" Whether they get overthrown or not is not really important, what is important is that we stay in the region AKA "The Game"

So please the next time you're on a thread and people start flinging accusations at each other over which country to blame or whose the favored "Super" power or "Up" Coming Global power understand that if you have a car and when you put your key in the ignition to drive to work, school, or to take little Timmy to baseball practice remember there is more in your tank than just GAS!



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 12:30 AM
reply to post by SLAYER69

I'll be surprised if we make it to the 2012 elections. This is stupidity, the abuses of the Patriot Act was stupidity, the bailouts were stupidity, the Stimulus was stupidity, this Healthcare is utter stupidity, and Cap and Trade is stupidity.

Americans are slow to react, but when they do, they never clean house half-assed.

You're liable to see politicians hung all over this country before this is over.

I'm not joking.

posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 12:56 AM
reply to post by dooper

Yeah but it's not just us.
Same source

The leaders of the largest contributors to the coalition find themselves having to justify both their reasons for deploying troops and their management of the war effort. Britain, Italy and Australia are among those adding forces ahead of Afghanistan's Aug. 20 presidential election.

They say a Western pullout at this time would enable a resurgent Taliban to take over the country and give Al Qaeda more space to plan terror attacks against the West. Some emphasize humanitarian aspects of their missions, like development aid and civilian reconstruction.

[edit on 24-7-2009 by SLAYER69]

posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 01:03 AM
reply to post by dooper

I love your logic sometimes

That would make things quite real for them, wouldn't it? Maybe Obama can give speeches with fatigues, kevlar helmet and M4 in the middle of a war zone.

"Never again will we have to.. Oh sorry." -Bang bang- "I got the sucker! Oh can you just scroll back the tele.. yeah thanks. Right there is good."

posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 01:07 AM
I think that what Obama may have been referring to is that unlike conventional wars this isn't one where we'll ever have a definite moment of victory. There won't be some peace treaty that makes every enemy suddenly stand down and surrender. There's never going to be any single leader that we can simply kill or capture and make everything better. It's not like we can simply capture the capital city and expect everyone to lay down their weapons.

Afghanistan is not going to be won by conventional means or standards. We're not fighting against a unified enemy that can be defeated all at once. A peace treaty with one leader may not mean a thing to another leader and the insurgent's under his command. We could capture Osama Bin Laden and they'll still have a completely serviceable insurgency. We have captured Kabul and there's still no central headquarters that they rely on. And just because one group of men surrenders or dies doesn't mean another will. Right or wrong, they'll keep fighting for those ideals.

Am I saying that Afghanistan is unwinnable? Not at all, my point is that the Obama administration would be foolish to try and think that there's any single set of objectives that can define victory in this situation. Personally I doubt that we'll have any idea when true victory comes until years after the fact when historians do a thorough analysis of the whole ordeal.

posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 01:35 AM
US intelligence gathering in Afghanistan expanded

A combination of unmanned aerial vehicles and sensor-laden aircraft with links to ground forces will give commanders an "unblinking eye" over the war-torn country, Michael Vickers, the Pentagon's top special operations official, said.

Use of high-technology assets proved essential in Iraq, he said, and are key to negating the Taliban's ability to plan and carry out attacks around the country.

"Systemically taking apart the network through intelligence-led operations is a very important feature of modern counterinsurgency," Vickers said.

But he added that victory in Afghanistan is up to the Afghans.

posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 01:49 AM
This is already in a thread here

[edit on 24-7-2009 by sunny_2008ny]

posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 01:50 AM
reply to post by jam321

I always thought the goal was to keep the CIA well funded with drug money, create some weapons sales for the arms industry and use the threat of terrorism to strip people of their rights. So mission accomplished?

posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 02:02 AM
reply to post by sunny_2008ny

Yeah there can be two threads this is breaking news that in the political board thread

posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 07:59 PM
huggs slayer!!

you pretty much summed it up,,,,!

theres really not a whole lot we can do there,,,
its more occupation,,,to have a presence in the area,,

probly better for some of the people yet they still really hate our guts just like probly most(95%) os Iraqi's do,,,

totally different culture and people,,,,

I think the taliban are more like a gangs of thugs,,,

be nice if something good came out of these 2 conflicts,,,

that country is so far in the past we'd need at least need another 100,000 troops there and millions in aid,,,,and treat it like a war,,,,and at least a decade,,,,,

and thats hopefull thinking even.....

yea,,,,this is more a chess game...

whatever though,,,,I support and luv are troops!!!!

huggs everyone!!!

posted on Aug, 20 2021 @ 01:06 PM

top topics


log in