Page 7 of 40 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 395

Thread: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforcemen

  1. #61
    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: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Maybe I missed the point. Care to expand?

    But, as to the latter, if a 50% increase isn't enough, then it's obvious that there needs to be a larger increase. Just common sense.
    Or a change in tactics to make more efficient use of the current troop level and thus remove the need for more troops.

    Your logic is like saying if a business doesn't work you just throw more money at it to make it work. Sometimes a business strategy needs tweaking and more money isn't really needed.
    Last edited by Gibberish; 10-06-09 at 05:13 PM.
    "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

  2. #62
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Maybe I missed the point. Care to expand?
    No, never mind.

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    But, as to the latter, if a 50% increase isn't enough, then it's obvious that there needs to be a larger increase. Just common sense.
    No, that's not common sense. That's like getting stuck in the mud, discovering that revving your engine isn't moving the vehicle, and deciding that the logical conclusion is to floor the accelerator.

    Your "common sense" conclusion might be "obvious" if we were fighting a more traditional war, but numbers are simply not enough when fighting an asymmetrical war.
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  3. #63
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,399

    Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    No, that's not common sense. That's like getting stuck in the mud, discovering that revving your engine isn't moving the vehicle, and deciding that the logical conclusion is to floor the accelerator.
    A better comparison might be the difference between fighting a fire by pissing on it and figureing out you're going to need more water and get a fire hose.

    Your "common sense" conclusion might be "obvious" if we were fighting a more traditional war, but numbers are simply not enough when fighting an asymmetrical war.

    Alone, they're not enough, I agree. However, numbers with solid tactics are a winner. The more troops you have in theater, the more economy of force you have, more down time for the soldiers, less combat fatigue, higher morale. Those things are important combat multipliers.
    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.

  4. #64
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,399

    Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

    Quote Originally Posted by Gibberish View Post
    Or a change in tactics to make more efficient use of the current troop level and thus remove the need for more troops.

    Your logic is like saying if a business doesn't work you just throw more money at it to make it work. Sometimes a business strategy needs tweaking and more money isn't really needed.

    So, IOW, do more with less? If we had a small military, I would say that is the order of the day, but with the numbers we have to draw on, what sense does it make to overwork the soldiers that are already in theatera? That would be bad for morale. Some business strategies require more personel to create a happier and more efficient work environment. If you over work an experienced and edicated employee and he quits, just to save money on hiring additional personel, what have gained? Nothing, that's what.
    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. #65
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Alone, they're not enough, I agree. However, numbers with solid tactics are a winner. The more troops you have in theater, the more economy of force you have, more down time for the soldiers, less combat fatigue, higher morale. Those things are important combat multipliers.
    We've already got tens of thousands of troops on the ground. What's to say that we don't already have enough when coupled with a winning strategy?
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  6. #66
    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: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    So, IOW, do more with less? If we had a small military, I would say that is the order of the day, but with the numbers we have to draw on, what sense does it make to overwork the soldiers that are already in theatera? That would be bad for morale. Some business strategies require more personel to create a happier and more efficient work environment. If you over work an experienced and edicated employee and he quits, just to save money on hiring additional personel, what have gained? Nothing, that's what.
    No do more strategically. I don't care if I have a 100 million active soldiers. That doesn't mean we should put 100 million into battle when 100,000 could do the job.

    There may be need for more soldiers in Afghanistan. However, just because a general asks for more soldiers doesn't mean the President should unquestionable oblige. I personally would want the President to look at the current strategy before making a decision.
    "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

  7. #67
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,399

    Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    We've already got tens of thousands of troops on the ground. What's to say that we don't already have enough when coupled with a winning strategy?
    The theater commander says we don't have enough. That's good enough for me. Why be stingy with troops on the ground. If they go over there and wind up sitting on their asses doing nothing, then I don't have a huge problem with that.

    What sense does it make to squeek by with the bare minimum?
    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.

  8. #68
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,399

    Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

    Quote Originally Posted by Gibberish View Post
    No do more strategically. I don't care if I have a 100 million active soldiers. That doesn't mean we should put 100 million into battle when 100,000 could do the job.

    There may be need for more soldiers in Afghanistan. However, just because a general asks for more soldiers doesn't mean the President should unquestionable oblige. I personally would want the President to look at the current strategy before making a decision.
    We have a million people in our military. McChrystal is asking for an additiona 40 thousand.

    What qualifies the president to second guess his theater commander? He's persident? Is that all?
    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.

  9. #69
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:51 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,312
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Now, you're speculating. Allow me to speculate, PBO is trying to figure out what's going to be better for his political career, deploy more troops, or not.
    No, I am basing this on what is being reported. You are making blind speculations.


    Battles are won on the battlefield, not in the political arena. If we're going to destroy the enemy, we have to put troops in the field to engage him and destroy him, preferably on his own ground.
    Wars are political in nature. If we just wanted to destroy all the terrorists without worrying about politics, we could do it with probably fewer troops, but a more destructive attitude. The goal is to make Afghanistan a place where terrorists are not, and part of doing that is winning the hearts and minds of those living there.

    Sure, that's possible, but unless they're going to fight a completely assymetrical battle on the enemy's terms, I can't imagine what change in strategy would require fewer troops, other than a totally defensive strategy that is meant to end with a complete withdrawel and no attempt to destroy the enemy. Defensive strategies have never worked before, so itwould be a bad idea to do so now. Care to speculate on what strategic changes might be made that would require fewer troops?

    If it were me calling the shots, I would plan division level operations to go into the enemy's territory and take the fight straight to him and destroy him with overwhelming combat power. That's just me.
    If this was just a simple fight with a known enemy in uniform, that would work. Since that is not the case this time, you are not correct.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  10. #70
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:51 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,312
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    We have a million people in our military. McChrystal is asking for an additiona 40 thousand.

    What qualifies the president to second guess his theater commander? He's persident? Is that all?
    Those who are above the theater commander in the chain of command, who have issues with the troop request.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

Page 7 of 40 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... 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
  •