Obama approves troop surge...

JHuschke · 10-14-09, 05:20 PM

Maybe he'll approve of his own assassination..

SteamWake · 10-14-09, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHuschke

Maybe he'll approve of his own assassination..

Holy bleep !

Platapus · 10-14-09, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHuschke

Maybe he'll approve of his own assassination..

I think that is an inappropriate thing to post.

Platapus · 10-14-09, 08:24 PM

Before we get too excited about any surge, these support troops are replacements for other support troops who are or are about to rotate back.

SteamWake · 10-14-09, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus

Before we get too excited about any surge, these support troops are replacements for other support troops who are or are about to rotate back.

Yup....

Stealth Hunter · 10-14-09, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHuschke

Maybe he'll approve of his own assassination..

FBI is watching you.

Ducimus · 10-14-09, 09:29 PM

You know what im fuzzy on, is why we we focused on Iraq and not Afghanistan in the first place. I mean... last i checked, "the war on terror" was kicked off when some ragheads decided to park a couple airliners into twin towers, and the masterminds behind it all, was in Afghanistan, right? So where does the Iraq part come in? Oh that's right, i forgot, the WMD's that well..... it was an epic intelligence failure. So, what aside from "The terrorists might use NBC's on us!", does Iraq have any relation to September 11th? That one's a bit fuzzy to me.

Now, obviously, it's been my opinion that Afghanistan should have been the focus all along. Now, i'm certainly not trying to be a desktop general, but its definatly a place where using the right strategy is crucial (not called the graveyard of empires for no reason), cause the current one doesn't appear to be working if this is any indicator:

http://burnpit.legion.org/2009/10/th...ps-of-361-cav/

That link, really brings the reality of it home.

Aramike · 10-15-09, 12:34 AM

Quote:

You know what im fuzzy on, is why we we focused on Iraq and not Afghanistan in the first place. I mean... last i checked, "the war on terror" was kicked off when some ragheads decided to park a couple airliners into twin towers, and the masterminds behind it all, was in Afghanistan, right? So where does the Iraq part come in? Oh that's right, i forgot, the WMD's that well..... it was an epic intelligence failure. So, what aside from "The terrorists might use NBC's on us!", does Iraq have any relation to September 11th? That one's a bit fuzzy to me.

Wait - you're unclear as to why we focused on a strategically significant part of the world versus a strategically INSIGNIFICANT part of the world?

Are you serious?

Hmm, let's see - one region has tremendous natural resources, is unstable AND borders a sworn ENEMY, while another ... is just there.

How does this confuse you exactly?

Liberals LOVE to pretend that they are all about being thoughtful, but in the end, they can only judge the current so-called "wars" on that it would be better to seek revenge than a strategic foothold.

Hilarious.

Freiwillige · 10-15-09, 02:00 AM

We focused on Iraq because the Neo-cons that held the reigns of power wanted Iraq and were foaming at the mouth for it for years.

We focused on Iraq because Afghanistan is not nearly as threatening to Israel as Iraq was.

We focused on Iraq because of WMD's (Weapons made of dreams) and for humanitarian reasons. Forget that in Africa Genocide is common.

Aramike · 10-15-09, 03:09 AM

Quote:

We focused on Iraq because the Neo-cons that held the reigns of power wanted Iraq and were foaming at the mouth for it for years.

Not smart.

The neo-cons could have more easily had Iraq in 91 during the first Gulf War.

Quote:

We focused on Iraq because Afghanistan is not nearly as threatening to Israel as Iraq was.

That's true in as much as Afghanistan is not nearly a threat to ... well, ANYONE, that Iraq was. There's practically no resources and economy to speak of and no real benefit to building a nation there.

The fact that you single out Israel is foolish and exposes your ideological ignorance and bias, considering the same statement could be made regarding any nation on the planet.

Quote:

We focused on Iraq because of WMD's (Weapons made of dreams) and for humanitarian reasons.

Yeah, that's right - Iraq never had WMDs, and never used them.

You're in la-la land. It was all just dreams.

Arguable, they didn't have weapons at the time of the invasion. Either way, the suspicion was no way unfounded.

Quote:

Forget that in Africa Genocide is common.

Stellar logic: if you can't help them all, don't help any.

Good one.

Castout · 10-15-09, 03:22 AM

....

How about one more theater of war! Korea! Maybe soon?

And how about any faction intending to take advantage of US forces strain.
WWIII is looming

.

Ducimus · 10-15-09, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aramike

Wait - you're unclear as to why we focused on a strategically significant part of the world versus a strategically INSIGNIFICANT part of the world?

Are you serious?

Hmm, let's see - one region has tremendous natural resources, is unstable AND borders a sworn ENEMY, while another ... is just there.

How does this confuse you exactly?

Liberals LOVE to pretend that they are all about being thoughtful, but in the end, they can only judge the current so-called "wars" on that it would be better to seek revenge than a strategic foothold.

Hilarious.

So cut the verbose fat away, and what your really saying is we went there for the oil. Yeah i suppose, though i don't like that idea. Again, all this **** started because of 911 (go go overused acronyms). Since then its been plainly obvious to the average american we have a little terrorist problem. One major root of the problem is Osama Bin Laden who finances and organizes alot of this, and was the one who was ultimately responsible for all the deaths that occured. Justice should be served.

That raghead, doesn't live in Iraq. Iraq, aside from oil, means two ****s to us. Infact, removing Saddam has arguably destabalized the region. If anyone would be a problem, it would be Iran. Iraq was a known factor, we could deal with them. By taking down saddam and his government, we did Iran a huge favor.

Afghanistan should have remained the focus until we got Osama, and we should have been using any and all means neccessary to nab him. Unfortunatly, focusing on it ,now, as skybird said, is too little, too late.

Oh, by the way, im not liberal, but since were making assumptions here, im guessing your some neocon. Neocons crack me the hell up. They're so quick to want our nation to go to war, and yet so many of them are either UNWILLING or DO NOTHING to support it except wave the flag around like a god damn set of pom poms at a high school football game. My loathing of these people defies description. All talk, and no walk. How many neocon's you see enlisting these days? That's what id like to know.

August · 10-15-09, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ducimus

How many neocon's you see enlisting these days? That's what id like to know.

Probably way more than commie liberals would be my guess...

Schroeder · 10-15-09, 01:54 PM

I think more troops alone won't solve anything down there.
We need to establish a decent (what ever that is) economy in Afghanistan otherwise every other gain will only be temporarily. As it is now corruption is the norm. There is nothing you can trust in in Afghanistan. The politicians are corrupt, the police are corrupt, the military are corrupt. As long as a lot of people take bribes (are in need of taking bribes) nothing will change.
Just a few days ago it was reported that thousands of formerly German pistols that were delivered to the Afghani police ended up in unknown hands and can be bought on basars now.

As long as things are going like that there will never be an Afghani police or military that can be taken seriously.
But that is not only the fault of the west alone. It's the Afghani's as well IMHO. They have been given the chance to build up the country again, but the personal profit thinking of some will ruin it for all. As long as policemen, soldiers, warlords and politicians take bribes to look the other way nothing will turn to the better.
That's why a solid economy is needed that can pay wages that make the security personnel independent from taking bribes.

I know that this is just wishful thinking that won't come true (were is that economy supposed to come from?) but as it is now I would say we have lost that conflict (or are at least not winning it).
Whenever the ISAF pulls out of Afghanistan the Taliban will be in charge again three weeks later.

Ducimus · 10-15-09, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

Probably way more than commie liberals would be my guess...

Oh yea, more assumptions, or at least, a veiled insinuation. You know nothing about me. I'll tell you this much, before i enlisted, i was very much a little extreme right wing conservative, rush limbah listening, gun nut neocon. 7 years total time in service later, my tune changed. Drastically. Don't really care much for guns anymore (though i do own some), Rush limbah needs to run for office or STFU, and i'm not too keen on sticking our noses in other countries business. I'm entitled to that opinion and change of attitude i think, I did my time as the worlds policeman, have you?

Getting out of the service, i found that I'm neither liberal, or conservative. Im something both parties hate, an independant. Both parties are full of schitt. So you can take your barn yard (donkey) and circus animals (elephant) antics, and shove em somewhere.

As an aside, i love how some folks use "liberal" as a deragatory term for anyone who doesn't agree with their views. Too funny.

10-14-09, 08:24 PM	#4
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,395 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	Before we get too excited about any surge, these support troops are replacements for other support troops who are or are about to rotate back. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

10-15-09, 03:22 AM	#11
Castout Silent Hunter Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Jakarta Posts: 4,794 Downloads: 89 Uploads: 6	.... How about one more theater of war! Korea! Maybe soon? And how about any faction intending to take advantage of US forces strain. WWIII is looming. __________________ My blog: http://exposingsingapore.wordpress.com/

10-15-09, 01:54 PM	#14
Schroeder Navy Seal Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Banana Republic of Germany Posts: 6,170 Downloads: 62 Uploads: 0	I think more troops alone won't solve anything down there. We need to establish a decent (what ever that is) economy in Afghanistan otherwise every other gain will only be temporarily. As it is now corruption is the norm. There is nothing you can trust in in Afghanistan. The politicians are corrupt, the police are corrupt, the military are corrupt. As long as a lot of people take bribes (are in need of taking bribes) nothing will change. Just a few days ago it was reported that thousands of formerly German pistols that were delivered to the Afghani police ended up in unknown hands and can be bought on basars now. As long as things are going like that there will never be an Afghani police or military that can be taken seriously. But that is not only the fault of the west alone. It's the Afghani's as well IMHO. They have been given the chance to build up the country again, but the personal profit thinking of some will ruin it for all. As long as policemen, soldiers, warlords and politicians take bribes to look the other way nothing will turn to the better. That's why a solid economy is needed that can pay wages that make the security personnel independent from taking bribes. I know that this is just wishful thinking that won't come true (were is that economy supposed to come from?) but as it is now I would say we have lost that conflict (or are at least not winning it). Whenever the ISAF pulls out of Afghanistan the Taliban will be in charge again three weeks later. __________________ Putting Germ back into Germany.

10-14-09, 05:20 PM	#1
JHuschke XO Join Date: May 2008 Location: Munich, Germany Posts: 432 Downloads: 32 Uploads: 0	Maybe he'll approve of his own assassination..

10-14-09, 09:29 PM	#7
Ducimus Rear Admiral Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 12,987 Downloads: 67 Uploads: 2	You know what im fuzzy on, is why we we focused on Iraq and not Afghanistan in the first place. I mean... last i checked, "the war on terror" was kicked off when some ragheads decided to park a couple airliners into twin towers, and the masterminds behind it all, was in Afghanistan, right? So where does the Iraq part come in? Oh that's right, i forgot, the WMD's that well..... it was an epic intelligence failure. So, what aside from "The terrorists might use NBC's on us!", does Iraq have any relation to September 11th? That one's a bit fuzzy to me. Now, obviously, it's been my opinion that Afghanistan should have been the focus all along. Now, i'm certainly not trying to be a desktop general, but its definatly a place where using the right strategy is crucial (not called the graveyard of empires for no reason), cause the current one doesn't appear to be working if this is any indicator: http://burnpit.legion.org/2009/10/th...ps-of-361-cav/ That link, really brings the reality of it home.

10-15-09, 02:00 AM	#9
Freiwillige The Old Man Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Phx. Az Posts: 1,458 Downloads: 24 Uploads: 0	We focused on Iraq because the Neo-cons that held the reigns of power wanted Iraq and were foaming at the mouth for it for years. We focused on Iraq because Afghanistan is not nearly as threatening to Israel as Iraq was. We focused on Iraq because of WMD's (Weapons made of dreams) and for humanitarian reasons. Forget that in Africa Genocide is common.