34,000

34,000 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tazzygirl -> 34,000 (11/24/2009 4:11:15 PM)
Thats how many more are being sent to Afghanistan. Barack Obama is expected to send 34,000 more US troops to Afghanistan when he unveils his long-awaited strategy for the Afghan conflict next Tuesday, US media reports said today. The Politico website said the US president would make a prime time address to the American people to announce his plans for what he has described as "a war of necessity". Just as significant as the number of troops, however, will be pointers to a US exit strategy – something that will be closely watched by the British government, which is under public pressure to withdraw 9,000 UK troops from Afghanistan http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/24/barack-obama-us-troops-afghanistan Thoughts?

LadyEllen -> RE: 34,000 (11/24/2009 4:13:42 PM)
My only thoughts are despairing, with the one bright glimmer being a hope that they all come home again safely afterwards, however many and wherever from. E

Politesub53 -> RE: 34,000 (11/24/2009 4:15:58 PM)
They could send a million troops, what they really need is a strategy for a stable nation. That wont happen with a corrupt government. The question that needs to be asked is do we persevere, and if so then we must send the troops and equipment needed, or do we let them get on with it. In which case we are back to square one.

tazzygirl -> RE: 34,000 (11/24/2009 4:17:52 PM)
I know. Im mixed about this. Do we leave? Is that saying the deaths to date were for nothing? Do we stay and risk more? Im going to ask a serious, even if some think its dumb, question. Why are we there?

Politesub53 -> RE: 34,000 (11/24/2009 4:26:05 PM)
The reason for going in was missed. Tora Bora was a screw up to a degree. AQ slipped over the border. The Iraq war took away men and material, making the job in Afghanistan nigh on impossible.

popeye1250 -> RE: 34,000 (11/24/2009 4:26:21 PM)
Has anyone bothered to tell Obama that bin laden is in Pakistan?

slvemike4u -> RE: 34,000 (11/24/2009 4:27:00 PM)
Short answer Tazzy......9/11.

tazzygirl -> RE: 34,000 (11/24/2009 4:31:56 PM)
And Iraq was because of Saddam. I cant help but feel we are no closer to a resolution then we were when we first went in to either country.

Politesub53 -> RE: 34,000 (11/24/2009 4:34:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Short answer Tazzy......9/11. Initially yes Mike. Since AQ have slipped across the border, what next ? Popeye, even your own state department say Bin Laden is most likely dead.

slvemike4u -> RE: 34,000 (11/24/2009 4:48:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Short answer Tazzy......9/11. Initially yes Mike. Since AQ have slipped across the border, what next ? Popeye, even your own state department say Bin Laden is most likely dead. Polite,Tazzy asked why we were there...I answered that question......given my posting history,I didn't think it was necessary for me to restate the obvious ....that Bush/Cheney screwed up the prosecution of that mission by the numbers ...when they took their eyes off the ball(binLaden)and started glancing furtively at Sadamm But there I've said it.......when I get my usual hate mail I will refer them to you [:D]

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: 34,000 (11/24/2009 4:57:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl I know. Im mixed about this. Do we leave? Is that saying the deaths to date were for nothing? Do we stay and risk more? Im going to ask a serious, even if some think its dumb, question. Why are we there? It's not about bin Laden anymore, and it's not about al Qaeda. It's about Pakistan. They've got close to 100 nuclear warheads, and an increasingly unstable and unpopular government. And a sizable portion of their senior military officers are sympathetic to Islamic fundamentalists. If the Taliban is allowed to retake control of Afghanistan, there is a danger that having a jihadist republic on their border could destabilize the government even further and risk putting those nukes into the hands of jihadists. I'm not saying I agree with his strategy, but what Obama is trying to do at this point is prevent that nightmare from coming true.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: 34,000 (11/24/2009 5:00:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Short answer Tazzy......9/11. Initially yes Mike. Since AQ have slipped across the border, what next ? Popeye, even your own state department say Bin Laden is most likely dead. They've said that many times, yet he keeps cranking out video tapes. Personally, I think it's just PR. Bush wanted to pretend he was dead so they didn't look quite so stupid for invading Iraq instead of catching him, and now Obama wants to pretend he's dead so they don't look so stupid for not being able to catch him themselves. I won't believe it until I see the obituary in the paper.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: 34,000 (11/24/2009 5:01:23 PM)
And that nightmare will come true, at the loss of far more lives than were lost in Iraq, unless someone realizes that a ground war in Afghanistan is unwinnable.

tazzygirl -> RE: 34,000 (11/24/2009 5:03:57 PM)
Thank you Panda. If my questions sound silly, i dont mean them to be. Between surgeries, moving, changing jobs and the health care debate, im woefully behind on my war facts. I thought the Taliban were already back in power. Did i miss something?

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: 34,000 (11/24/2009 5:04:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy And that nightmare will come true, at the loss of far more lives than were lost in Iraq, unless someone realizes that a ground war in Afghanistan is unwinnable. I fear you are entirely correct, and see no reason at all to believe otherwise. We can not possibly put enough troops into Afghanistan to stabilize the country through conventional military means. And I have no idea what the answer is.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: 34,000 (11/24/2009 5:05:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy And that nightmare will come true, at the loss of far more lives than were lost in Iraq, unless someone realizes that a ground war in Afghanistan is unwinnable. I fear you are entirely correct, and see no reason at all to believe otherwise. We can not possibly put enough troops into Afghanistan to stabilize the country through conventional military means. And I have no idea what the answer is. I think you know the answer, but you dont think the ends justify the means.

mefisto69 -> RE: 34,000 (11/24/2009 5:09:54 PM)
why continue to put troops in harms way? Use muniitons and turn the mountains to dust > 24/7 bombing runs...... dump all our old crap there - then on the poppy fields and whereever the drones spot a likely training camp.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: 34,000 (11/24/2009 5:18:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Thank you Panda. If my questions sound silly, i dont mean them to be. Between surgeries, moving, changing jobs and the health care debate, im woefully behind on my war facts. I thought the Taliban were already back in power. Did i miss something? Well, they control much of the country, but they don't really control the country. That is, they control large geographical regions of Afghanistan, but they aren't the government anymore. Yet. If they regain control of the entire country, their ability to influence and destabilize Pakistan's government will grow exponentially. It's very much in our interest to do whatever we can to keep them from gaining any more power than they already have, by whatever means is necessary. I'm just not at all convinced that the means we seem to have chosen is the best available tactic.

DarkSteven -> RE: 34,000 (11/24/2009 5:23:17 PM)
I want to hear what the endpoint and exit strategy is. I've wanted to hear that for years.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: 34,000 (11/24/2009 5:23:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy And that nightmare will come true, at the loss of far more lives than were lost in Iraq, unless someone realizes that a ground war in Afghanistan is unwinnable. I fear you are entirely correct, and see no reason at all to believe otherwise. We can not possibly put enough troops into Afghanistan to stabilize the country through conventional military means. And I have no idea what the answer is. I think you know the answer, but you dont think the ends justify the means. If you're saying what i think you're saying, it's not even feasible. If you're talking about nukes, you'd essentially have to nuke every Islamic country on the planet, because in their eyes we would be declaring war on all Islam. I think Mefisto is a lot closer to the reality of the situation. High tech, standoff weapons to harass and destroy any trace of Taliban infrastructure may be the way to suppress them. I don't know if that would be enough, though. The theory didn't seem to work very well against the Viet Cong.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

3.198242E-02