debate?

there is a "battle" going on in obama's cabinet over the war in afghanistan. for purposes of brevity, we shall refer to these fuckheads as "warmongers a" and "warmongers b" , or "wa" and "wb" for short.

wa want a troop increase. apparently, not enough people are dying in afghanistan to suit their taste. these cabinet members don't seem to realize that many of our soldiers are only in it for the college benefits. for these fellows, a policy that doesn't work must be extended, so it can not work even more. if only the soviets had sent more troops into the afghan trap, perhaps their people would still have free health care today.

wb don't want to send more troops. rather, they want to send more drones. they too, don't believe enough people are dying in afghanistan. wb would prefer to kill from thousands of feet in the air, leading to massive civilian casualties but little in the way of american deaths.

the "debate," it seems, is between killing from the ground or killing from the air. there is not one cabinet member in this so called debate who is opposed to the senseless destruction of a nation already destroyed. what kind of debate is it when both sides are pro-war? this is not a debate, but a difference of opinion in regards to tactics. it is continuation of a bipartisan foreign policy, which means death to untold numbers from either democratic or republican administrations.

so, who will obama listen to? will he send more troops or more drones? perhaps he will agree with both sides and send both. wouldn't that be fine? for, we don't want to fight this war with one hand tied behind our backs. we don't want to leave our boys out to dry, especially after leaving them out to dry.

oh, i love a good debate.

sadly, they happen so rarely.