Sent to me from Bev Perlson
___________________________________________
"Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has stated that the U.S. mission in Afghanistan is to leave behind a stable government. “That really isn’t our mission,” Krauthammer accused, “If it were our mission, Obama would not have aborted the surge in mid-September — which he did before the election.”
The COIN policy of winning hearts and minds is a failed policy which has resulted in the enormous loss of lives and limbs of our brave Sons and Daughters. And let's not forget our Warriors sitting in Leavenworth, some for life, while this administration has been busy releasing the worst of the worst terrorists out of GITMO!!!
Watch this interview with MOH recipient Corporal Dakota Meyer on Bill O'Reilly:
When Obama announced the very day we would pull out of Afghanistan, he handed the Taliban the victory then. As Dakota Meyer points out, the good brave Afghans who have fought alongside us know we are leaving, and no doubt the Taliban reminds them daily. I shudder to think what will happen to these brave Afghans and their families when we leave.
There is no sound reason for our Troops to stay in Afghanistan one more day, let alone another fighting season!
Beverly Perlson
The Band of Mothers
Replies
I think obummer just likes seeing our soldiers die.
THE MISSION IS DEPOPULATION THAT IS WHAT THE OBUMMER WANTS, PURE AND SIMPLE. THAN HE WILL BE IN LOCK STEP WITH UNITED NATIONS.
I am in agreement. Bring our men and women home.
I don't know what it would take, but we must bring our troops home. Not just from Afghanistan but from all over the globe.
I would feel much more comfortable to have them on our soil in case Obummer tries to overtake the country which I am sure he will do. He hates us, our Constitution and our freedom of speech, whatever little of it we have left.
Germany would be a model to review. We had a very large number of troops stationed there for a very long time after WW II. A few years back Germany got a little testy, so we pulled out a considerable number of troops, like billions of dollars worth on the local economy, they have been pretty cooperative since that time. I do not think anyone would be able to explain to me why we still have troops in Afghan/Paki or most any Muslim nation. The total cost is not seen by most except as $ or body counts (liberal reporting), human factors are pretty much ignored. Why is it that the liberal media is not pushing for our troops to be brought home? Same for House & Senate. Pentagon, Dempsey and those peacocks? It's all about somebody's relative/connection and the Almighty Dollar!
I have a question which has been bothering this former Marine for some time and which I'm sure will raise some controversy, but here goes;
Why, given that we are operating with an all volunteer military, does anyone volunteer to serve under a Commander in Chief like Obama - a man who obviously doesn't even comprehend the mindset which resulted in the heroism which made this Country great in the first place? A man whose obvious intent is to cripple our economy with programs designed to frustrate individual initiative by "spreading the wealth" and, with reference to military personnel in harms way, burdening them with rules of engagement that do nothing but place them in greater danger and thwart their efforts to efficiently do their duty? Why do people volunteer to serve in a situation like that which prevails in this Country under this administration today? Do they buy the reasoning that we are bringing Democracy to tribal areas of the world who obviously have centuries to go before they are even, if ever, mentally able to grasp the concept of Democratic rule? Can someone explain to me why our young people risk death - and in many cases worse than death maiming - carrying out the Obama agenda? An agenda obviously geared toward enfeebling our Constitution by making it subservient to UN rule and a global hierarchy which is the antithesis of what our Founders gave us in our Constitution. I'm just curious. Why does anyone join the military today, voluntarily, when doing so places them in the position of supporting a regime whose main agenda is to weaken our Constitution and "radically change" our Country? I'm just asking as I don't get it?
Why did the US send in troops to rescue an American Aide worker when we would not send troops in to Libya to rescue an Ambassador and US Seals?????????????????????????????????? Something is wrong with this folks, very wrong. Not that the Doctor did not need help however, the US has hands off for Americans traveling the world.
Something really smells here.
you are so right that thing in the white house is just loving the death of are troops and ambassadors
But, before we go, could we just launch a series of nukes and make a huge asphalt sparking lot of the entire fucking
area?