Obama '08?

Supposing all that is true, McCain attends less and dodges questions more and flubs up with outright mistakes more. (left plenty of links and like you said it is in the eye of the beholder) I guess it comes down to picking your party this time as though anything else is new.

Foxfyre wrote:

I suppose it all is in the eye of the beholder. To me he danced around and dodged the meat of all the questions with the only plan being to pull our forces out of Iraq and put them in Afghanistan without explaining how that would work. Would our troops be to bolster the NATO forces already there--that is a NATO mission now and, if Obama understands that, he didn't mention it. Or will this be a separate US undertaking? At least we do have an American commander in charge there, but I wonder what Obama's position is on putting our forces under other than US command? These are all things I don't think he has thought through if he understands at all.

In contrast to your knowledge, Operation Enduring Freedom - Afghanistan[/I is a joint U.S. and Afghan operation with several other nations taking part in it, too, separate from NATO's ISAF.[/quote]

Well I could certainly be wrong about that, but that isn't the way I understood it.

I believe that NATO took over Afghanistan security operations in 2006:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5408332.stm

And last month, a new US commander was appointed to be in charge over those NATO forces.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-06-03-voa21.cfm

As the USA is part of NATO, it doesn't make sense that there be a 'joint NATO and USA' project there, but maybe there is. I do know that the US is supplying the lion's share of the troops there already.

AMENDMENT:
Okay, doing further research, I do see that we do have a force of 14,000 troops operating independently of NATO in one province of Afghanistan. I don't see the rationale behind that, but I'm not the one in charge.

AMENDMENT:
Okay, doing further research, I do see that we do have a force of 14,000 troops operating independently of NATO in one province of Afghanistan. I don't see the rationale behind that, but I'm not the one in charge.

Foxfyre wrote:

AMENDMENT:
Okay, doing further research, I do see that we do have a force of 14,000 troops operating independently of NATO in one province of Afghanistan. I don't see the rationale behind that, but I'm not the one in charge.

And that means re your various posts? (besides that I believed this to be common knowledge for someone interested in this topic, especially the "rationale behind it".)

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

AMENDMENT:
Okay, doing further research, I do see that we do have a force of 14,000 troops operating independently of NATO in one province of Afghanistan. I don't see the rationale behind that, but I'm not the one in charge.

And that means re your various posts? (besides that I believed this to be common knowledge for someone interested in this topic, especially the "rationale behind it".)

I have very very few 'various posts' related to Afghanistan. But deep apologies for admitting that I was wrong about something Walter and thank you for setting the record straight. I appreciated learning something. I fully realize that I am nowhere near as perfect as you are and obviously I am stupid for not having the common knowledge that you have. But oh well. . . .

What you both are saying is that the NATO FORCES in AFGAN are unable to complete the mission and require more troops. As usual, the US can not rely on other NATO Nations to increase the troop levels.

I have very very few 'various posts' related to Afghanistan. But deep apologies for admitting that I was wrong about something Walter and thank you for setting the record straight. I appreciated learning something. I fully realize that I am nowhere near as perfect as you are and obviously I am stupid for not having the common knowledge that you have. But oh well. . . .

Dodging answers comes with the territory-- for all politicians.

Both candidates have their weaknesses and strengths and the winner will be crowned president by how well he could spin both.

In terms of risk, I'd say Obama, on the surface, appears to be the riskier candidate and McCain the safer more reliable choice-- on the surface.

It's all remarks like "BET Q&A" deserve.

Obama's plan is to bankrupt this country ASAP.

The dumbmasses will never realize this as long as the big
3 press continues to ask BET type questions of Obama

You're disgusting Kevin.

The NYT underscored that in spades this past week when they refused to run McCain's editorial because it disagreed with Obama's.

Foxfyre wrote:

The NYT underscored that in spades this past week when they refused to run McCain's editorial because it disagreed with Obama's.

The New York Times has rejected an op-ed piece written by John McCain defending his Iraq war policy in response to a piece by Barack Obama published in the paper earlier.

(I'd thaught, you've been taught the difference between an editorial and an op-ed when you studied journalism, Foxfyre.)

[In a statement released Monday, The New York Times said it is "standard procedure on our Op-Ed page, and that of other newspapers, to go back and forth with an author on his or her submission."

"We look forward to publishing Senator McCain's views in our paper just as we have in the past. We have published at least seven Op-Ed pieces by Senator McCain since 1996. The New York Times endorsed Senator McCain as the Republican candidate in the presidential primaries. We take his views very seriously," the statement said.]

woiyo wrote:

What you both are saying is that the NATO FORCES in AFGAN are unable to complete the mission and require more troops. As usual, the US can not rely on other NATO Nations to increase the troop levels.

I suggest, you read a bit this topic.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

woiyo wrote:

What you both are saying is that the NATO FORCES in AFGAN are unable to complete the mission and require more troops. As usual, the US can not rely on other NATO Nations to increase the troop levels.

I suggest, you read a bit this topic.

What is to read about. The NATO FORCES there have not completed the mission. Is that an incorrect statement?

woiyo wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:

woiyo wrote:

What you both are saying is that the NATO FORCES in AFGAN are unable to complete the mission and require more troops. As usual, the US can not rely on other NATO Nations to increase the troop levels.

I suggest, you read a bit this topic.

What is to read about. The NATO FORCES there have not completed the mission. Is that an incorrect statement?

So Obama has said, he will enlarge the Nato troops?
I had missed that. Sorry, and thanks for the info.