• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama's Afghan Plan: About 40K More Troops

EpicDude86 said:
That reminds me of a quote from Misha in Mercenaries 2:

You have MOAB yet? Misha love to drop near ex-wives house. When dropped looks like nuke went off and scary the hell out of anyone within 1000 kilometers. Use if you have much hate inside.
Click to expand...
And I'm not talking about a bomb or two. I'm talking 24/7 dropping of MOABS on everything. Everything goes to Allah, including the mountain tops. They ain't gonna have enough virgins for what we're gonna send'em.
 
American said:
And I'm not talking about a bomb or two. I'm talking 24/7 dropping of MOABS on everything. Everything goes to Allah, including the mountain tops. They ain't gonna have enough virgins for what we're gonna send'em.
Click to expand...

Not true, we'll probably refresh their stockpile of virgins as well...humping goats and young boys does not remove virginity.
 
Yeah, I think the only way to beat them is to kill them all. These heathen strap bombs onto their children. There's nothing Scriptural about that.

Matthew 18:1": At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?

"2": And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,

"3": And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

"4": Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

"5": And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.

"6": But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

"7": Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
This is sarcasm, but just barely:

With respect to Afghanistan Obama should fly into Quetta, Baluchistan, Pakistan, meet with Mullah Omar of the Quetta Shura, sign the instrument of surrender, allow himself and the American Joint Chiefs of Staff to me bound, gagged, blindfolded and marched through the streets of Pakistani and Afghan cities as part of the victory celebration. That's as close as Obama is going to come to victory.
 
Albert Di Salvo said:
This is sarcasm, but just barely:

With respect to Afghanistan Obama should fly into Quetta, Baluchistan, Pakistan, meet with Mullah Omar of the Quetta Shura, sign the instrument of surrender, allow himself and the American Joint Chiefs of Staff to me bound, gagged, blindfolded and marched through the streets of Pakistani and Afghan cities as part of the victory celebration. That's as close as Obama is going to come to victory.
Click to expand...
You might be on to something. But I think Obama should kill Omar himself. Hahaha, pull out a 45 and give him one right through the head. Gutsy!
 
RightOfCenter said:
Active duty soldiers who are always in training to be deployed. It takes just about a year to prep a National Guard or Reserve unit for deployment.
Click to expand...

My Reserve unit only spent 2 months in pre-deployment.
 
Albert Di Salvo said:
This is sarcasm, but just barely:

With respect to Afghanistan Obama should fly into Quetta, Baluchistan, Pakistan, meet with Mullah Omar of the Quetta Shura, sign the instrument of surrender, allow himself and the American Joint Chiefs of Staff to me bound, gagged, blindfolded and marched through the streets of Pakistani and Afghan cities as part of the victory celebration. That's as close as Obama is going to come to victory.
Click to expand...

Well he did bow to that sheik guy...Obama might be up for this. He's got to EARN that Nobel Prize!!!
 
zimmer said:
I think Obama's plan for Afghanistan has been summed up well and in one word by Cheney: "Dithering". As in "dithering" idiot.



Trial balloon?

With these people, the troops are not sent until the troops are sent. It is difficult to believe anything this group says.

.
Click to expand...

ABOUT FACE!

This was too easy to predict.

Words, just words, and his words are not credible.

March, 2009.
All you have to do is listen up to the 2:45 mark.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QeXUHXBisM"]YouTube- Live: Obama's Afghanistan strategy unveiled 1 of 2[/ame]

.
 
Last edited:
Can you imagine the conversations among the soldiers in Afghanistan right now?

It's like having the Home Economics teacher coaching the football team.
 
Erod said:
Can you imagine the conversations among the soldiers in Afghanistan right now?

It's like having the Home Economics teacher coaching the football team.
Click to expand...

More like Fresh-Out-Of College Political Science graduate teaching a little bit of every class while acting as school Principal and putting in his own teachers where he sees fit?
 
Bush was the "Decider"

Obama is the "Undecider"
 
Erod said:
Can you imagine the conversations among the soldiers in Afghanistan right now?

It's like having the Home Economics teacher coaching the football team.
Click to expand...

I expect they are all hoping Obama will bring them home. Or do you think they prefer being targets for the Taliban with nothing to shoot at? Or is it that you just like the sound of the word "victory" and don't care how many troops die in pursuit of it?
 
WillRockwell said:
I expect they are all hoping Obama will bring them home. Or do you think they prefer being targets for the Taliban with nothing to shoot at? Or is it that you just like the sound of the word "victory" and don't care how many troops die in pursuit of it?
Click to expand...

If we come home we have to do it in a more honorable way than the Soviets did.
 
This must be a political point to make in here somewhere..40k isnt nearly enough.


Obama's war council debate


"Senior officials said that in order to fully force a COIN strategy of 20 to 25 troops per 1,000 residents in Afghanistan, there would have to be 600,000 U.S., NATO and Afghan troops and police"


Blow it up or build roads and schools. Its going to take 30 years for a change to take effect.
 
Last edited:
This best explains Obama's leadership style-

undecider.jpg
 
EpicDude86 said:
If we come home we have to do it in a more honorable way than the Soviets did.
Click to expand...

No we don't. It will be a teachable moment. What do you think will be the impact on the Obama Administration if American forces suffer a clear political and military defeat? The whole world must see Obama figuratively tuck his tail between his legs, slink away from the field of battle, abandon the women of Afghanistan to the mercies of monsters, and recant his mantra about the "War of Necessity." Obama must receive the full Bush treatment.
 
Albert Di Salvo said:
No we don't. It will be a teachable moment. What do you think will be the impact on the Obama Administration if American forces suffer a clear political and military defeat? The whole world must see Obama figuratively tuck his tail between his legs, slink away from the field of battle, abandon the women of Afghanistan to the mercies of monsters, and recant his mantra about the "War of Necessity." Obama must receive the full Bush treatment.
Click to expand...
It'll get blamed on Bush, and the Messiah walks, innocent on all charges.

epicdude86-albums-stuff-picture1149-messiah-and-mother-effinging-stallion-coming-out-nondescript-mid-west-america-river-bitch.jpg
 
akyron said:
This must be a political point to make in here somewhere..40k isnt nearly enough.


Obama's war council debate


"Senior officials said that in order to fully force a COIN strategy of 20 to 25 troops per 1,000 residents in Afghanistan, there would have to be 600,000 U.S., NATO and Afghan troops and police"


Blow it up or build roads and schools. Its going to take 30 years for a change to take effect.
Click to expand...

Found this (Minneapolis-St. Paul StarTribune) article on WorldNews.com and thought it might help explain some of the issues surrounding the President's delay in sending more troops as some would have him do right now.

Exerpts from the article:
The secretary general of NATO said Thursday (11/05/09) that alliance forces should begin handing responsibility to Afghan forces in a coordinated way next year in areas where conditions permit.

[But] criticism is mounting that the Afghan government is too corrupt and inept to facilitate such handovers.

Obama has said he won't accept any of the Afghanistan war options before him without changes. His own ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, sent a strongly worded cable warning against bolstering the American presence in Afghanistan unless corruption within the Afghan government is addressed.
Click to expand...

Take what you will from this, but I know I wouldn't send more ground troops in-country unless and until I had assurances that the government in place had a firm hand in taking over their own country.

If you look at the map on page 10 to this thread, you'll see that the Taliban still holds a vast majority of Afghanistan. If the mission has, in fact, changed from "defeating Al-Quaida" to "nation building", then ensuring that the new government is capable of governing is crucial to this process. So, until you know that they can, it makes no sense to commit more troops to an otherwise futile cause. Hence, the question rightfully before the President: Has the original anti-terrorist objective been met? If so, how do we leave in short order and ensure stability in the region? -OR- What is the new mission and how do we go about achieving it?
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
Found this (Minneapolis-St. Paul StarTribune) article on WorldNews.com and thought it might help explain some of the issues surrounding the President's delay in sending more troops as some would have him do right now.

Exerpts from the article:


Take what you will from this, but I know I wouldn't send more ground troops in-country unless and until I had assurances that the government in place had a firm hand in taking over their own country.

If you look at the map on page 10 to this thread, you'll see that the Taliban still holds a vast majority of Afghanistan. If the mission has, in fact, changed from "defeating Al-Quaida" to "nation building", then ensuring that the new government is capable of governing is crucial to this process. So, until you know that they can, it makes no sense to commit more troops to an otherwise futile cause. Hence, the question rightfully before the President: Has the original anti-terrorist objective been met? If so, how do we leave in short order and ensure stability in the region? -OR- What is the new mission and how do we go about achieving it?
Click to expand...

40,000 troops right away is always the answer.
 
Take what you will from this, but I know I wouldn't send more ground troops in-country unless and until I had assurances that the government in place had a firm hand in taking over their own country.
Click to expand...

If the current government had a firm hand in taking over their own country there wouldn't be any need to send troops...LMAO!!!
 
Objective Voice said:
Take what you will from this, but I know I wouldn't send more ground troops in-country unless and until I had assurances that the government in place had a firm hand in taking over their own country.
Click to expand...

The same was said about Iraq before the surge.
 
Strucky said:
The same was said about Iraq before the surge.
Click to expand...

The surge, by the way, that Obama and Kerry were against. I just think they don't want to be proven wrong twice in a row and then have to side with their opponents and say it worked. But having said that I will admit that Afghanistan is a different beast from Iraq, but the people on the ground have spoken.
 
It's kinda interesting to see, some of the same liberals here, who critisized the Bush administrations surge, stunningly silent on Obama throwing more troops at afghanistan.... Telling very telling indeed.... :ssst:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom