Peter Dow
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Report Post
- Posted: Mon, 03 Feb 2014 02:48:03 +0000
Darth Acheron
Let's remember to stay on topic please, or I'll have to move this thread to the CB.
I believe my post was on topic, 100%.
The topic as I understand it is "I support President Obama", correct?
This forum is a politics forum so what is on topic is the politics of the topic title, right? In this case the politics of President Obama.
Presumably people support President Obama's politics or not, agree or disagree with the topic title, depending on how well people think he is doing the job of president - carrying out the duties of president, either well or maybe could be better in some respects?
This is a politics forum so people in politics are allowed to say if they agree or disagree, support or don't support a politician or his or her policies and to explain why, right?
One of the duties of the president is to report on the state of the union. Another is the foreign policy of the USA, correct?
Another of the duties of the president is as the Commander in Chief of the US military, correct?
So commenting on how well, or otherwise, the president did in his state of the union speech the other day is on topic, correct?
So commenting on how well, or otherwise, President Obama is doing with his foreign policy and military policy as regards Afghanistan and Pakistan policy is presumably on topic for this topic, isn't it?
Here's another on topic comment in the Washington Post with this editorial about President Obama's State of the Union Speech and in particular his foreign policy as regards Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Quote:
Falling short on Afghanistan
Washington Post By Editorial Board, Published: January 30
PRESIDENT OBAMA returned in his State of the Union address to a familiar slogan: The war in Afghanistan “is finally coming to an end.” That, of course, is not true: As 29 million Afghans could testify, there is no end to the conflict in sight. Mr. Obama equates the end of the war with the end of U.S. combat operations. “Together with our allies,” he told Congress on Tuesday, “we will complete our mission there by the end of this year.”
Even that is not true — at least, not according to the president’s announced plan. Mr. Obama reiterated his commitment to leave behind U.S. trainers and logistical support to assist the Afghan army, as well as a counterterrorism force to “pursue any remnants of al-Qaeda” — which presumably would involve military action. Though the president didn’t specify the size of the force, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Marine Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., has reportedly recommended that it total 10,000 troops, complemented by several thousand more from NATO allies.
The continuing mission has overwhelming logic in its favor, both for Afghanistan and for the United States. Both have a vital interest in preserving the hard-won gains of the past dozen years — from the construction of a fledgling democracy to the education of a generation of girls. Though al-Qaeda has been driven from Afghanistan, it would likely return to the country in company with Taliban allies in the absence of a U.S. deterrent. Without U.S. troops and bases in Afghanistan, the United States also would be ill-placed to mount operations against terrorist targets in Pakistan.
Not surprisingly, polls show that Afghans broadly support a continuing U.S. mission, as do most members of President Hamid Karzai’s cabinet, most of the U.S. national security establishment and almost all NATO governments. But the project is in serious danger because two crucial actors are falling short: Mr. Karzai and Mr. Obama.
Mr. Karzai’s counterproductive behavior has been getting the brunt of attention in Washington. His wild allegations about U.S. military misconduct are deeply offensive, but worse is his refusal to sign the bilateral security agreement he negotiated with the Obama administration and presented to a national assembly of notables for endorsement. Without the agreement, which sets the legal basis for a continued U.S. presence, the United States would be forced into a full withdrawal.
The administration has the option of sidestepping Mr. Karzai, who is due to be replaced in a presidential election scheduled for April. It could plan for a continued presence and even announce its dimensions with the expectation that the new president would sign on; virtually all of the candidates have expressed support. It could buy time with a brief extension of the existing military agreement. Instead, Mr. Obama has played into Mr. Karzai’s hands by setting deadlines for his signature and hinting that he will embrace a “zero option” if the matter is not soon settled.
The president is also communicating the wrong message to Americans with speeches proclaiming “the end of America’s longest war.” If a continued U.S. mission is to be supported by the public and funded by Congress — which just slashed this year’s Afghanistan funding — Mr. Obama must make the case why it is in the national interest for troops to remain. That he does virtually the opposite makes him complicit with Mr. Karzai in undermining a major national security interest.
Washington Post By Editorial Board, Published: January 30
PRESIDENT OBAMA returned in his State of the Union address to a familiar slogan: The war in Afghanistan “is finally coming to an end.” That, of course, is not true: As 29 million Afghans could testify, there is no end to the conflict in sight. Mr. Obama equates the end of the war with the end of U.S. combat operations. “Together with our allies,” he told Congress on Tuesday, “we will complete our mission there by the end of this year.”
Even that is not true — at least, not according to the president’s announced plan. Mr. Obama reiterated his commitment to leave behind U.S. trainers and logistical support to assist the Afghan army, as well as a counterterrorism force to “pursue any remnants of al-Qaeda” — which presumably would involve military action. Though the president didn’t specify the size of the force, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Marine Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., has reportedly recommended that it total 10,000 troops, complemented by several thousand more from NATO allies.
The continuing mission has overwhelming logic in its favor, both for Afghanistan and for the United States. Both have a vital interest in preserving the hard-won gains of the past dozen years — from the construction of a fledgling democracy to the education of a generation of girls. Though al-Qaeda has been driven from Afghanistan, it would likely return to the country in company with Taliban allies in the absence of a U.S. deterrent. Without U.S. troops and bases in Afghanistan, the United States also would be ill-placed to mount operations against terrorist targets in Pakistan.
Not surprisingly, polls show that Afghans broadly support a continuing U.S. mission, as do most members of President Hamid Karzai’s cabinet, most of the U.S. national security establishment and almost all NATO governments. But the project is in serious danger because two crucial actors are falling short: Mr. Karzai and Mr. Obama.
Mr. Karzai’s counterproductive behavior has been getting the brunt of attention in Washington. His wild allegations about U.S. military misconduct are deeply offensive, but worse is his refusal to sign the bilateral security agreement he negotiated with the Obama administration and presented to a national assembly of notables for endorsement. Without the agreement, which sets the legal basis for a continued U.S. presence, the United States would be forced into a full withdrawal.
The administration has the option of sidestepping Mr. Karzai, who is due to be replaced in a presidential election scheduled for April. It could plan for a continued presence and even announce its dimensions with the expectation that the new president would sign on; virtually all of the candidates have expressed support. It could buy time with a brief extension of the existing military agreement. Instead, Mr. Obama has played into Mr. Karzai’s hands by setting deadlines for his signature and hinting that he will embrace a “zero option” if the matter is not soon settled.
The president is also communicating the wrong message to Americans with speeches proclaiming “the end of America’s longest war.” If a continued U.S. mission is to be supported by the public and funded by Congress — which just slashed this year’s Afghanistan funding — Mr. Obama must make the case why it is in the national interest for troops to remain. That he does virtually the opposite makes him complicit with Mr. Karzai in undermining a major national security interest.
You may notice that I have highlighted the word "Pakistan" in the Washington Post quote. President Obama is responsible for the US foreign and military policy as regards Pakistan so it is relevant for both myself and the Washington Post to bring up the subject of Pakistan in our political commentary about President Obama's State of the Union speech - even if he didn't mention the country by name, which is the point I was making in a satirical way with my "Blockbusters meets the State of the Union" image.
Satire is a long established way of commenting about politics, to help to make a political point in an entertaining way. Political satire is very political, very on topic for a political forum.
So I'm writing about President Obama's politics. The Washington Post is writing about President Obama's politics.
We are all on topic writing and commenting about President Obama's politics so I don't know why you'd be thinking of moving this topic to CB?
Also, since I am saying that President Obama's foreign and military policy as regards Afghanistan and Pakistan is not ideal, could be a lot better - then I have a duty to say what I think would be a better policy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.
I have a duty to explain why I don't support President Obama's policies as regards Afghanistan and Pakistan. That's very political and very on topic in a political forum.
I have a duty to explain what my better political policies than President Obama's might be so that's why I explained in my post that I have published a lot on the subject of better policies for Afghanistan and Pakistan, that should be supported politically.
So I have explained where I think President Obama's policies could be doing with improvements and to show that I am not just chatter-boxing but I have better policies that deserve more political support than President Obama's policies, in my political opinion.
This is all politics here. Pure politics. There's no chatter-boxing whatsoever on my part.
