No Problem With The Speech

VaYank and I have BOTH expressed our disagreement with sending more troops to Afghanistan - it also appears that we BOTH oppose BS, bumper-sticker mentality, political smear-mongering.

Got some substantial? Got anything to back it up? Let's hear it. Got nothing but empty rhetoric and/or slogans? You're gonna hear from us.
 
Last edited:
The original desire of McCrystal was 140,000 troops. He was told to modify that request by the administration; that he could not even hope for more than 40,000. They will give him 30,000.

It's a death sentence for our troops there, combined with the promise to have us out of there on a certain date (hey, close to election time, go figure). Instead of sending troops to actually solve the problem, he's just sending a few to keep them busy and kill them (by them I mean our guys) off so he can proclaim it a defeat and be hailed as a savior when he finally brings the poor souls he refused to help back.

The military DESPISES Obama. And this is why. He's willing to set them up for death and failure for his political purposes.

I have to agree with this post. My reasoning is this. While I support the Presidents decision to send more troops over there, his strategy is doomed to failure. You can't go in and secure a few population centers and leave the rest of the country out there hanging. What the Taliban are going to do is play hopscotch with the troops for a while and then disappear around the time Obama said we would begin withdrawing. Obama will claim "victory", the Taliban will be hiding in Pakistan until all of our combat forces are out and then re-enter Afghanistan. The Pakistanis will NOT do anything about their western frontier or the Al Qaeda terrorists who hide there...this is a given. Bin Laden will not be captured nor will Zawahiri or Mullah Omar. Looks like we will be going back there in about 5-10 years after we leave. Hopefully we will have a President with a backbone then.

Overwhelming force is what's needed. I would say at least 200,000 combat troops to smash the Taliban and Waziristan...Obama said if he had actionable intel he would invade Pakistan...well...all we have heard for the last 2 fricken years is Al Qaeda and the Taliban fugitives are all hiding in Pakistan...what the fuck is he waiting for?
 
The original desire of McCrystal was 140,000 troops. He was told to modify that request by the administration; that he could not even hope for more than 40,000. They will give him 30,000.

No, you dope! McCrystal's original request was for 40,000 - to bring our troop levels to 140,000!

It's a death sentence for our troops there,

How is it a death sentence? Because the Taliban outnumber our troops? Oh wait, no they don't. We outnumber them 18:1!

combined with the promise to have us out of there on a certain date (hey, close to election time, go figure). Instead of sending troops to actually solve the problem, he's just sending a few to keep them busy and kill them (by them I mean our guys) off so he can proclaim it a defeat and be hailed as a savior when he finally brings the poor souls he refused to help back.

Is that your faith in our military? That our military is so terrible that the Taliban is just going to kill them all to keep them busy?

But wait a minute, below your post, you say the Taliban is just going lie low and wait for us to leave. Which is it??

The military DESPISES Obama. And this is why. He's willing to set them up for death and failure for his political purposes.

It's irrelevant what the military thinks of Obama. He is the commander in chief. They listen to him or they dont have a job.
 
VaYank and I have BOTH expressed our disagreement with sending more troops to Afghanistan - it also appears that we BOTH oppose BS, bumper-sticker mentality, political smear-mongering.

Got some substantial? Got anything to back it up? Let's hear it. Got nothing but empty rhetoric and/or slogans? You're gonna hear from us.

scared.jpg


You 2 sound like Butch and Royne from "The Little Rascals".
butch.jpg
 
Last edited:
No, you dope! McCrystal's original request was for 40,000 - to bring our troop levels to 140,000!
I thought we have 68,000 there now. Plus 40,000 would be 108,000?
But I'm willing to look at whatever anyone can produce on the numbers.

I've asked Allie repeatedly to supply the source of his/her numbers to no avail. I personally don't find undocumented "facts" and unsupported crystal ball assesments and speculations very persuasive.
 
No, you dope! McCrystal's original request was for 40,000 - to bring our troop levels to 140,000!
I thought we have 68,000 there now. Plus 40,000 would be 108,000?
But I'm willing to look at whatever anyone can produce on the numbers.

I've asked Allie repeatedly to supply the source of his/her numbers to no avail. I personally don't find undocumented "facts" and unsupported crystal ball assesments and speculations very persuasive.

We're not the only military force there.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article6884743.ece
140,000 troops are not enough | Pakistan | News | Newspaper | Daily | English | Online
 
No, you dope! McCrystal's original request was for 40,000 - to bring our troop levels to 140,000!
I thought we have 68,000 there now. Plus 40,000 would be 108,000?
But I'm willing to look at whatever anyone can produce on the numbers.

I've asked Allie repeatedly to supply the source of his/her numbers to no avail. I personally don't find undocumented "facts" and unsupported crystal ball assesments and speculations very persuasive.

We're not the only military force there.

Nato expected to back General McChrystal’s call for more troops in Afghanistan - Times Online
140,000 troops are not enough | Pakistan | News | Newspaper | Daily | English | Online

I see - I was confining my remarks to U.S. troops there. Thanks for the clarification.
 
And because there's a date on it, the terrorists will just bide their time until we leave, then engage in whole-sale slaughter.

Yes and no

Yes--there is politics in setting a timeline.

No--the terrorists will continue to be terrorists regardless.

The main idea of not setting a timeline is due to the concept that no one knows what is going to happen next, not "it aids the terrorists". The whole "it aids the terrorists" line was mostly for politics. To keep the Reactionaries looking forward to war while covering up the fact that the Administration was winging it the whole time.

Of course, no one ask "what is victory? What is a satisfying resolution to the Afganistan War?" I think it has more to do with a battle plan that involves waiting for the terrorists to take the field and fight our soldiers like men. (You ask alot from the enemy in those regards. Our soldiers will martyr them!!) Or that you can sit our army over there and wait until something substantial occurs. Then the terrorists only need to relie on guerilla tactics and try to wear our military down.


The timeline is to announce to the public that we do not plan to stay in Afganistan forever. Some Reactionaries may think staying forever makes sense, but the high cost of the war/nation building is not a feasible concept for long periods of time. 9 years of Afganistan is long enough, right?
 
I read his orgional request was for 40,000 also. He will get 30,000 and with 10,000 from the Euros that will make his 40,000.

Since he only has 18 months he better get crackin.
 
I read his orgional request was for 40,000 also. He will get 30,000 and with 10,000 from the Euros that will make his 40,000.

Since he only has 18 months he better get crackin.

Yes, McChrystal's request was for the new deployments to begin in early 2010 and while that is pushing things - the DoD has responded that they are confident they can comply.
 
I read his orgional request was for 40,000 also. He will get 30,000 and with 10,000 from the Euros that will make his 40,000.

Since he only has 18 months he better get crackin.

Yes, McChrystal's request was for the new deployments to begin in early 2010 and while that is pushing things - the DoD has responded that they are confident they can comply.

I have all the confidence in the world that our military can get the job done. We have the greatest military on the planet and we're not going to let a bunch of thugs run us out of Afghanistan.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top