Page 13 of 24 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 234

Thread: 34,000 troops will be sent to Afghanistan

  1. #121
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: 34,000 troops will be sent to Afghanistan

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Enemy View Post
    I think you and I view the Taliban regime that invaded Afghanistan mid-90's relationship with A.Q. differently.

    The CIA belongs to the United States; it has to answer to the United States.
    AQ was a member of the Taliban government.

    A.Q. does not belong to the Taliban; A.Q. is exponentially more powerful, more organized, and more like (this term we throw around now-a-days) terrorist.
    AQ was a member of the Taliban military.

    I am, still, not convinced that Mullah Umar/Omar is real. I am having doubts about the shadowy clerical/tribunal that the Taliban forces, supposedly, report to. The Taliban that invaded Afghanistan seems more like a group of individuals possessed by al Qaeda, and funded by the Pakistani ISI.
    If Mullah Omar isn't real then who is Bin Ladens son married to?

  2. #122
    Familiaist


    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Last Seen
    11-16-16 @ 09:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    7,470

    Re: 34,000 troops will be sent to Afghanistan

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    Because we need to lockdown the border to allow for the security necessary to allow the Afghanis to lockdown their own borders. This should be coupled with an increasing aerial bombardment of the borderlands within Pakistani territory and I'm not entirely opposed to overthrowing the Pakistani government itself considering that they are actively aiding the Taliban and AQ, and aided in the funding of 9-11.
    I think you're a bit late

    We will bomb you to stone age, US had warned Pa
    The secret is finally out. What made Pakistan, one of the staunchest supporters of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, turn its back on them and fall in line with the United States of America in the War on Terror after 9/11?
    It was a stiff threat from the then US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage to "bomb Pakistan to the Stone Age" if it did not.
    "I do not underestimate the ability of fanatical groups of terrorists to kill and destroy, but they do not threaten the life of the nation. Whether we would survive Hitler hung in the balance, but there is no doubt that we shall survive al-Qa'ida." -- Lord Hoffmann

  3. #123
    Familiaist


    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Last Seen
    11-16-16 @ 09:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    7,470

    Re: 34,000 troops will be sent to Afghanistan

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post


    If Mullah Omar isn't real then who is Bin Ladens son married to?
    Which son are you talking about?
    "I do not underestimate the ability of fanatical groups of terrorists to kill and destroy, but they do not threaten the life of the nation. Whether we would survive Hitler hung in the balance, but there is no doubt that we shall survive al-Qa'ida." -- Lord Hoffmann

  4. #124
    Sage
    RDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Singapore
    Last Seen
    10-10-17 @ 05:51 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,398

    Re: 34,000 troops will be sent to Afghanistan

    According to his speech, Obama is escalating while retreating, adding more troops while also setting a date for their departure. Obama said he was putting pressure on the Afghan government, but he didn't suggest how. Some of the blurring was by design. He smudged the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, explaining that while he was sending troops to Afghanistan, the struggle was now more regional than it was when the war started eight years ago.
    Newsweek

    Obama's Afghanistan speech was confusing.
    Last edited by RDS; 12-02-09 at 02:10 AM.

  5. #125
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: 34,000 troops will be sent to Afghanistan

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Let's see'em, sport.
    And get another glimpse of you running away?

    Sure.

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1058392027

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/...post1058345789

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/...post1058345756

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/...post1058348446

    Did you address a single historical example?

    Nope. As usual, you are wrong. NEXT!
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  6. #126
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    06-26-10 @ 01:58 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    350

    Re: 34,000 troops will be sent to Afghanistan

    yes, we threatened pakistan. we also have been paying them billions of dollars.

  7. #127
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    06-26-10 @ 01:58 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    350

    Re: 34,000 troops will be sent to Afghanistan

    newsweek is part of the corporate media.

  8. #128
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: 34,000 troops will be sent to Afghanistan

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Certainly, its major objectives of denying the Al Qaeda terrorist organization a safehaven in Afghanistan and reversing the military gains achieved by the Taliban in its counteroffensive are urgent, important and well-focused.
    Indeed, but what do we do after that? Remember that a fair number of insurgents are fighting because they are being paid. Many are fighting because the government is corrupt and inefficient, that the Taliban can provide better services. Granted, the core true believer insurgency needs to be eliminated as it was in Iraq, but a sizable number of fighters are there for purely secular, economic reasons. Merely eliminating their safe haven without providing economic development and without cleaning up the government will inevitably cause more to join up and we're back in the same problem. In more then a few ways, there are Vietnam parallels. Some of that can be cleaned up with proper education is Pakistan, but I don't know of a single COIN operation that worked without near genocide that did not involve significant economic development. Which again leads me back to the question virtually no one (Thanks arch for giving me a suggestion!) is willing to answer: what can Afghanistan export to provide revenues for development and opportunities?

    Bush never dealt with this in 7 years. I don't see Obama magically producing the answer in less than 1.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  9. #129
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    06-26-10 @ 01:58 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    350

    Re: 34,000 troops will be sent to Afghanistan

    al qaeda did not need a base to attack ft. hood. the only base was hasan's mind.

  10. #130
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,773

    Re: 34,000 troops will be sent to Afghanistan

    Quote Originally Posted by CrusaderRabbit08 View Post
    Just as long as we start wars that we can't win.
    Oh, like the War in Iraq was justifiable? Please...

    American didn't start this War on Terror(ism) in Afghanistan. Al Quaida, like the Japanesse at Pearl Harbor, brought this war to our doorstep from the barren foothills of Tora Bora. We, America, have a duty if not an obligation to defend ourselves against this global threat. And if that means going after Al Qaida militia men and their coherts in those mountains, hills and valleys in Afghanistan (or anywhere around the world they may hide for that matter), then that's what we MUST do.

    They started this war. And I believe we now have the right strategy under clear objectives to finish it! And I'll call anyone - man or woman - a straight up COWARD if you speak out in any way, shape or form against continuing the fight to defend this nation against ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN OR DOMESTIC - and that includes Muslim extremist hiding abroad in caves - no matter how you try to deguise the rhetoric.
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe1991 View Post
    Not that invading and taking over whole countries was ever the right answer, but Afghanistan and Iraq wouldn't have been my first choice:

    -Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi, trained and financing by yet another Saudi native – Osama bin Laden.

    -The Saudi National Guard bombing in November 1995, which killed five Americans. All four of the men convicted and executed for the bombing were Saudis.

    -The Khobar Towers bombing in June 1996, which killed 19 Americans. Of the 14 men indicted by the U.S. Department of Justice for that bombing, 13 were Saudi Arabian, including all five of the men who drove and detonated the truck bomb on the day of the attack.

    -The Nairobi embassy bombing in August 1998, which killed 12 Americans. Both of the men who drove and detonated the truck bomb were Saudis.

    -The USS Cole bombing in October 2000, which killed 17 Americans. Both of the men who drove and detonated the explosives-laden boat used in that attack were Saudis.

    -The Riyadh residential compound bombings in May 2003, which killed nine Americans. All nine of the suicide bombers killed in the attacks were Saudis.

    -The Mosul mess tent bombing in December 2004, which killed 18 Americans. The lone suicide bomber responsible was identified in numerous press reports as a foreign insurgent from Saudi Arabia.
    I hear you, Joe, and originally I felt the same way. It took seeing an American citizen defect from this nation and fight alongside "his Muslim extremist brothern" to make me realize that just because Muslim extremist, both pre- and post- 9/11, were all Saudi nationals doesn't mean that the Saudi nation was at fault. However, you do have to deal with the Saudi government and let it be known that they have to get their people in check. I don't give them a pass, mind you. I mean, you do have to wonder what BS their male citizenry are being feed that would cause some of their citizens to do an allied nation harm and you don't walk away blindly thinking the Saudi's are completely innocent, but I wouldn't have taken the fight to them even though I'm sure somewhere deep down there's some resentment of the West. You just have to make it known to the Saudi government that they must get their anit-American rhetoric - no matter how slight - in check and get their nut jobs on a tight leash. But no, I wouldn't have taken the fight to the Saudies (though I would have let it be known at the time that their American ally is royally pissed! And as an aside, it was good to learn that the Saudi's did step up to the plate and take prudent steps to right the wrongs their people committed.)

    As to the President's proposals for handling this mess, he laid out his objectives exactly as I thought he would.

    From the thread, posted well over a month ago:

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    All the more reason to think this issue through before jumping to conclusions.

    The mission was never to suplant the Afghan government. The mission was to defeat Al Quaida. But as we've all come to learn you can't defeat Al Quaida w/o mitigating Taliban intrusion. So, what do you do?

    Do you change your mission and place your troops in a position to be a national police force?

    OR

    Do you tweak the mission of anti-terrorism/counter insurgency and mix in some police work with it?

    OR

    Does your mission now change from anti-terrorism/counter insurgency altogether and now take on the job of nation building?

    These were the exact same questions the GW Bush Administration had to tackle, but Iraq had a far better infrustructer from which to work with. Not so in Afghanistan. Furthermore, the political side of things wasn't as difficult because Iraq did have a government body in place before the U.S./coalition forces intervened. That's not necessarily the case in Afghanistan since the Russian-Afghan war ended. Sure, the Taliban has been the government power base there, but it's hardly a truly functioning, recognized government.

    So, where Afghanistan is concerned, the President does have some tough decisions to make because he's not just trying to solve a terrorist haven problem. He's also trying to improve things on a social/economic and political fronts as well w/Pakistan firmly a large part of the problem, as well as the solution. No easy feat by any means.
    He's on the right track. Congress just needs to give him the tools he needs to finish the job and then get out of the way.
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 12-02-09 at 11:50 AM.

Page 13 of 24 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... 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
  •