|
|
President Karzai said he was pleased with the American military review of strategy, which focused on militant activity in the area. President Obama is planning on sending 4,000 troops to train Afghan security forces. Do you think this is wise? Is it a preliminary to declaring war? Or is it just what it is, a training mission? Is this a plan to the best way to reach bin Laden, as he is known to be hiding in the Afghan mountainous region?
|
Posts:
2,149
Registered:
3/13/08
|
|
(917 of 1292)
Re: Afghan Military Review
Nov 29, 2009 9:54 PM
|
Info,
OK, just stop this shit, or I'm going to report you. I REALLY HATE that you continually say truthful shit on this board. What's your problem dude?
Keep it up man!
DaN
|
|
|
Posts:
4,327
Registered:
6/29/09
|
|
(916 of 1292)
Re: Afghan Military Review
Nov 29, 2009 9:50 PM
|
> Lets count how many times President Obama will use
> the word, "terror and terrorists."
Sounds like a good drinking game. Sips not shots though or there will be hospitals involved.
|
|
|
Posts:
13,529
Registered:
2/5/06
|
|
(915 of 1292)
Re: Afghan Military Review
Nov 29, 2009 9:47 PM
|
|
Lets count how many times President Obama will use the word, "terror and terrorists."
|
|
|
Posts:
13,529
Registered:
2/5/06
|
|
(914 of 1292)
Re: Afghan Military Review
Nov 29, 2009 9:43 PM
|
JaredP,
Actually, that's been my position all along. I think the people deserves to know the REAL reasons behind the expansion of the war on this front.
Dr. B needs to tell the American public.
--
Edited by infoseek at 11/29/2009 6:44 PM PST
|
|
|
Posts:
4,327
Registered:
6/29/09
|
|
(913 of 1292)
Re: Afghan Military Review
Nov 29, 2009 9:40 PM
|
|
Careful Info, you are making sense again.
|
|
|
Posts:
13,529
Registered:
2/5/06
|
|
(912 of 1292)
Re: Afghan Military Review
Nov 29, 2009 9:34 PM
|
No surprises on President Obama's hunt for Bin Ladin II with Afghanistan War EXPANSION.
We're in Afghanistan to hunt and kill the terrorists, which we failed so we need to keep them on the run instead.
We use drones to kill our high valued targets and keep them on the run, but we failed with too much collateral damages that's hurting our interests there...what interests?
Oooo, the love of Afghans. WE NEED MORE TROOPS TO GO IN THERE AND SIP TEAS WITH THE AFGHANS FOLKS SO WE CAN CHANGE THEIR MINDS.
Why do we need the Afghans to love us? Oooo, we're inserting a government in there.
Why are we inserting the government in there? Oooo, so the terrorists can be on the run. WTF!
|
|
|
Posts:
4,327
Registered:
6/29/09
|
|
(911 of 1292)
Re: Afghan Military Review
Nov 29, 2009 9:10 PM
|
> I would prefer to see a tax levied more heavily on those persons and corporations who make windfall profits from war.
I would prefer for war profiteering to again be regarded as traitorous.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,149
Registered:
3/13/08
|
|
(910 of 1292)
Re: Afghan Military Review
Nov 29, 2009 8:24 PM
|
Jim Earl,
I'm not one for plots. That's movie shit.
In the REAL world in which I lived, things like this got DEALT with at a much lower level.
DaN
|
|
|
Posts:
7,820
Registered:
5/18/07
|
|
(909 of 1292)
Re: Afghan Military Review
Nov 29, 2009 7:43 PM
|
> NotSoCuriousJim
>
Your 9-11 plot sucks the worst of them all
> And related personnae
Screwball
--
"9-11 Truthers" are imbeciles!
|
|
|
Posts:
3,050
Registered:
10/22/06
|
|
(908 of 1292)
Re: Afghan Military Review
Nov 29, 2009 6:53 PM
|
> Two former advisers to George W. Bush had a
> spirited debate on Sunday morning over the
> possibility of a surtax to pay for a troop escalation
> in Afghanistan.
>
> Appearing on ABC's "This Week," Dan Senor, a
> neoconservative war hawk who served as Bush's
> spokesman in Iraq, called proposals for taxing the
> rich to pay for the war a backdoor effort to derail
> any surge in forces. He was opposed by another Bush
> hand, former communications honcho Matthew Dowd -- a
> GOP traditionalist -- who said it was unfair to have
> an increase in troops without a shared social
> sacrifice.
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/29/gop-wages-int
> ernal-debate_n_373063.html
>
> Should there be a tax on the rich to pay for the war?
I would prefer to see a tax levied more heavily on those persons and corporations who make windfall profits from war.
|
|
|
Posts:
8,620
Registered:
8/24/06
|
|
(907 of 1292)
Re: Afghan Military Review
Nov 29, 2009 6:34 PM
|
Why won't Obama release the pictures?
Too hurtful?
Or "National Security"
|
|
|
Posts:
3,050
Registered:
10/22/06
|
|
(906 of 1292)
Re: Afghan Military Review
Nov 29, 2009 6:09 PM
|
> Could it be that the war is continuing because it
> represents such a large part of our economy? I wonder
> how many people are employed by the war effort.
I think the war is continuing because Obama and the top people in Congress and the Pentagon don't think we can afford to just walk off and leave it. Not with the Taliban making inroads in nuclear-empowered Pakistan.
When a war begins, things are set in motion.... Walking away from it later doesn't stop them. We learned that from when we funded and armed the muhajedeen against the Soviets, and then just walked away.
I think that's also the reason Obama won't reverse Bush policy and sign onto the anti-landmine treaty. Why signal AQ that we definitely aren't going to mine the Afghan-Pakistan border?
|
|
|
Posts:
8,620
Registered:
8/24/06
|
|
(905 of 1292)
Re: Afghan Military Review
Nov 29, 2009 5:35 PM
|
NotSoCuriousJim
And related personnae
|
|
|
Posts:
7,820
Registered:
5/18/07
|
|
(904 of 1292)
Re: Afghan Military Review
Nov 29, 2009 4:44 PM
|
Oh yeah, I heard McCain suggest a draft once
and said "bring it on you windbag !" but I'm
counting on the unlikely possibility that we're
bluffing 100% on any threat to use military
action against Iran just on the basis of
skyrocketing oil prices alone.
I think that the administration in charge right
now would like to maneuver into a situation
whereby Iran is seen by most of the country
as having started the war but I don't think
they're going to be played by our pols quite
so handily as we get played.....I'm basing
that on the suspicion that they played us
into liberating the Shia of Iraq and helping
to prop their vassal state up with our military.
--
Edited by JimEarl at 11/29/2009 2:18 PM PST
|
|
|
Posts:
133
Registered:
6/21/09
|
|
(903 of 1292)
Re: Afghan Military Review
Nov 29, 2009 3:27 PM
|
JimEarl,
Look how relatively easy it is/was to go to war now with the "volunteers". I know it isn't what the generals want and it is pure fantasy to throw it out there. But I would love nothing more than to have the debate in the open. And right now is the best time, as we see the consequences of the all volunteer force. I mean we can't start another war even if we wanted to. And you can make a case that in order to shut down Iran you've got to be able to back up the tough talk and sanctions. Iran is feeling so defiant because they know we're stretched to the limit.
The wildcard with Iran is Israel's impending response to the growing threat. I would expect them to react first to start the whole Armageddon scenario the Christian-Taliban has been praying for. I say impending because I wouldn't expect them to wait as long for the development of more enrichment facilities. It isn't like we have much influence over Israel under O. They have no interest in his success since they interpret it as counter to their interest. And the weak position the US is in means Israel is more likely to act, not less likely, IMO.
That's just how totally fucked we are. Outstanding work, W, Dickwad and all the neo-conartists, on behalf of your constituents, the MIC.
|
|
|
|
|
