Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 94

Thread: Military Spending Weighs on Obama's Afghan Decision

  1. #41
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,319

    Re: Military Spending Weighs on Obama's Afghan Decision

    Quote Originally Posted by Gibberish View Post
    The problem with this war, the same as Vietnam, is the enemy is mixed in with the populace. There are two trains of thought here.

    1. The military should be able to annihilate anyone and everyone and sacrifice morality. Let the civilians die with the radicals.

    2. Be aggressive but restrictive to save civilian lives and sacrifice timeliness of completing the objective or completing it altogether.

    There will always be radicals and terrorists. If we annihilated every populace group that was shown to have radicals in it this world would be a wasteland and the population cut in at least half. There is no winning a "war on terror" because terror will always exist. All we can do is defend our selves as best we can and make sure that one 1) it's near impossible to succeed on an attack on US soil 2) those that attack receive swift retribution for their act.
    Worked during WW2.





    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    No. Typical right wing bs. You SHOULD know there is a political and military aspect of any war and unlike Bush, Obama actually has brain to understand both.

    As it stands now the military as always wants more and more troops even though by last count they out number the enemy by 12 to 1. That is the military reality that the commanders have come too, based on their military assessment. There is no guarantee that sending another 40k troops will do anything to help the situation. What will you do if they come back and ask for another 40k? or 500k troops.. give them that too?
    If the commander on the ground says he needs 500,000 soldiers, then that's what he should get. I would much rather he have too many, than not enough.

    Now the political reality is that you have a very weak corrupt government in place that has very little support outside its government buildings.. and that is even a stretch. This political reality calls into question the present strategy in the whole war.

    This war will NOT be won on the battlefield pure and simple, even the commanders on the ground have said so. So what use is it to send more troops into battle if they will not solve the political situation?
    This war won't be won in the political arena, either and without the destruction of the enemy's ability to wage war against whatever government is in power, there will never be a positive political outcome.

    It's the pinnacle of stupidity to think that wars aren't won on the battlefield. Show me a war that wasn't won on the battlefield.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  2. #42
    Sage
    Gibberish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Last Seen
    12-23-12 @ 09:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,339

    Re: Military Spending Weighs on Obama's Afghan Decision

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Worked during WW2.
    It works when you are fighting against a country. Not when you are fighting against terrorist cells within non-affiliated countries.

    These men have no country and are spread out world wide. Should we bomb any and every country they are hiding in? In all likelihood that would in could ourselves.
    "Gold gets dug out of the ground in Africa, or someplace. Then we melt it down, dig another hole, bury it again and pay people to stand around guarding it. It has no utility. Anyone watching from Mars would be scratching their head."
    - Warren Buffett

  3. #43
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,271

    Re: Military Spending Weighs on Obama's Afghan Decision

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Enemy View Post
    $1 Million per soldier? Man, we spend more money on one soldier, and on one bomb than the entire opposition has in their coffers.

    Yet, we're still having to place the defensive game.
    That's because we play by your rules.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  4. #44
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,319

    Re: Military Spending Weighs on Obama's Afghan Decision

    Quote Originally Posted by Gibberish View Post
    It works when you are fighting against a country. Not when you are fighting against terrorist cells within non-affiliated countries.
    Where is it written that that is a hard and fast rule?

    These men have no country and are spread out world wide. Should we bomb any and every country they are hiding in? In all likelihood that would in could ourselves.
    I support attacking any country that allows these men sanctuary and gives them financial support.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  5. #45
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,089

    Re: Military Spending Weighs on Obama's Afghan Decision

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Worked during WW2.
    LOL you are seriously comparing WW2 with Afghanistan? Seriously get that head checked.

    If the commander on the ground says he needs 500,000 soldiers, then that's what he should get. I would much rather he have too many, than not enough.
    First off to get 500k troops would require the draft...so are you now advocating a draft also? Oh please... be a good right winger and demand the draft ...

    Secondly I some what agree if sending troops will change the situation. However all it will do is put more troops in harms way while not tackling the issues at hand. Heck it might even push more people over to the enemy... ever think of that?

    This war won't be won in the political arena, either and without the destruction of the enemy's ability to wage war against whatever government is in power, there will never be a positive political outcome.
    Okay WHAT enemy exactly? The taliban? They are the freaking people of Afghanistan! The Taliban's allies? Again the people of Afghanistan. You are advocating genocide with that retoric. To destroy the enemies ability to wage war you have to kill huge portions of the Afghan population.. and in doing so you will make more and more people around the world join the fight against you .. what next, kill of Pakistan? India? Iraq? Egypt? How about those in the US that are against the war.. line em up and shoot them?

    So again, what enemy?

    It's the pinnacle of stupidity to think that wars aren't won on the battlefield. Show me a war that wasn't won on the battlefield.
    And it is the pinnacle of stupidity to think Afghanistan is a war in the traditional sense. It is a full blown civil war with tad of insurgency, not a war between nations. There are no grand armies, no grand navies, no grand air forces on both sides of the conflict. You are fighting farmers, school teachers and preachers not professional soldiers. The only real problem is that these farmers are battle harden veterans because they have fought before against an invading army.

    You and your cohorts are still stuck in the past, living the cold war over again. This war will continue with or without us there, because the political situation is fragmented. The only thing that can "win" this war via military effort is if you kill off half the population and that is only if the other half dont rise up in utter disgust over it.

    So yes you need a solution to the political situation that will bring a very large majority into the fold unlike now, but that aint gonna happen if the people think the puppet government in Kabul is not only a puppet of the west, but is weak and corrupt. And that is exactly what people think. This will either drive more and more people into the hands of the Taliban or to the warlords, who can easily switch sides as they have done it before. And it especially wont happen if you start sending more and more troops into a fight that will cost more and more civilian casualties.

    So again, sending another 50k troops or 500k troops will not change the reality of the situation that the political aspect is in shambles and we seriously have to consider alternative solutions. And that is exactly what Obama is doing.
    PeteEU

  6. #46
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,319

    Re: Military Spending Weighs on Obama's Afghan Decision

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    LOL you are seriously comparing WW2 with Afghanistan? Seriously get that head checked.
    War is War. Would you rather I compare Afghanistan to the Civil War? It would be a better comparison, actually.



    First off to get 500k troops would require the draft...so are you now advocating a draft also? Oh please... be a good right winger and demand the draft ...
    Since we were speaking hypothetically, why should we get into an argument over the need for a draft?

    Secondly I some what agree if sending troops will change the situation. However all it will do is put more troops in harms way while not tackling the issues at hand. Heck it might even push more people over to the enemy... ever think of that?
    Actually, it's going to take more troops out of harms way, because with an expanded battle space, the Taliban can only attack so many places, at one time. Ever think of that?



    Okay WHAT enemy exactly? The taliban? They are the freaking people of Afghanistan! The Taliban's allies? Again the people of Afghanistan. You are advocating genocide with that retoric. To destroy the enemies ability to wage war you have to kill huge portions of the Afghan population.. and in doing so you will make more and more people around the world join the fight against you .. what next, kill of Pakistan? India? Iraq? Egypt? How about those in the US that are against the war.. line em up and shoot them?

    So again, what enemy?
    Another piss poor Libbos logic. We've gone to war many times with the freaking people of[enter country here and when we waged total war, we won.



    And it is the pinnacle of stupidity to think Afghanistan is a war in the traditional sense. It is a full blown civil war with tad of insurgency, not a war between nations. There are no grand armies, no grand navies, no grand air forces on both sides of the conflict. You are fighting farmers, school teachers and preachers not professional soldiers. The only real problem is that these farmers are battle harden veterans because they have fought before against an invading army.
    Define, "traditional". Warfare is always changing and it's the victors who change with it and adapt to the new battlefield.

    You and your cohorts are still stuck in the past, living the cold war over again. This war will continue with or without us there, because the political situation is fragmented. The only thing that can "win" this war via military effort is if you kill off half the population and that is only if the other half dont rise up in utter disgust over it.

    So yes you need a solution to the political situation that will bring a very large majority into the fold unlike now, but that aint gonna happen if the people think the puppet government in Kabul is not only a puppet of the west, but is weak and corrupt. And that is exactly what people think. This will either drive more and more people into the hands of the Taliban or to the warlords, who can easily switch sides as they have done it before. And it especially wont happen if you start sending more and more troops into a fight that will cost more and more civilian casualties.

    So again, sending another 50k troops or 500k troops will not change the reality of the situation that the political aspect is in shambles and we seriously have to consider alternative solutions. And that is exactly what Obama is doing.
    And, as long as the Taliban is able to threaten and intimidate the government, it doesn't how perfect the government is, it won't survive. Get with the program and stop reading your left wing, anti-American, anti-war, conspiracy theroy news letters.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  7. #47
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,647

    Re: Military Spending Weighs on Obama's Afghan Decision

    Moderator's Warning:
    Military Spending Weighs on Obama's Afghan DecisionLet's everyone remember to keep things civil.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  8. #48
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Re: Military Spending Weighs on Obama's Afghan Decision

    I am just wondering from PeteEU, how many innocent civilians in America he is willing to sacrifice in order to appease our current enemies? They say they want 20 million, is that fair to you Pete?


    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  9. #49
    Hard As A Rock
    Strucky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Minnesota
    Last Seen
    10-19-17 @ 08:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    2,074

    Re: Military Spending Weighs on Obama's Afghan Decision

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Uh...do you realize that a sizable portion of the insurgencies is due to the corruption in the political situation? You are arguing that we should eliminate the symptoms before dealing with the cause. That makes no sense.
    There would be a sizable anti-government movement even if the Afghan Government was a well oiled machine....That has always been the case in Afghanistan.



    Except the Iraqi government wasn't anywhere as corrupt.
    ok.

    Secret Report: Corruption is "Norm" Within Iraqi Government posted by David Corn on 08/30/2007 @ 3:07pm

    Report Reveals Corruption in Iraqi Government

    ‘Untouchable’ corruption in Iraqi agencies

    Iraq corruption 'costs billions'

    This link is from a few weeks ago-

    Pervasive Corruption Rattles Iraq’s Fragile State



    Furthermore, the Surge as understood now was just one part of the overhaul that actually won the conflict. People seem to have this notion that flooding the region with troops is what did the trick. They ignore the virtual overhaul of tactics.
    Those tactics required a large amount of troops to implement.
    "The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without."

    ~Dwight D. Eisenhower

  10. #50
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    In the land of steers and queers
    Last Seen
    06-03-10 @ 12:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    1,563

    Re: Military Spending Weighs on Obama's Afghan Decision

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    At least there is someone in the US political system that does not give a cart blanc to the military. All government spending should be under review including military spending.
    Why in the hell do we need eleven aircraftcarriers, when no other nation has more than three?

    I don't want a military big enough for evil men like George Bush to abuse.

Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •