Obama sends in 30000 troops to Afghanistan

[xkatz]

What do you think about the troop surge into Afghanistan?

To me personally I think it is absolutely STUPID. I think the problems are:

1) Cost. We are in a recession and this will only make things worse and we will be further in debt.

2) Lives. We will suffer only more causalities as the war escalates.

3) Pointless in the long run. Although it may help stabilize the region for a bit, it won't be permanent. Afghanistan has been going in a downward spiral politically for quite some time. Eventually the nation will go into turmoil. All things are impermanent as the Buddha said.

So what do you think?

 

[Gunfingers]

1) No withdrawal time. This is a huge problem because the war can go on indefinitely, and it would eventually make the war extremely costly which leads me to,

He put an 18 month withdrawal time. It's, like, in the article.

 

[xkatz]

He put an 18 month withdrawal time. It's, like, in the article.

My bad :sorry1:

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I think that it's a good thing if the Taliban are weakened, an Afaganistan government that can defend itself, and Osama is killed.

 

[xkatz]

IOsama is killed.

I think he might be dead. Even if he is killed it won't make much of a difference.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Might as well title it Obama sends 30,000 body bags to Afganastan...

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I think he might be dead. Even if he is killed it won't make much of a difference.

It would to me.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Might as well title it Obama sends 30,000 body bags to Afganastan...

......

Since 2001, with approx. 55k USA troops.... plus help ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)
Afghan security forces:

6,000+ killed[14]

Northern Alliance:
200 killed[15][16][17][18][19]

Coalition:
1,533 killed (US: 930, UK: 236, Other Coalition: 367)[20]
7,874+ wounded (US: 4,434,[21] UK: 2,864,[22] Canada: 360,[23] Germany: 132, Australia: 84[24])

Contractors:
139 killed
10,569 wounded (to 2007/03)[25]

Total: 7,872+ killed

------

Enemy losses are about 23k deaths.

 

[Valjean]

What's to be accomplished? What do the National Army and Police Force have to fight for?

Vietnamization didn't work. I doubt Afghanization will either, and for similar reasons.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So we have 930 of our 55k troops dead in almost ten years of fighting. Obama is not sending 30k men and women to their deaths. Get a grip.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

So we have 930 of our 55k troops dead in almost ten years of fighting. Obama is not sending 30k men and women to their deaths. Get a grip.

Now, did I imply the bags were for the US troops only? Either way it is sick what we are doing...

 

[Quiddity]

It's only ugly when Bush does it?

The.....: "this is something I inherited" is starting to get a bit fuzzy when you start quacking like the duck you replaced.

I think a time table is stupid. It's an excellent gesture toward the enemy who can gather it's resources around a date.

I'm still not sure what exactly 30,000 troops are supposed to accomplish exactly.

 

[gnomon]

What do you think about the troop surge into Afghanistan?

To me personally I think it is absolutely STUPID. I think the problems are:

1) Cost. We are in a recession and this will only make things worse and we will be further in debt.

2) Lives. We will suffer only more causalities as the war escalates.

3) Pointless in the long run. Although it may help stabilize the region for a bit, it won't be permanent. Afghanistan has been going in a downward spiral politically for quite some time. Eventually the nation will go into turmoil. All things are impermanent as the Buddha said.

So what do you think?

Well we started it.

That's the best I can do until I get something to eat and take something for this sinusitis.

 

[cardero]

Obama addressed the cadets at West Point Academy. My favorite part of the speech was when the camera panned to get the cadets reaction and some were asleep. Classic. I heard that this footage was removed from subsequent reviews. And yes, billions of tax payers dollars will be spent on this venture. Someday I would like to vote for a government who actually knows how to manage money.

 

[Valjean]

Billions for "defense," nothing for domestic welfare

 

[dogsgod]

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

 

[dogsgod]

.







Quote: "I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank. "




- - Barack Obama, October 27, 2007​

​

 

[Evee]

But hey, there's no doubt that a war is GOOD for the economy. How'd the world get out of the LAST depression?
Anyway, leaving now would be like 'Nam all over again. At least if you send more in, you've got a better chance at accomplishing something. Although if you ask me, it's not all about the size of your force, but how you use it.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I don't know exactly what to think but here are some thoughts.

The situation is completely backwards, it seems to me that if (and this is a big "if") the Afghan government represents the people then it is their decision, not our decision, whether or not to send more troops. And there is no reason those troops have to be U.S. troops, once a government has been established they can ask NATO or the UN for peacekeeping forces if they want them, we invaded to overthrow the Taliban (success) and capture Bin Laden (failure). There is also no reason we have to prevent a civil war indefinitely, or preserve the unity of Afghanistan indefinitely, it might be more natural to form a coalition of governments in the various provinces that more naturally follow city vs. rural and ethnic lines. Please keep in mind that most Afghans want a peaceful settlement between the Afghan Taliban and everyone else. The central government's police and army is totally corrupt, commits atrocities, and the central government does nothing to help the poor rural areas. The fear that people bring up is that a Taliban regime might arise all over again that harbors terrorists and stomps on human rights. If it is a *popular* Taliban regime we have to encourage human rights nonviolently, and if it threatens the U.S. in any way the US could crush the regime in an instant all over again, they know this, they cannot be that stupid.

If OTOH the central government does not represent the Afghan people, we should support a nationwide referendum to establish a new government and provide security so the fanatics cannot kill and intimidate voters.

At the end of the day we had a reason for invading Afghanistan: overthrow the Taliban (because they harbored Bin Laden) and get Bin Laden. That's over now, now we only have a responsibility: don't leave without helping the people build their own government and security. That doesn't mean prevent a civil war forever or create a perfect government, with perfect human rights as we view them, or even preserve Afghanistan in its present form.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Billions for "defense," nothing for domestic welfare