Why?

[nodoginnafight]

So, all of the Jihadists in Afghanistan are dead. WHY was Bush still escalating troop levels then? Oh, and IF Bush had built such a strong coalition, why did they back out on their troop level promises?

"Oh why?...what if?...if!....why?".....now your playing games and trying to armchair quaterback a conflict you have no idea about....please.....we can all sit here all fricken day and second guess every decision made since the beginning of time...what point does it serve?

ACTUALLY, what I am TRYING to do is get you to back up your claims. You CLAIM that Bush has been steadily increasing troop levels in Afghnaistan since 2002. Yet, you also claim that the US declared victory over the Taliban in late 2002. Why would we continue to increase troop levels in a territory where the enemy has been wiped out? Additionally, you claim that Bush had built a colaition in Afghanistan, but in the same breath lash out at said coaliation for not sending the required troops. Again, if the Taliban were defeated, why would coalition forces need to send more troops?

I'll help PP out. What the Bush administration declared "victory" on was the fact that the Taliban was ousted from political positions in late 2001. But the Taliban remains a potent military force in Afghanistan.
Not that the Bush Administration would ever be guilty of a premature "mission accomplished."

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Troop levels have been steadily INCREASING over the course of the entire Afghanistan conflict,

Wrong.

You have a great day too.

Are you trying to tell me the troop levels in Afghanistan didn't increase from 2001 to 2009...AFTER I POSTED CONCRETE PROOF THAT THEY DID????


Now...you need to restate the facts as they exist in reality....not liberal utopia....otherwise I will be forced to embarras you. You make the call.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

"Oh why?...what if?...if!....why?".....now your playing games and trying to armchair quaterback a conflict you have no idea about....please.....we can all sit here all fricken day and second guess every decision made since the beginning of time...what point does it serve?

ACTUALLY, what I am TRYING to do is get you to back up your claims. You CLAIM that Bush has been steadily increasing troop levels in Afghnaistan since 2002. Yet, you also claim that the US declared victory over the Taliban in late 2002. Why would we continue to increase troop levels in a territory where the enemy has been wiped out? Additionally, you claim that Bush had built a colaition in Afghanistan, but in the same breath lash out at said coaliation for not sending the required troops. Again, if the Taliban were defeated, why would coalition forces need to send more troops?

I'll help PP out. What the Bush administration declared "victory" on was the fact that the Taliban was ousted from political positions in late 2001. But the Taliban remains a potent military force in Afghanistan.
Not that the Bush Administration would ever be guilty of a premature "mission accomplished."

WRONG!!! None of you hacks read the links I posted...from liberal sites I might add!!!

 

[nodoginnafight]

Troop levels have been steadily INCREASING over the course of the entire Afghanistan conflict,

Wrong.

You have a great day too.

Are you trying to tell me the troop levels in Afghanistan didn't increase from 2001 to 2009...AFTER I POSTED CONCRETE PROOF THAT THEY DID????


Now...you need to restate the facts as they exist in reality....not liberal utopia....otherwise I will be forced to embarras you. You make the call.

I'm telling you that troop levels did not STEADILY increase from 2001-2009 as you claimed and as you ironically posted concrete proof that they did not.

Are you changing your statement now - or are you going to continue to just be wrong?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

ACTUALLY, what I am TRYING to do is get you to back up your claims. You CLAIM that Bush has been steadily increasing troop levels in Afghnaistan since 2002. Yet, you also claim that the US declared victory over the Taliban in late 2002. Why would we continue to increase troop levels in a territory where the enemy has been wiped out? Additionally, you claim that Bush had built a colaition in Afghanistan, but in the same breath lash out at said coaliation for not sending the required troops. Again, if the Taliban were defeated, why would coalition forces need to send more troops?

I don't have to back up SHIT!!!! I posted links for you 2 to read!!!! Why this...why that...

1st bold statement...HOW THE FUCK SHOULD I KNOW...I didn't write the Afghanistan strategy for Bush.
2nd bold statement.. " " " " " ".....I'm not in charge of NATO!

 

[Titanic Sailor]

I think you are crazy to have any US troops deployed overseas, never mind in conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan, with a clown Democrat administration running the show. They are the only folks who could possibly be worse than Bush.

Yeeeehaaa!

 

[saveliberty]

Troop levels have been steadily INCREASING over the course of the entire Afghanistan conflict,

Wrong.

You have a great day too.

Are you trying to tell me the troop levels in Afghanistan didn't increase from 2001 to 2009...AFTER I POSTED CONCRETE PROOF THAT THEY DID????


Now...you need to restate the facts as they exist in reality....not liberal utopia....otherwise I will be forced to embarras you. You make the call.

PatekPhillippe, you included the word steadily in front of increased. The chart shows that the number went up and down over time. There was a year by year steady increase, but not month to month. It is right there in the graph.

Regardless, even at 100,000 troops, there are not enough to control the entire country or even all the Taliban hotspots. So how does Obama plan to actually make his plan succeed? My guess is he will act surprised in early 2012 and promise to withdraw all troops if reelected.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Wrong.

You have a great day too.

Are you trying to tell me the troop levels in Afghanistan didn't increase from 2001 to 2009...AFTER I POSTED CONCRETE PROOF THAT THEY DID????


Now...you need to restate the facts as they exist in reality....not liberal utopia....otherwise I will be forced to embarras you. You make the call.

I'm telling you that troop levels did not STEADILY increase from 2001-2009 as you claimed and as you ironically posted concrete proof that they did not.

Are you changing your statement now - or are you going to continue to just be wrong?

Post the troop levels in 2001 and the troop levels in 2009....never mind....obviously you're too ignorant to admit it when YOU are wrong!!!!!! I'll do it for you...

Nov. 2001...1300
Dec. 2001...2500
Jan. 2002...4067
Feb. 2002...5633
Mar. 2002...7200
Apr. 2002...7425
May 2002...7650
Jun. 2002...7875
Jul. 2002...8100
Aug. 2002...8567
Sep. 2002...9033
Oct. 2002...9500
Nov. 2002...9500
Dec. 2002...9700
Jan. 2003...9600
Feb. 2003...9600
Mar. 2003...9500
Apr. 2003...9300
May 2003...9800
Jun. 2003...9900
Jul. 2003...9800
Aug. 2003...10100
Sep. 2003...9700
Oct. 2003...10400
Nov. 2003...12000
Dec. 2003...13100
Jan. 2004...13600
Feb. 2004...12300
Mar. 2004...14000
Apr. 2004...20300
May 2004...17700
Jun. 2004...17800
Jul. 2004...17300
Aug. 2004...15800
Sep. 2004...16600
Oct. 2004...16100
Nov. 2004...15800
Dec. 2004...16700
Jan. 2005...17200
Feb. 2005...17300
Mar. 2005...19000
Apr. 2005...19500
May 2005...18000
Jun. 2005...18200
Jul. 2005...17900
Aug. 2005...17900
Sep. 2005...17500
Oct. 2005...17800
Nov. 2005...17400
Dec. 2005...17800
Jan. 2006...19700
Feb. 2006...22600
Mar. 2006...22900
Apr. 2006...23300
May 2006...22000
Jun. 2006...22000
Jul. 2006...21000
Aug. 2006...19700
Sep. 2006...20400
Oct. 2006...20800
Nov. 2006...20400
Dec. 2006...22100
Jan. 2007...26000
Feb. 2007...25200
Mar. 2007...24300
Apr. 2007...24100
May 2007...26500
Jun. 2007...23700
Jul. 2007...23800
Aug. 2007...24000
Sep. 2007...24500
Oct. 2007...24800
Nov. 2007...24700
Dec. 2007...24700
Jan. 2008...27500
Feb. 2008...27000
Mar. 2008...30500
Apr. 2008...32500
May 2008...31300
Jun. 2008...30700
Jul. 2008...33700
Aug. 2008...31700
Sep. 2008...32400
Oct. 2008...32400
Nov. 2008...30853
Dec. 2008...31800
Jan. 2009...34400

So...using fucktard logic....it looks like Bush INCREASED TROOP LEVELS IN AFGHANISTAN A TOTAL OF 3 TIMES IN 2001, 10 TIMES IN 2002, 6 TIMES IN 2003, 6 TIMES IN 2004, 7 TIMES IN 2005, 7 TIMES IN 2006, 6 TIMES IN 2007, 6 TIMES IN 2008 AND ONCE IN 2009.

Looks like a steady build up of forces for a NET GAIN OF 33100 troops between 2001 and 2009.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Wrong.

You have a great day too.

Are you trying to tell me the troop levels in Afghanistan didn't increase from 2001 to 2009...AFTER I POSTED CONCRETE PROOF THAT THEY DID????


Now...you need to restate the facts as they exist in reality....not liberal utopia....otherwise I will be forced to embarras you. You make the call.

PatekPhillippe, you included the word steadily in front of increased. The chart shows that the number went up and down over time. There was a year by year steady increase, but not month to month. It is right there in the graph.

Regardless, even at 100,000 troops, there are not enough to control the entire country or even all the Taliban hotspots. So how does Obama plan to actually make his plan succeed? My guess is he will act surprised in early 2012 and promise to withdraw all troops if reelected.

Why don't we break it down to troop levels by the fucking minute and SPLIT SOME MORE FUCKING HAIRS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[saveliberty]

Are you trying to tell me the troop levels in Afghanistan didn't increase from 2001 to 2009...AFTER I POSTED CONCRETE PROOF THAT THEY DID????


Now...you need to restate the facts as they exist in reality....not liberal utopia....otherwise I will be forced to embarras you. You make the call.

PatekPhillippe, you included the word steadily in front of increased. The chart shows that the number went up and down over time. There was a year by year steady increase, but not month to month. It is right there in the graph.

Regardless, even at 100,000 troops, there are not enough to control the entire country or even all the Taliban hotspots. So how does Obama plan to actually make his plan succeed? My guess is he will act surprised in early 2012 and promise to withdraw all troops if reelected.

Why don't we break it down to troop levels by the fucking minute and SPLIT SOME MORE FUCKING HAIRS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PatekPhillipe, I'm on your side, just trying to explain the different view.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

PatekPhillippe, you included the word steadily in front of increased. The chart shows that the number went up and down over time. There was a year by year steady increase, but not month to month. It is right there in the graph.

Regardless, even at 100,000 troops, there are not enough to control the entire country or even all the Taliban hotspots. So how does Obama plan to actually make his plan succeed? My guess is he will act surprised in early 2012 and promise to withdraw all troops if reelected.

Why don't we break it down to troop levels by the fucking minute and SPLIT SOME MORE FUCKING HAIRS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PatekPhillipe, I'm on your side, just trying to explain the different view.

He was just sticking up for a fellow liberal...he knew he had no case. They were buddies on the MSN Politics board....notice how they ran away from the thread when it was shot down in flames.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I voted for Obama. I still support many of his initiatives. HOWEVER, can someone please explain to me WHY we need to send more troops to Afghanistan. I CANNOT see us winning anything there. Based on our best intelliegince, Osama Bin Laden is no longer there, but rather in Pakistan. Besides more deaths, and more billions of dollars spent, what good is goiing to come from this?

IF we want to wipe out all the taliban, fight the war WITHOUT tying our hands behind our backs (that means yes we end up killing civilans and wiping out villages), then I say definately send more troops and do it right.

If we are not going to go all out to secure the country and irradicate any taliban/al-q remnants than I say just pull the troops out and bring them home to station on our northern and southern borders.

EDIT: What good is going to come of it?
1) The millions of people of afghanistan could live under a democratic style government that they have a say in instead of a dictatorship style one such as under the taliban

2) People who may want to harm American and European citizens wouldn't have a base of operations like they did before.

I'm sure i could think up other things if you want.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Are you trying to tell me the troop levels in Afghanistan didn't increase from 2001 to 2009...AFTER I POSTED CONCRETE PROOF THAT THEY DID????


Now...you need to restate the facts as they exist in reality....not liberal utopia....otherwise I will be forced to embarras you. You make the call.

PatekPhillippe, you included the word steadily in front of increased. The chart shows that the number went up and down over time. There was a year by year steady increase, but not month to month. It is right there in the graph.

Regardless, even at 100,000 troops, there are not enough to control the entire country or even all the Taliban hotspots. So how does Obama plan to actually make his plan succeed? My guess is he will act surprised in early 2012 and promise to withdraw all troops if reelected.

Why don't we break it down to troop levels by the fucking minute and SPLIT SOME MORE FUCKING HAIRS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don't get mad at everyone else just because YOU posted something that isn't true. Just take personal responsibility for your own mistake and move on. It wasn't a big deal or a big distinction - If you had just been big enough to admit the mistake on the front end, all would have been forgiven/forgotten long ago.

But by trying to deny it, rationalize it, spin it .... YOU turned it into a bigger deal. Even vulgarity doesn't suddenly transform your post into a correct statement.

 

[nodoginnafight]

... killing civilans and wiping out villages, then I say definately send more troops and do it right.

We have different defintions of what "doing it right" means. Colateral damage is inevitable in war - reckless disregard for innocent bystanders is not. IMHO - The line isn't that fine. And if you are suggesting that an inordinate concern for civilian casualties is what is bogging us down in Afghanistan - I believe you are mistaken.

Indescriminately leveling villages is going to drive local support away from us and toward the Taliban. Very bad strategy.

 

[goldcatt]

I voted for Obama. I still support many of his initiatives. HOWEVER, can someone please explain to me WHY we need to send more troops to Afghanistan. I CANNOT see us winning anything there. Based on our best intelliegince, Osama Bin Laden is no longer there, but rather in Pakistan. Besides more deaths, and more billions of dollars spent, what good is goiing to come from this?

IF we want to wipe out all the taliban, fight the war WITHOUT tying our hands behind our backs (that means yes we end up killing civilans and wiping out villages), then I say definately send more troops and do it right.

If we are not going to go all out to secure the country and irradicate any taliban/al-q remnants than I say just pull the troops out and bring them home to station on our northern and southern borders.

EDIT: What good is going to come of it?
1) The millions of people of afghanistan could live under a democratic style government that they have a say in instead of a dictatorship style one such as under the taliban

2) People who may want to harm American and European citizens wouldn't have a base of operations like they did before.

I'm sure i could think up other things if you want.

Sorry Pilgrim, but I have two problems with your points here. First, why is it up to us to spend our blood and treasure setting up democracy (small-d) in a place where there has never been what could be called a functioning nation to begin with? And second, do you advocate sending in troops to every hole in the wall worldwide that could harbor folks who may want to harm Westerners?

Face it, we missed our chance to meet our objectives in Afghanistan. If there's a clear objective left to achieve worth our young men and women bleeding for and us sinking deeper into debt for I'll listen, but until and unless I hear one fast I'll support getting us out. Not in deeper.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

... killing civilans and wiping out villages, then I say definately send more troops and do it right.

We have different defintions of what "doing it right" means. Colateral damage is inevitable in war - reckless disregard for innocent bystanders is not. IMHO - The line isn't that fine. And if you are suggesting that an inordinate concern for civilian casualties is what is bogging us down in Afghanistan - I believe you are mistaken.

Indescriminately leveling villages is going to drive local support away from us and toward the Taliban. Very bad strategy.

Nice context

What did you take a job over at fox news or something?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I voted for Obama. I still support many of his initiatives. HOWEVER, can someone please explain to me WHY we need to send more troops to Afghanistan. I CANNOT see us winning anything there. Based on our best intelliegince, Osama Bin Laden is no longer there, but rather in Pakistan. Besides more deaths, and more billions of dollars spent, what good is goiing to come from this?

IF we want to wipe out all the taliban, fight the war WITHOUT tying our hands behind our backs (that means yes we end up killing civilans and wiping out villages), then I say definately send more troops and do it right.

If we are not going to go all out to secure the country and irradicate any taliban/al-q remnants than I say just pull the troops out and bring them home to station on our northern and southern borders.

EDIT: What good is going to come of it?
1) The millions of people of afghanistan could live under a democratic style government that they have a say in instead of a dictatorship style one such as under the taliban

2) People who may want to harm American and European citizens wouldn't have a base of operations like they did before.

I'm sure i could think up other things if you want.

Sorry Pilgrim, but I have two problems with your points here. First, why is it up to us to spend our blood and treasure setting up democracy (small-d) in a place where there has never been what could be called a functioning nation to begin with? And second, do you advocate sending in troops to every hole in the wall worldwide that could harbor folks who may want to harm Westerners?

Face it, we missed our chance to meet our objectives in Afghanistan. If there's a clear objective left to achieve worth our young men and women bleeding for and us sinking deeper into debt for I'll listen, but until and unless I hear one fast I'll support getting us out. Not in deeper.

I dont think it is up to us, I'm a libertarian if I had my way we wouldn't have been fighting wars in other countries in the first place. After 9/11 we would have closed our borders and ports with shoot to kill orders and severly restricted immigration policies along with agressively pursuing people with expired work visas and the likeAs I just said above, No I do not. See Ron Paul's view of foreign policy

I dont really see a clear objective I was just playing within the confines of the OP's ideas.

If it was up to me we wouldn't waste money and blood fighting wars such as Iraq 1 and 2, afghanistan, and many others. I have lost friends in NY on 9/11, Iraq after bush went there, and Afghanistan as recently as this month. I know the cost of irresponsible wars too well which is why I said if we are going to actually fight a war we better not do it all half assed and nicely like we tried with Iraq and AFG....you go all out or stay home. Don't play politics with my friends, family, and fellow citizens like Bush and now Obama are doing.

 

[2Parties]

HOWEVER, can someone please explain to me WHY we need to send more troops to Afghanistan.

Because Obama said so.

 

[Titanic Sailor]

Well, if I'm reading the general consensus correctly:

Obama has completely screwed up Afghanistan on his own, has turned it into a drug war against poor people, and should be pulling our troops out of their yesterday, and should not be leading our troops.

All those in favor say Aye!



AYE!

 

[Dr Grump]

NATO NEVER stepped up to do their part..

Why should they have? Quite a few members didn't agree with the invasion....