Obama orders more troops to Afganistan

know1

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/17/ ... index.html

Hmmmm.....what happened to bringing the troops home.

The silence from Obama supporters is deafening.

Commy

???

this was the plan all along

NoK

Everyone knew he wanted to increase troops in Afghanistan and "decrease" and eventually "withdraw" them from Iraq. I put them in quotations because there was a lot of mumbled shit in between about keeping "some" behind. I'm Australian and I knew of this. Where have you been?

Cosmo

know1 wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/17/obama.troops/index.html

Hmmmm.....what happened to bringing the troops home.

The silence from Obama supporters is deafening.

...
Anyone could have called the Afghanistan War... that was pretty much a no-brainer since the Taliban openly hosting terrorist trainning facilities and providing safe harbor for Usama Bin Laden and allowing him to host his Al Qaeda central command. That is why we had full support of our NATO Allies in our efforts there.
Iraq is the problem. The only thing that makes Iraq a no-brainer is that it took a no-brainer of a president to get us in that shit. Afghanistan had everything to do with September 11th, 2001... Iraq didn't.
...
Don't you ever follow anything?

Austicman

This again. Good Grief!!

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=92563

know1

What happened to "bring the troops home"??

I guess home is Afganistan.

Cosmo

know1 wrote:

What happened to "bring the troops home"??

I guess home is Afganistan.

...
Someone needs to pay closer attention.
Did you know that Usama Bin Laden is still at large? That the Taliban has taken advantage of our loss of focus and have made a comeback in Afghanistan? That our commanders in Afhganistan have been asking for more support, i.e. troops on the ground?
You might want to look a little deeper into the stories than the 15 second sound bites you only choose to hear.

soulsinging

know1 wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/17/obama.troops/index.html

Hmmmm.....what happened to bringing the troops home.

The silence from Obama supporters is deafening.

That's because most Obama supporters paid enough attention to know that this is exactly what he said he would do the whole campaign. The silence is people trying to figure out how to reply to your ignorance without being a dick about it.

norm

soulsinging wrote:

That's because most Obama supporters paid enough attention to know that this is exactly what he said he would do the whole campaign. The silence is people trying to figure out how to reply to your ignorance without being a dick about it.

shit i'm not an obama supporter and even i knew this...this is where our troops should be (if they need to be somewhere )

fuck

It's time our troops stop illegally killing civilians in Iraq, and increase the rightful killing of civilians in Afghanistan.

WaveCameCrashin

_outlaw wrote:

It's time our troops stop illegally killing civilians in Iraq, and increase the rightful killing of civilians in Afghanistan.

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

blackredyellow

soulsinging wrote:

know1 wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/17/obama.troops/index.html

Hmmmm.....what happened to bringing the troops home.

The silence from Obama supporters is deafening.

That's because most Obama supporters paid enough attention to know that this is exactly what he said he would do the whole campaign. The silence is people trying to figure out how to reply to your ignorance without being a dick about it.

what he said...

This is about the 10th thread on here from someone building the Obama anti-war strawman and using that against him (and obama voters) when he does something that he actually clearly stated he would do while campaigning.

There are many things to criticize Obama about early on in his administration... I just can't see what the point is of creating something that isn't there to criticize him on. But I guess the whole partisan motive behind this approach isn't to criticize Obama, but to try to make his supporters look bad.

know1

Fair enough. I didn't pay that much attention to what he said about troops during his campaign.

But, the point is still valid:

Why is it OK for Obama to make war, but not George Bush? Why do people support that, but not when Bush would send in troops?

People repeated the bring the troops home mantra over and over and over and over (anyone hear a Wishlist tag on it from our beloved Eddie?).

Sending troops to Afganistan is not bringing them home. It is making war, not peace.

soulsinging

know1 wrote:

Fair enough. I didn't pay that much attention to what he said about troops during his campaign.

But, the point is still valid:

Why is it OK for Obama to make war, but not George Bush? Why do people support that, but not when Bush would send in troops?

People repeated the bring the troops home mantra over and over and over and over (anyone hear a Wishlist tag on it from our beloved Eddie?).

Sending troops to Afganistan is not bringing them home. It is making war, not peace.

I know all those little brown countries are pretty much the same to most Americans, but Iraq and Afghanistan are different countries.

Afghanistan = Actual state-sponsored terrorist bases and training facilities that played an active role in the 9/11 attacks
Iraq = No connection to terrorism

I SUPPORTED Bush invading Afghanistan. So did most of the rest of the world if you recall. There was an international coalition, everyone wanted to cooperate to put a stop to terrorism, and everyone agreed Afghanistan was a legitimate effort to do so.

I DID NOT support the invasion of Iraq and neither did the rest of the world. Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism and everyone with half a brain could see that the WMD nonsense was a poor smokescreen to distract from the fact that Bush was tanking at home and couldn't find Bin Laden and needed a scapegoat. Enter Iraq, a universal bogeyman that Bush thought would just roll over for us and make him look good.

Thus, the chants of bringing troops home means getting us the hell out of the never-ending and wasteful nightmare that is Iraq. It was an unjust and stupid war from the beginning. Afghanistan was not. I have extreme reservations about using military force... only when absolutely necessary for legit purposes. Bush did not do this. Obama, so far, seems to understand this and be making an effort to do so.

The point is not valid. You're talking about military actions taken in totally different countries for totally different reasons. It has nothing to do with who is president at the time. I supported military intervention in Afghanistan by Bush and still do under Obama (though less certainly than I once did). I never supported the invasion of Iraq and should Obama ever conceive of a similarly pointless military venture, I will oppose that too.

ledvedderman

soulsinging wrote:

know1 wrote:

Fair enough. I didn't pay that much attention to what he said about troops during his campaign.

But, the point is still valid:

Why is it OK for Obama to make war, but not George Bush? Why do people support that, but not when Bush would send in troops?

People repeated the bring the troops home mantra over and over and over and over (anyone hear a Wishlist tag on it from our beloved Eddie?).

Sending troops to Afganistan is not bringing them home. It is making war, not peace.

I know all those little brown countries are pretty much the same to most Americans, but Iraq and Afghanistan are different countries.

Afghanistan = Actual state-sponsored terrorist bases and training facilities that played an active role in the 9/11 attacks
Iraq = No connection to terrorism

I SUPPORTED Bush invading Afghanistan. So did most of the rest of the world if you recall. There was an international coalition, everyone wanted to cooperate to put a stop to terrorism, and everyone agreed Afghanistan was a legitimate effort to do so.

I DID NOT support the invasion of Iraq and neither did the rest of the world. Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism and everyone with half a brain could see that the WMD nonsense was a poor smokescreen to distract from the fact that Bush was tanking at home and couldn't find Bin Laden and needed a scapegoat. Enter Iraq, a universal bogeyman that Bush thought would just roll over for us and make him look good.

Thus, the chants of bringing troops home means getting us the hell out of the never-ending and wasteful nightmare that is Iraq. It was an unjust and stupid war from the beginning. Afghanistan was not. I have extreme reservations about using military force... only when absolutely necessary for legit purposes. Bush did not do this. Obama, so far, seems to understand this and be making an effort to do so.

The point is not valid. You're talking about military actions taken in totally different countries for totally different reasons. It has nothing to do with who is president at the time. I supported military intervention in Afghanistan by Bush and still do under Obama (though less certainly than I once did). I never supported the invasion of Iraq and should Obama ever conceive of a similarly pointless military venture, I will oppose that too.

+1 to this post and a +1 to your "without being a total dick" post

know1

soulsinging wrote:

know1 wrote:

Fair enough. I didn't pay that much attention to what he said about troops during his campaign.

But, the point is still valid:

Why is it OK for Obama to make war, but not George Bush? Why do people support that, but not when Bush would send in troops?

People repeated the bring the troops home mantra over and over and over and over (anyone hear a Wishlist tag on it from our beloved Eddie?).

Sending troops to Afganistan is not bringing them home. It is making war, not peace.

I know all those little brown countries are pretty much the same to most Americans, but Iraq and Afghanistan are different countries.

Afghanistan = Actual state-sponsored terrorist bases and training facilities that played an active role in the 9/11 attacks
Iraq = No connection to terrorism

I SUPPORTED Bush invading Afghanistan. So did most of the rest of the world if you recall. There was an international coalition, everyone wanted to cooperate to put a stop to terrorism, and everyone agreed Afghanistan was a legitimate effort to do so.

I DID NOT support the invasion of Iraq and neither did the rest of the world. Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism and everyone with half a brain could see that the WMD nonsense was a poor smokescreen to distract from the fact that Bush was tanking at home and couldn't find Bin Laden and needed a scapegoat. Enter Iraq, a universal bogeyman that Bush thought would just roll over for us and make him look good.

Thus, the chants of bringing troops home means getting us the hell out of the never-ending and wasteful nightmare that is Iraq. It was an unjust and stupid war from the beginning. Afghanistan was not. I have extreme reservations about using military force... only when absolutely necessary for legit purposes. Bush did not do this. Obama, so far, seems to understand this and be making an effort to do so.

The point is not valid. You're talking about military actions taken in totally different countries for totally different reasons. It has nothing to do with who is president at the time. I supported military intervention in Afghanistan by Bush and still do under Obama (though less certainly than I once did). I never supported the invasion of Iraq and should Obama ever conceive of a similarly pointless military venture, I will oppose that too.

But I haven't heard a lot of distinctions about which war is justified and which is not.

I've just heard a lot of people cry for peace, bringing the troops home, etc.

And I don't really see how Iraq is unjust but Afganistan is not. I don't think there's a justification for any war.

decides2dream

Cosmo wrote:

know1 wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/17/obama.troops/index.html

Hmmmm.....what happened to bringing the troops home.

The silence from Obama supporters is deafening.

...
Anyone could have called the Afghanistan War... that was pretty much a no-brainer since the Taliban openly hosting terrorist trainning facilities and providing safe harbor for Usama Bin Laden and allowing him to host his Al Qaeda central command. That is why we had full support of our NATO Allies in our efforts there.
Iraq is the problem. The only thing that makes Iraq a no-brainer is that it took a no-brainer of a president to get us in that shit. Afghanistan had everything to do with September 11th, 2001... Iraq didn't.
...
Don't you ever follow anything?

thereya go!
there is no 'silence' b/c this is unsurprising!

Cosmo

know1 wrote:

Fair enough. I didn't pay that much attention to what he said about troops during his campaign.

But, the point is still valid:

Why is it OK for Obama to make war, but not George Bush? Why do people support that, but not when Bush would send in troops?

People repeated the bring the troops home mantra over and over and over and over (anyone hear a Wishlist tag on it from our beloved Eddie?).

Sending troops to Afganistan is not bringing them home. It is making war, not peace.

...
If you heard the Anti-War people... which i know a few... their take was, 'McCain will kill brown people in Iraq, Obama will kill brown people in Afghanistan". The Anti-War people supported neither.
I am one of the Americans that supported Bush's campaign in Afghanistan following the September 11th attacks. Bush lost me when he turned his focus from Bin Laden, al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan in order to persue his war of choosing in Iraq. That is not a war to stem global terrorism, that is a regional war based upon a personal vendetta. A poor allocation of our limited military resource.
We **SHOULD** have 'Stayed the Course' in Afghanistan. That is where the Global Terrorist network was based. My opposition to the Bush plan in Afghanistan was not that we were there.... it was with the stretegic and tactical desisions that were made in Washinton (not from the Command and Control in Kabul). Siding with Opium Warlords (whose job title includes the term, 'Warlord' and the support and funding of the Musharaf government in Pakistan... whose ISS set up the Taliban in the first place. Funnelling weapons, taxpayer dollars and military intelligence to Warlords and Pakistan were, in my opinion, poor planning.
It wasn't some sort of secret Pentagon blueprint... it was out in the open for all Americans to see. People who were paying attention understood this. And people who were paying attention during the Election season (which was played over the airwaves, non-stop for what seemed like an eternity), knew that either candidate would be forced to keep our troops in the broader region... Afghanistan or Iraq.

Cosmo

_outlaw wrote:

It's time our troops stop illegally killing civilians in Iraq, and increase the rightful killing of civilians in Afghanistan.

...
I don't believe that letting Bin Laden and Al Qaeda off the hook is a viable option. You may feel that way... but, I think the sonsovbitches need to be taken care of.

Brain of J.Lo

soulsinging wrote:

That's because most Obama supporters paid enough attention to know that this is exactly what he said he would do the whole campaign. The silence is people trying to figure out how to reply to your ignorance without being a dick about it.

Exactly.

tybird

After all the great and intelligent replies to this thread, I move that we allow this dead horse to rest in peace. :twisted:

John Briggs 2008

Obama made it clear that he wanted to pull us out in Iraq and focus toward Afghanistan by supporting our efforts there as was intended. I don't like Obama but I know he stated that more than a few times. I never once heard it from McCain.

soulsinging

know1 wrote:

But I haven't heard a lot of distinctions about which war is justified and which is not.

I've just heard a lot of people cry for peace, bringing the troops home, etc.

And I don't really see how Iraq is unjust but Afganistan is not. I don't think there's a justification for any war.

Let's say 100 people see a guy shoot somebody in the street. A few days later, one person claims he thinks some other guy is carrying a bunch of guns and planning to kill somebody. Which guy are you justified in putting in jail? The guy everybody agrees did something wrong, or the guy one unreliable witness says might be potentially maybe thinking about something bad.

It's not that hard a concept.

Now, if you oppose war in all circumstances, then they're both wrong. But that doesn't mean there's no difference between the motivations underlying the wars, and you cannot deny or argue that. You just think neither is a good enough reason. Most of us, however, feel otherwise:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_War

None of this means Obama deceived anyone, nor is it a contradiction for those that wanted troops brought home from Iraq to be ok with the Afghanistan invasion.

Commy

know1 wrote:

And I don't really see how Iraq is unjust but Afganistan is not. I don't think there's a justification for any war.

I agree. both afghanistan and Iraq were unnecessary.

WaveCameCrashin

Commy wrote:

know1 wrote:

And I don't really see how Iraq is unjust but Afganistan is not. I don't think there's a justification for any war.

I agree. both afghanistan and Iraq were unnecessary.

Iraq yes but Afghanistan? I guess we should just ignore al qaeda. So should we have just not done nothing about Hitler either? :? Should we not defend our selves? :roll: :roll:

Commy

gvn2fly74 wrote:

Commy wrote:

know1 wrote:

And I don't really see how Iraq is unjust but Afganistan is not. I don't think there's a justification for any war.

I agree. both afghanistan and Iraq were unnecessary.

Iraq yes but Afghanistan? I guess we should just ignore al qaeda. So should we have just not done nothing about Hitler either? :? Should we not defend our selves? :roll: :roll:

the taliban offered to put osama on trial prior to the invasion. that was ignored. so instead the US reinstalled the warlords, bombed a bunch of villages and put afghanistan back on the map as the world's leading heroine producer. and women's rights are as bad as they've ever been. some call it progress, but its as bad or worse as it was under the taliban. actually worse probably...now there are that many more religious fundamentalists out there, more pissed off than before.


war does not solve anything. quite the opposite. there are times when directed, concentrated acts of violence are needed to solve a problem, in the case of the hitlers and pol pots, or in the case dubai genocide or indonesian invasion. sometimes that's needed. but bombing villages to fight terror or stop genocide is as bad as the original acts of violence. its about as stupid as you can get.

Wobbie

Commy wrote:

war does not solve anything. quite the opposite. there are times when directed, concentrated acts of violence are needed to solve a problem, in the case of the hitlers and pol pots, or in the case dubai genocide or indonesian invasion. sometimes that's needed. but bombing villages to fight terror or stop genocide is as bad as the original acts of violence. its about as stupid as you can get.

Yep.....this thing has quagmire written all over it. It's about as "winnable" as Iraq. :(

Cosmo

Commy wrote:

the taliban offered to put osama on trial prior to the invasion. that was ignored. so instead the US reinstalled the warlords, bombed a bunch of villages and put afghanistan back on the map as the world's leading heroine producer. and women's rights are as bad as they've ever been. some call it progress, but its as bad or worse as it was under the taliban. actually worse probably...now there are that many more religious fundamentalists out there, more pissed off than before.


war does not solve anything. quite the opposite. there are times when directed, concentrated acts of violence are needed to solve a problem, in the case of the hitlers and pol pots, or in the case dubai genocide or indonesian invasion. sometimes that's needed. but bombing villages to fight terror or stop genocide is as bad as the original acts of violence. its about as stupid as you can get.

...
I think it can be done... but, it will require a lot of work.
First off... apologise to our NATO Allies and European friends. Admit it... we were arrogant dicks and we're sorry. We need their help and support in order to stabilize Afghanistan. Convince the rest of the world that Global Terrorism must be met with a united front, not a unilateral military strategy. if we cannot gain broad support from allies... then, call it quits.
Provide security. Station most of the combat troops along the border with Pakistan. That's where all of the problems come from. Let the Afghan security force operate in the major centers... let them take the lead in the outlying villages.
Build. Build schools, hospitals, mosques using local labor... not assholes imported from Tennesseee. Build what Afghans want, not what McDonalds and Starbucks want. Help their farmers and ranchers help themselves.
Position our forces as defenders, not invaders. Hold our troops accountable for bad actions. Avoid the shadow army of highly paid Soldiers of Fortune that we have in Iraq.
Put Pakistan on notice. Keep them as allies... but, allies that need to verify, because trust does not go far enough... especially in a country where the most popular name for newborn males is, 'Usama'.
Talk to Iran. (see 'Pakistan', above)
...
Hard work? Yes.

Songburst

gvn2fly74 wrote:

Commy wrote:

know1 wrote:

And I don't really see how Iraq is unjust but Afganistan is not. I don't think there's a justification for any war.

I agree. both afghanistan and Iraq were unnecessary.

Iraq yes but Afghanistan? I guess we should just ignore al qaeda. So should we have just not done nothing about Hitler either? :? Should we not defend our selves? :roll: :roll:

You do realize that there were quite a few years where the US did nothing (officially) about Hitler? He was Europe's problem until 1942.

Commy

Cosmo wrote:

Commy wrote:

the taliban offered to put osama on trial prior to the invasion. that was ignored. so instead the US reinstalled the warlords, bombed a bunch of villages and put afghanistan back on the map as the world's leading heroine producer. and women's rights are as bad as they've ever been. some call it progress, but its as bad or worse as it was under the taliban. actually worse probably...now there are that many more religious fundamentalists out there, more pissed off than before.


war does not solve anything. quite the opposite. there are times when directed, concentrated acts of violence are needed to solve a problem, in the case of the hitlers and pol pots, or in the case dubai genocide or indonesian invasion. sometimes that's needed. but bombing villages to fight terror or stop genocide is as bad as the original acts of violence. its about as stupid as you can get.

...
I think it can be done... but, it will require a lot of work.
First off... apologise to our NATO Allies and European friends. Admit it... we were arrogant dicks and we're sorry. We need their help and support in order to stabilize Afghanistan. Convince the rest of the world that Global Terrorism must be met with a united front, not a unilateral military strategy. if we cannot gain broad support from allies... then, call it quits.
Provide security. Station most of the combat troops along the border with Pakistan. That's where all of the problems come from. Let the Afghan security force operate in the major centers... let them take the lead in the outlying villages.
Build. Build schools, hospitals, mosques using local labor... not assholes imported from Tennesseee. Build what Afghans want, not what McDonalds and Starbucks want. Help their farmers and ranchers help themselves.
Position our forces as defenders, not invaders. Hold our troops accountable for bad actions. Avoid the shadow army of highly paid Soldiers of Fortune that we have in Iraq.
Put Pakistan on notice. Keep them as allies... but, allies that need to verify, because trust does not go far enough... especially in a country where the most popular name for newborn males is, 'Usama'.
Talk to Iran. (see 'Pakistan', above)
...
Hard work? Yes.

I agree with most of this. one thing though... the taliban is currently receiving 10% of all the money from heroine sold from afghanistan. that is the number one reason why they are even still around. hundreds of millions of dollars which is very ironic. they were hardline against drugs, now the sale of those drugs are one of the few reasons the taliban are still around. the problem is the feudal situation there with the war lords. so you're right, we need international help, to at least run these territories whenever the warlords are taken out. some are still sympathetic to the taliban. meanwhile there is no need to buildup troops on the border, as it is its costing too much. pull back, buy all the poppy from the farmers (that shit can be used by pharmeceuticals in the US) and bleed the taliban dry. violence is hardly needed, is actually counterproductive. every missfire or every piece of incorrect intelligence causes that many more people to mobilize against the US. so best course of action, bring in international support, buy all the poppy, bleed the taliban dry. no need for tanks and planes.

Motha Judson

Shoulda, woulda, coulda......

These things are in the past, you can't go back and change anything, and no one will be charged with war crimes or what have you as much as people here would like.

So lets focus on whats at hand.....getting Afganistan and Iraq to function on their own.