• 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!

34,000 troops will be sent to Afghanistan

Fiddytree said:
I'm not much of a fan of people who automatically declare a policy a failure before it's been enacted. Then what always gets me is declaring a Presidency a failure historically, long before historians would even be able to touch the records.
Click to expand...
Name a policy that was AUTOMATICALLY declared.
 
Hey, it's only going to be only 30,000 troops now. Wouldn't want to give McChrystal what he asked for.
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
We had no business saving Kuwait.
Click to expand...

Sure we did. We had a lot of business interests that were threatened. Furthermore, we couldn't allow Saddam to invade another country, especially in that part of the world.
 
Zyphlin said:
From my understanding however, and I may be wrong here, there were a few key differences.

One, while many of the people may’ve been Saudi citizens or born Saudi, their current area of occupation was elsewhere

Two, the Saudi government post 9/11 was willing to assist and aid in attempting to stop terrorists and the funding of them. On the contrary the Taliban was directly funding and supporting Al-Qaeda and Saddam was directly supporting and funding other terrorists, with both groups refusing to work with America to deal with the issue.
Click to expand...
It amazes me that some people are unable to disconnect the actions of people from a certain country and the actions of the government of that country.

Unless you can connect the actions of all the Saudis that have attacked us and the government of Saudi Arabia, mentioning that these people are Saudis is a red herring.

:doh
 
Zyphlin said:
Now, I still think Iraq at that point was the wrong move in the long run.
Click to expand...

There are some people, such as George Friedman of Stratfor, who feel that we were out of options in moving the effort against Al Qaeda forward, once they escaped to Pakistan. To keep momentum and the initiative, yet another reason in invading Iraq, we forced the Saudis to deal with their Al Qaeda problem directly. Which they did.
 
reefedjib said:
Sure we did. We had a lot of business interests that were threatened. Furthermore, we couldn't allow Saddam to invade another country, especially in that part of the world.
Click to expand...

Sure we could. It was none of our business.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
You know, SOF needs support behind them right?

/facepalm
Click to expand...

No; they're only going in after leadership targets and those directly involved. It's not a war.

Non-interventionism + free trade + cultural exchanges + full diplomatic relations = peace.
 
I suspect the speech tonight will be more about getting out then the sending of troops and winning the war. There will also be plenty of blame Bush.
 
American said:
Hey, it's only going to be only 30,000 troops now. Wouldn't want to give McChrystal what he asked for.
Click to expand...

Is the strategy the same now as it was when McChrystal submitted his request?
 
I"m curious as to just how was the U.S. "distracted by Iraq"?

Were all the thousands of soldiers we had in Afghanistan told to sit on their asses and watch the spectacle in Iraq or something?

Did the number of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan fall because of the conflict in Iraq?
 
Dayton3 said:
I"m curious as to just how was the U.S. "distracted by Iraq"?

Were all the thousands of soldiers we had in Afghanistan told to sit on their asses and watch the spectacle in Iraq or something?

Did the number of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan fall because of the conflict in Iraq?
Click to expand...

Seven years and Bush couldn't defeat them. Hmm.. must've been distracted :mrgreen:
 
I guess people really are trying to piss off the anti-war crowd with that Nobel bull****. We need a real president. Not a elitest pawn.
 
Joe1991 said:
Actually, Obama is doing in Afghanistan exactly what he campaigned on, sorry you weren't paying attention.
Click to expand...
I hoped that common sense would prevail. This is an escalation of troops at a point in time when the country cannot afford another failed nation building effort and the military is stressed to the breaking point.

Furthermore, the disappointment is cumulative. First the disappointing approach to the financial crisis, the nomination of Geithner and sidelining of Volker and people who are NOT insiders. The disinterest in accountability. Then, the continuation of Bush's national security agenda, aerial strikes and so forth. Now the administration is looking backward in its approach to Honduras and escalating a hopeless war. All these things could not have been predicted during the campaign.
 
If we get attacked by an army while we send more to war then we should hold TPTB for treason. How much war is too much? Is there ever a time when we will decide that distributing death in this fashion is just too wrong? We have already found out that overwhelming majority of fighters against us are territory battlers. Not psycho jihadists.
 
Cassandra said:
Obama is such a disappointment.
Click to expand...

Yea, it would be much better if he just retreated like a coward from a war of necessity.

I support you Mr. President! Win this war!
 
American said:
Hey, it's only going to be only 30,000 troops now. Wouldn't want to give McChrystal what he asked for.
Click to expand...

It's too late for second guessing his decision. He's made a decision to send more troops. You would do well to support him and the troops.
 
Cassandra said:
I hoped that common sense would prevail. This is an escalation of troops at a point in time when the country cannot afford another failed nation building effort and the military is stressed to the breaking point.

Furthermore, the disappointment is cumulative. First the disappointing approach to the financial crisis, the nomination of Geithner and sidelining of Volker and people who are NOT insiders. The disinterest in accountability. Then, the continuation of Bush's national security agenda, aerial strikes and so forth. Now the administration is looking backward in its approach to Honduras and escalating a hopeless war. All these things could not have been predicted during the campaign.
Click to expand...

What do you mean another failed effort? We're winning in Iraq. Take your defeatist nonsense to Code Pink.
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
No; they're only going in after leadership targets and those directly involved. It's not a war.
Click to expand...



It's a little harder and more involved than that seals game you have on your wii, you know that right?



Non-interventionism + free trade + cultural exchanges + full diplomatic relations = peace.
Click to expand...



Have you read the 2nd part of Osama's "letter to America" and the "caliphate in 7-easy steps"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom