17,000 More Troops Afghanistan

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I'm talking more of what goes on here.

I do tend to agree there has been too much of the snarkyness in that regard.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

There seems to be this stupid game going on right now of comparing everything back to Bush and it just seems so childish and unproductive to me. It's almost like a 5 year old whining to his Mom that Billy got away with something so why can't he. Is it possible to just talk about the issues at hand instead of getting into this ridiculous game of finger pointing?

I think you have to admit, objectively, that the media response to a given incident today compared to an identical event from, say, 2 years ago is downright hilarious.

Obama deserves every chance to try to correct our foreign affairs, but let's not act like he's going to get half the resistance that Bush would have on this move.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Back to the topic...

Obama is supposed to reveal details about their strategy after a 60 day review

Obama's war: Deploying 17,000 raises stakes in Afghanistan - USATODAY.com

Well the General asked for the men so he did what was right and gave the orders. I just hope that after 60 days he gives us the information that we need and no more. As Americans we need to be informed but not if it causes any information to go out that could help the bad guys in any way. That was my biggest problem with all the people demanding that Bush tell us everything and the information that was leaked to the public. If there needs to be debate about whats going on do it behind closed doors with a group from both parties and clasify the information as such making any leaks of info a war crime. We are at war and need to remember that not all information should be released.

[70Chip]

The fact that this was announced in a simple press release, rather than a speech tells me that The White House is not sold on the strategy and doesn't reallly want to own it. Their problem is that in the campaign they didn't want to be seen as anti-war in the code-pink/Jane Fonda sense of the term so they cast Afghanistan as the "good war" to contrast it with the "unnecessary, bad war" in Iraq and now they're somewhat boxed in.

Problem is, Afghanistan was actually the "bad war" all along from a military standpoint. The solution in Iraq seems comically simple by comparison. Petraeus convinced the Sunnis that if the violence continued, the Americans would leave and they would all be slaughtered by the Shiites and then to be sure, he bought them off. The classic stick and carrot. The Jihadis that are vexing us in the border regions obviously have no interest in making deals. And they know that Obama would not pay much of a political price at this point if he threw in the towel. It seems we've seen this film before. No not Red Dawn, although that works too. No, not Easter Parade. Oh yeah, Vietnam.

At some point I suspect Obama will find some face saving way of basically withdrawing. As the saying goes, "Declare victory and depart the field."

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

The fact that this was announced in a simple press release, rather than a speech tells me that The White House is not sold on the strategy and doesn't reallly want to own it. Their problem is that in the campaign they didn't want to be seen as anti-war in the code-pink/Jane Fonda sense of the term so they cast Afghanistan as the "good war" to contrast it with the "unnecessary, bad war" in Iraq and now they're somewhat boxed in.

Problem is, Afghanistan was actually the "bad war" all along from a military standpoint. The solution in Iraq seems comically simple by comparison. Petraeus convinced the Sunnis that if the violence continued, the Americans would leave and they would all be slaughtered by the Shiites and then to be sure, he bought them off. The classic stick and carrot. The Jihadis that are vexing us in the border regions obviously have no interest in making deals. And they know that Obama would not pay much of a political price at this point if he threw in the towel. It seems we've seen this film before. No not Red Dawn, although that works too. No, not Easter Parade. Oh yeah, Vietnam.

At some point I suspect Obama will find some face saving way of basically withdrawing. As the saying goes, "Declare victory and depart the field."

I'll agree with your first part if he does press release when he has had his 60 days to determine what actions he want to take. He really has not had alot of time to look over the entire thing in Afghanistan but after 60 days from then on is his.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by dmek25

i voted for Obama, but i disagree with this. im trying to figure out what exactly the United States is trying to accomplish?

Make sure the Taliban/extremists don't take hold of the country and we wind up with another 9/11 ten years from now.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

The fact that this was announced in a simple press release, rather than a speech tells me that The White House is not sold on the strategy and doesn't reallly want to own it. Their problem is that in the campaign they didn't want to be seen as anti-war in the code-pink/Jane Fonda sense of the term so they cast Afghanistan as the "good war" to contrast it with the "unnecessary, bad war" in Iraq and now they're somewhat boxed in.

Problem is, Afghanistan was actually the "bad war" all along from a military standpoint. The solution in Iraq seems comically simple by comparison. Petraeus convinced the Sunnis that if the violence continued, the Americans would leave and they would all be slaughtered by the Shiites and then to be sure, he bought them off. The classic stick and carrot. The Jihadis that are vexing us in the border regions obviously have no interest in making deals. And they know that Obama would not pay much of a political price at this point if he threw in the towel. It seems we've seen this film before. No not Red Dawn, although that works too. No, not Easter Parade. Oh yeah, Vietnam.

At some point I suspect Obama will find some face saving way of basically withdrawing. As the saying goes, "Declare victory and depart the field."

We actually agree. The alternative to declaring victory where there is none is to tell people we're making progress where there is none. I prefer declaring victory and abandoning a hopeless and sinking ship. This Afgani venture will not end well...many have tried in the past and all have failed. To think we can succeeded is fantastic.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

We actually agree. The alternative to declaring victory where there is none is to tell people we're making progress where there is none. I prefer declaring victory and abandoning a hopeless and sinking ship. This Afgani venture will not end well...many have tried in the past and all have failed. To think we can succeeded is fantastic.

Not sure where you get your news but we have had great progress fighting the bad guys there. I think the real problem is the minute we let our guard down they come back and hunker down to fight again. I just don't think we can ignore them any longer and when we do they will strike us. I don't know if anyone knows the solution but doing nothing will some day lead them back here to attack us and another 9/11. Maybe its just a case of keeping them runing so they cannot organize like they once did. Remeber we have to get it right a 100% of the time and they only have to get it right once.

[Miller101]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Were there problems with the Bush administration? Of course. Just like there were with Clinton, H.W. Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Eisenhower, Truman, and so on.

Your wrong dude! Its not Just Like..........................Bush was waaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond Just Like. Carter, Reagan, Ford, Clinton, those guys didn't crash the housing market, crash the economy, crash the world relations, start a war without a plan, appoint a lottery lawyer to the Supreme Court, out a undercover CIA agent, strum a guitar when his city is buried under 5 feet of water, or read a book when their country is under attack. There is nothing just like that in any of the other Presidents you mentioned. And no offense or nothing, but saying so is kind of offensive to those President's Legacies.



As far as the troop build up goes...............I like it and I hate it. Our military is stretched thin enough as it is. It kind of sucks that they are going to be stretched even thinner now, but it does sound like its needed. I mean, when the Commanding General publicly said, "Its going to be a tough year." I can't help but think that 17,000 is just barely enough.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Not sure where you get your news but we have had great progress fighting the bad guys there. I think the real problem is the minute we let our guard down they come back and hunker down to fight again. I just don't think we can ignore them any longer and when we do they will strike us. I don't know if anyone knows the solution but doing nothing will some day lead them back here to attack us and another 9/11. Maybe its just a case of keeping them runing so they cannot organize like they once did. Remeber we have to get it right a 100% of the time and they only have to get it right once.

Riiiight....and I'm making progress in my training for the NFL.

[firstdown]

Changing the subject some. Now that Obama is comitting more troops in Afgan and it seems he may even double that ammount what is he going to do with the guys we capture? I think this could be the most interesting part.

[CRedskinsRule]

Wow, I did a search for Afghanistan, figuring we would have had some discussions on it recently. There were some miscellaneous posts, but this was the most clearly relevant. This has been a way more quiet campaign, my bias against the media would say it was deliberate to keep pressure off President Obama, than the daily reports and counts from Iraq.

We have been laying siege for 7 days in this one town, but I don't see numbers of injured like we did on the daily Iraq count. Maybe we have been brutally efficient, but in door to door fighting, and with the opposition having "skilled sharpshooters" preventing us from advancing, I find it hard to believe that no major casualties have been suffered.
Here is the yahoo news link:US Marines airdropped into Taliban-held territory - Yahoo! News

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by firstdown

So yesterday when passing the stimulas bill Obama announced more troops are going over seas. What's his exit strategy, how long will they be there, what's is his goals, when will we know his goals are met. etc.... I did not here any of these concerns addressed when he announced his troop build up.

Obama: Troops alone cannot win in Afghanistan - CNN.com

Years late, it's about time.

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I was joking to a point but why demand time lines and dates and such from one president but not another. Isn't that a double standard? I just remember all the fuss when we had the troop build up in Iraq a year or so ago and isn't that what we are doing in Afghanistan?

Who are you referring to demanding time lines? There were years in Iraq before that got to even be a major focal point.

It's this petty shit that keeps people uninformed and sensationalized.

[firstdown]

I read NATO all over that article and just wonder who the is running our troops. I also wonder why the heck an officer or who ever would leak (read that somewhere else) that we are dropping guys in there and why the HE!! the press prints this stuff that can endanger our troops? There have been over 10 civilian deaths but I have not really heard anything about those in the news. When Bush was in charge if a troop touched someone wrong it was headline news for a week and Dems would want a hearing into what happened.