I don't think that is true (percieved as weak), that is YOUR opinion, here's mine. I think the tide is turning in terms of respect for the USA. Were in a pretty deep hole (thanks to Bush, Cheney, others) but there is light at the end of the tunnel.

The biggest lesson we should learn is this: You can't solve the worlds problems with more bombs or more troops.

I like that new Generals approach to the Afghan conflict. Yes he wants more troops, but hold on a minute, we need to think this through, as Obama is doing. WHAT will he DO with more troops? Well that's where the CHANGE is coming. NOT to vigorously go on the attack as much as to secure more villages and towns! To win the hearts and minds of the PEOPLE. Blasting the hell out of the insurgents will buy time, but that alone will never win the war. Something Cheney STILL doesn't understand.

It was refreshing to see the President take a hands on approach to securing more jobs for Americans as it applies to the Olympics in Chicago.

I think it is worse than what has already been whined about.

I think the reason the Obama's & Ophra (Burris too) got dissed is because they are all Black.:eek:

The Olympic Committee is just plain racist.
I mean,why else would they turn down Chicago ??:CRY:

The above original thought was posted on freerepublic, posted on October 02, 2009 04:34 PM by libstripper

Winning the hearts and minds of the Afghans? Ha, I take it you have never been to that part of the world. They will take the side of who they think will win. If the commanding general ask for more troops, GIVE HIM MORE TROOPS OR PULL THEM ALL OUT.

Remember Somalia 10/03/93? The general on the ground asked for armor. Clinton denied the request because of how that might be perceived around the world. The result was 19 dead Americans. Don't play politics with the guys on the ground.

Obama is the second coming of Carter, only I fear in the end he might be worse. I would rather have the bad guys in the world fear us, rather than try and convinve them we are really great understanding people.:rolleyes:

I take it you have never read the "Art of War". This principle of winning the hearts and minds of the people goes back 1,000's of years. History shows over and over that "winning" a war militarily will not stand the test of time without the will of the people.

Now if that will is based on a better lifestyle, more security, money, is not as important as securing it in the first place. There is AMPLE reason to believe the Afghans DO want all of the above. For many years the Tabliban was despised there, the people fundamentally DO NOT want them in power. But what choice do they have? The Americans cannot defend them and they cannot defend themselves.

I support the request for additional troops, with an understanding of the goals to be achieved. Otherwise, we could be there for decades and accomplish nothing. If it is not possible to win the favor of the people then we should pull out the majority of troops and rely more heavily on "drone" missle strikes to kill the Taliban leadership. This will NOT result in a victory but it will buy time. The drone attacks kill many civilians, that really pisses off the people. But if we don't care about the people, no problem!

MODS: I had been thinking about starting a new thread on this subject, Afghan. Perhaps this post could be the start of that? Some editing of course required...

Just do it. Cut and paste

First, try to keep it pithy around here, Second; if I need the liberal view of things - I'll just go to CNN or MSNBC. Why you continue to post liberal talking point garbage to a 99.999999% conservative site is beyond belief....

Also, please stay off my threads - I will stay off your threads.

CDC, your cordially invited to my new thead on Afghanistan. Enjoy! :)

The Fires of Change
 

http://www.clubcobra.com/photopost/d..._of_Change.gif

"BO and Chelle just got B I T C H slapped in front of the whole world!" Rush Limbaugh

MMMMMMM MMMMMMMM MMMMMMMM

Viva la beach volleyball!!
 

Actually, the USA got b i t c h slapped in front of the whole world and you patriots are too busy celebrating the supposed loss of face to your president to even notice or care about that.

"Divide and conquer" is the catch phrase of the day. You folks are so busy fighting among yourselves over your own personal pieces of the pie, no wonder it's difficult to muster the solidarity and political will to decisively fight and win a military conflict. I know what the knee jerk replies to this are going to be already so save them - or bring them - or whatever.

I don't see the big deal in any president, prime minister, first lady or other head of state joining in the pitch to have a major international event held in their home town. Having said that though, I'm with Jamo - I do plan a trip to the next Olympics and I'd much rather be distracted by the spectacle of beautiful, bethonged South American wimmins than the fat dudes moonwalking in Chicago. Arriba Arriba!:LOL:

http://i646.photobucket.com/albums/u...eyball_ban.jpg
(There goes my "moral code".):rolleyes:

It's not like Obama is the first head of state to actively campaign to promote his country. France and Russia did it. Nothing ventured, nothing gained, good call on Obama's part giving it a shot. I don't see what the big deal is myself, the competition for the games is always tough. Doesn't mean those that didn't make it "got slapped down".

Actually we NEVER had a chance at the Games. China just had the Games so it was very unlikely that China West [aka USA] would get the Games this time.

way to go Buzz........I also agree with Jamo.........he cracks me up

Hell, I crack myself up.

Bottom line...nothing to do with politics or race. Chicago sucks.

Never been there so I take your word for it, bigga brudda.;)

Chicago lost on the first round with the lowest vote count of the four finalist countries.

Buzz,

I am happy that Rio got the Olympics but not because it is any kind of slap to our president. I was in Seattle when they had the Worlds Fair and the crowds and expense of putting on an Olympic or World Fair event are enormous. And Chicago is areal pain of a city in my opinion. To cold and windy much of the time as it is close to the lakes. Also has a history of crime that makes most other places seem relatively safe. I wouldn't want to live in any city that staged either of these events as the taxpayers are paying for them for years after they are over.

Now Rio is a place that I wold love to go to watch. Also to just see the sights there as I have never been.

Ron :)

Currently in Europe for two weeks on business; as I type this I am to the north of London. Happily head home next Friday.

I offer the following bit that I read this morning; offered not as a personal opinion, but just to provide a glimpse into what at least one European paper had to say about topic.

Taken from today's The Times ...

Title of the article is Chicago's humiliation points to failure of Obama rhetoric. Here is an excerpt from text:

"Loved by many but feared by none; full of lofty vision by achieving nothing with his grandiloquence,...Chicago's dismal showing at the IOC meeting in Copenhagen after the President's personal, impassioned, last-minute pitch is a stunning humiliation for him and will only feed the perception that on the world stage, he looks good but carries no heft."

The item goes on to say that "the perception is growing that Mr. Obama's soaring rhetoric, which captured the imagination during last year's election, is simply not enough when confronting the myriad challenges of the presidency. His spectacular Olympic failure will only add to that."

Again, this piece does not necessarily reflect my opinion and not sure to what degree The Times reflects the general European attitude of President Obama.

That cracked me up.