You have to read the article, jam, it is about Bush's reluctance to nation-build in Afghanistan.
He didn't want to and so he didn't.
Not really a stretch to point that out.
I did read the article, Gramps.
Contrary to repeated claims that the Iraq war did not deprive Afghan forces of necessary resources, the Army's history shows that the Bush administration "hamstrung" forces in the country, according to The New York Times.
...
However, "after the invasion [of Iraq] started in March 2003, the history says, the United States clearly 'had a very limited ability to increase its forces' in Afghanistan," the Times noted.
That is what I am responding to. Perhaps you should read the article yourself?
Yeah, that is the one all right.
So how do these facts (and they are certainly undeniable facts) have anything to do with your rebuttal to my assertion that Bush didn't do nation building there by making a totally irrelevant (to the matter at hand) comment about what Obama is doing now?
Unless it is your point of view that whether or not Bush did nation building from 2002-2009 depends on what someone else is doing later. 
In other words, I don't get your point.
So how do these facts (and they are certainly undeniable facts) have anything to do with your rebuttal to my assertion that Bush didn't do nation building there by making a totally irrelevant (to the matter at hand) comment about what Obama is doing now?
They don't, and I never claimed they did. The question is, why do you imagine that they do? I was merely pointing out that the claim that Bush (intentionally or otherwise) hamstrung reinforcements in Afghanistan is false, because Obama has no issue reinforcing Afghanistan, and the situation in Iraq hasn't changed at all.
I would also point out that we never went to Afghanistan with any intention of nation-building, we merely wanted Al Q'aida and Osama bin Laden. So it is hardly any surprise we didn't do any nation-building.
You are entitled to your opinion, but the official US Army history of the time period shows what most of us saw, which is that Bush starved the war in Afghanistan for resources in favor of the war in Iraq.
What Obama does or does not do now is totally beside the point.
Also your point that Iraq is no different now than it was earlier in the decade is bizarre bordering on alternative reality.
Now you are just making statements clearly separate from reality. The number of troops in Iraq today is not significantly different than the number of troops there when Bush left office. Obama has not pulled us out of Iraq, or even significantly reduced the number of individuals in Iraq (another promise he has yet to keep). So quit ignoring my question, if Iraq is eating up so much of our supplies and troops, where are the extra seventeen thousand Obama is going to send to Afghanistan coming from? It is a simple question, and if you have access to "official US Army history" (which really means troop and equipment manifests), it should be simply to disprove me.
There were no American combat deaths in December 2009 in Iraq. Zero, for the first time ever.
Now, are you still sticking with your point that nothing has changed there?
Now, are you still sticking with your point that nothing has changed there?
Okay, what the fuck are you talking about? I never said nothing has changed in Iraq. Even more, what the hell does the number of American combat deaths in Iraq in the month of December have to do with the availability of resources to send to Afghanistan that Obama has access to that Bush does not?
This is my last statement to you until you answer the question you've been trying to dodge. If Iraq is eating up so much of our supplies and troops, where are the extra seventeen thousand Obama is going to send to Afghanistan coming from?
I couldn't find a more recent link ... but as of June 2009 - under Obama the number of contractors in Afghanistan and Iraq increased by 23% to a whopping 242,657 contractors working on these two US wars
I would think this number if anything would have increased the last two quarters of 2009.
Yes, you did (10 07:18 this thread, just a couple of responses above this one)
"The situation in Iraq hasn't changed at all.
You are taking that statement out of context, and you know it. Furthermore, it doesn't changed what I said in my last comment. Your statement is irrelevant to the conversation we are having. Obama has not decreased the number of troops in Iraq, nor has he reduced the supplies needed to maintain the force. These are facts. So answer my question, quit dodging. If Iraq is eating up so much of our supplies and troops, where are the extra seventeen thousand Obama is going to send to Afghanistan coming from?
Move over neocons ...neolibs are here, now that Obama is commander in chief.
The Urban Dictionary has a definition of 'neolib'
... so I guess neolibs have been around for sometime now.
While not a liberal, I did not like GW very much either.
Actually neocons are an offshoot of liberalism. They got tired of the patiently-leading-by-example routine that sought to encourage liberal institutions in third world countries (institutions like rule-of-law, representative government, freedom of expression, etc.), so they started a new school of thought that felt that you could compel the evolution of modernity at gunpoint.
jammer170
Right, because those seventeen thousand plus troops Obama just committed to Afghanistan, he pulled those out of his ass, did he? Obama sure as hell didn't pull them out of Iraq.