Military Spending Weighs on Obama's Afghan Decision

Ethereal · Nov 15, 2009

PeteEU said:
Yes and no, but that is a whole other discussion.

Is it? Why does Obama get to take his time on Afghanistan but none of the left takes him to task on his fear-mongering in passing the aforementioned legislation?

Sending 40k troops into harms way with no political solution on the cards is just another Vietnam.. do you want that?

1. The only way this will be another Vietnam is if the defeatist leftist media convinces Americans that we can't win.

2. America CAN win this war if we have the will to do it. That starts with the President committing in word and deed to victory. Dithering is not the answer.

Ethereal · Nov 15, 2009

winston53660 said:
Could you imagine the effect on the military had our entire financial system imploded?

Assuming it would have imploded...

Also, how's that stimulus bill working out? It's a failure by Obama's own metrics.

It's just another partisan double-standard. Obama gets to fear-monger and pass giant spending bills with little discussion or analysis but when our military commander says he needs troops NOW Obama gets to take his time.

1069 · Nov 15, 2009

Ethereal said:
Assuming it would have imploded...

Also, how's that stimulus bill working out? It's a failure by Obama's own metrics.

It's just another partisan double-standard. Obama gets to fear-monger and pass giant spending bills with little discussion or analysis but when our military commander says he needs troops NOW Obama gets to take his time.

It's no different with any president.
The president gets to define what the national priorities are.
The only power we have is to elect him.

Ethereal · Nov 15, 2009

1069 said:
It's no different with any president.
The president gets to define what the national priorities are.
The only power we have is to elect him.

I don't agree that the President gets to "define" our national priorities; that is up to interpretation. Also, this doesn't address the double-standard I mentioned.

Why does Obama get all the time in the world to analyze the Afghanistan situation while he has no duty to analyze the legislation concerning the bailouts and "stimulus" bill?

Of course, I already know what the answer is but I'm sure our resident liberals will think of a way to avoid the obvious explanation...

PeteEU · Nov 15, 2009

Ethereal said:
Is it? Why does Obama get to take his time on Afghanistan but none of the left takes him to task on his fear-mongering in passing the aforementioned legislation?

Because jumping the gun on Afghanistan will risk the lives of Americans, while pumping money into the US economy due to massive miss management by previous conservative governments and the private sector does not.

Funny how you are willing to piss a way the lives of your fellow Americans and others for political gain.. Funny how you and your cohorts are more worried about political gain than the lives of American soldiers. Funny how you are willing to spend billions on an unwinable war, and yet do not find your fellow American's worth a dime when it comes to health and safety..

1. The only way this will be another Vietnam is if the defeatist leftist media convinces Americans that we can't win.

Okay answer this then.. What is "winning" in Afghanistan?

2. America CAN win this war if we have the will to do it. That starts with the President committing in word and deed to victory. Dithering is not the answer.

Again.. What is "winning" in Afghanistan? You have to define "winning" in a war.. what is the definition for Afghanistan?

Councilman · Nov 15, 2009

know this might sound strange at first but those of you who are still able to think for yourself will understand what I mean when I say I am encouraged by the increasing number of personal attacks, use of strawmen, obfuscation, and name calling and other Obama taught tactics on the part of Liberals, and Liberals claiming to be Conservatives and Moderates.

Why is that you say? Because the more Obama's deceptions, distortions, and out right lies are exposed the deeper they are forced to delve into the Saul Alenskey rules for Radicals and the more I am convinced they have no intelligent retort to the truth being presented showing Obama's continued and continuing failures.

Not that they have ever had an intelligent response. It's almost like this.

Fact: The sky appears to be blue.
Liberal: No it's Not

Fact: Obama lied about not raising taxes on those making less than $250,000 a year.
Liberal: We have to act now to save the planet from Global Warming.

This is a slight exaggeration but only slight.

The sad thing is everything has to be about the party winning and to hell with the consequences. People have to stop using part affiliation to Obama as the guideline to everything. I see the difference between right and wrong and I am willing to go along with a Democrat idea the minute I hear one that is logical makes sense and does not go against everything history has shown us will result from some policy or plan. So far all I am hearing are along list of strategies that have not only failed but have either failed miserably, impoverished, millions, cost lives, and Nations their vary existence. How do come up with this? Simple I know the history of Socialism/Marxism, and the war in Vietnam, Obama is leading us down those roads right now.

Strucky · Nov 15, 2009

PeteEU said:
Obama actually has brain to understand both.

I have seen no evidence of this.

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.

Got a link for this?

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.

Similar arguements were used against the Iraq troop surge.

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?

The enemy must be militarily defeated before the political situation can be solved.

Ethereal · Nov 15, 2009

PeteEU said:
Because jumping the gun on Afghanistan will risk the lives of Americans...

What the hell are you talking about!? It's a WAR. Do you know what a WAR is?

...while pumping money into the US economy due to massive miss management by previous conservative governments and the private sector does not.

Oh, so spending billions of dollars without actually analyzing the decision is okay because American lives aren't put at risk? I guess that means we don't actually have to think about anything that doesn't put lives at risk...:roll:

Funny how you are willing to piss a way the lives of your fellow Americans and others for political gain.. Funny how you and your cohorts are more worried about political gain than the lives of American soldiers.

If you ever said something like this to my face you would regret it.

Funny how you are willing to spend billions on an unwinable war...

Unwinnable? According to who? Defeatist Eurotrash?

...and yet do not find your fellow American's worth a dime when it comes to health and safety..

So, anyone who doesn't support a government take-over of health care is a heartless monster that doesn't care about other people's health and well-being? Do you actually think before you spew this partisan nonsense?

Okay answer this then.. What is "winning" in Afghanistan?

It's pretty ****ing simple to define victory if you're not a defeatist piece of Eurotrash.

Winning is destroying the Taliban and AQ in Afghanistan and creating a functional government. The American military can do it if our President starts acting like a real Commander in Chief instead of a political willow tree.

winston53660 · Nov 15, 2009

Ethereal said:
Assuming it would have imploded...

Also, how's that stimulus bill working out? It's a failure by Obama's own metrics.

It's just another partisan double-standard. Obama gets to fear-monger and pass giant spending bills with little discussion or analysis but when our military commander says he needs troops NOW Obama gets to take his time.

Ill mention the Russian financial crisis from awhile back when they could not pay the troops.

Ethereal · Nov 15, 2009

winston53660 said:
Ill mention the Russian financial crisis from awhile back when they could not pay the troops.

What does that have to do with anything? We're already paying the troops.

winston53660 · Nov 15, 2009

Ethereal said:
What does that have to do with anything? We're already paying the troops.

Well had there been a financial implostion in our financial system what do you think would have happened in regards to the military?

I for one am glad that we as a nation can when in a time of need pull in some credit.

Ethereal · Nov 15, 2009

winston53660 said:
Well had there been a financial implostion in our financial what do you think would have happened?

You're assuming that the bailouts and "stimulus" bill actually accomplished anything beneficial. I do not agree that they were necessary or beneficial.

winston53660 · Nov 15, 2009

Ethereal said:
You're assuming that the bailouts and "stimulus" bill actually accomplished anything beneficial. I do not agree that they were necessary or beneficial.

Okay fine then tell me about the effects of your position had AIG or Citigroup closed up shop.

Ill get back latretr on this when I'm not posting from my phone after lunch.

Gibberish · Nov 15, 2009

Councilman said:
know this might sound strange at first but those of you who are still able to think for yourself will understand what I mean when I say I am encouraged by the increasing number of personal attacks, use of strawmen, obfuscation, and name calling and other Obama taught tactics on the part of Liberals, and Liberals claiming to be Conservatives and Moderates.

Why is that you say? Because the more Obama's deceptions, distortions, and out right lies are exposed the deeper they are forced to delve into the Saul Alenskey rules for Radicals and the more I am convinced they have no intelligent retort to the truth being presented showing Obama's continued and continuing failures.

Not that they have ever had an intelligent response. It's almost like this.

Fact: The sky appears to be blue.
Liberal: No it's Not

Fact: Obama lied about not raising taxes on those making less than $250,000 a year.
Liberal: We have to act now to save the planet from Global Warming.

This is a slight exaggeration but only slight.

For this to be a "slight exaggeration" you would need to provide a source of a single liberal denying that the sky indeed looks blue or using global warming as a rebuttal to Obama's statement on taxes.

We'll be waiting. :roll:

Councilman said:
The sad thing is everything has to be about the party winning and to hell with the consequences. People have to stop using part affiliation to Obama as the guideline to everything. I see the difference between right and wrong and I am willing to go along with a Democrat idea the minute I hear one that is logical makes sense and does not go against everything history has shown us will result from some policy or plan. So far all I am hearing are along list of strategies that have not only failed but have either failed miserably, impoverished, millions, cost lives, and Nations their vary existence. How do come up with this? Simple I know the history of Socialism/Marxism, and the war in Vietnam, Obama is leading us down those roads right now.

It has nothing to do with party winning and everything to do with making the right decision. Obama isn't NOT making a decision on Afghanistan so that the people will like them. His approval numbers are dropping because of it. Obama is NOT making a decision on Afghanistan because he lacks the confidence in the options presented to him and now, for better or worse, he's combining various aspects of options into a new option.

obvious Child · Nov 15, 2009

Strucky said:
The enemy must be militarily defeated before the political situation can be solved.

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.

Similar arguements were used against the Iraq troop surge.

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

apdst · Nov 15, 2009

Gibberish said:
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.

PeteEU said:
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.

Gibberish · Nov 15, 2009

apdst said:
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.

American · Nov 15, 2009

Arch Enemy said:
$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.

apdst · Nov 15, 2009

Gibberish said:
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.

PeteEU · Nov 15, 2009

apdst said:
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.

apdst · Nov 15, 2009

PeteEU said:
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.

CaptainCourtesy · Nov 15, 2009

Moderator's Warning:

Let's everyone remember to keep things civil.

j-mac · Nov 15, 2009

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

Strucky · Nov 15, 2009

obvious Child said:
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.

Whip Comes Down · Nov 15, 2009

PeteEU said:
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.

Military Spending Weighs on Obama's Afghan Decision

Ethereal

Ethereal

1069

Ethereal

PeteEU

Councilman

Strucky

.

Ethereal

winston53660

Ethereal

winston53660

Ethereal

winston53660

Gibberish

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater

apdst

Gibberish

American

Trump Grump Whisperer

apdst

PeteEU

apdst

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

j-mac

Strucky

.

Whip Comes Down