Obama sends in 30000 troops to Afghanistan

[Smoke]

And how is that different from any other gov't? There are always corrupt people.

Exactly, so when a government is corrupt even by the usual standards of politicians, what does that tell you? What kind of success have we had in the past at propping up corrupt governments that can't make it on their own? And how many friends did we make backing Diem and Somoza and Pinochet?

 

[Aquitaine]

I think it's horrible news. We should pull out straight away, this war isn't accomplishing anything, and we've got plenty of domestic problems to sort out.

 

[dogsgod]

Obama is dumber than Bush because he didn't learn anything from those that came before him.

 

[JMorris]

Obama is dumber than Bush because he didn't learn anything from those that came before him.

and bush did?

 

[kai]

I'm a little suspicious of the poll, since I couldn't find any explanation of how it was taken or the margin of error. In a country with few telephones, how do pollsters gather data? Do these data reflect primarily the opinions of a select group of well-off people and/or people living in areas secured by the NATO/US troops?It was conducted by the US pollsters D3 Systems. The fieldwork was carried out by the Afghan Centre for Socio-Economic and Opinion Research in Kabul.

Face-to-face interviews were carried out with 1,534 Afghans in all of the country's 34 provinces between 30 December 2008 and 12 January 2009. The margin of error is + or – 2.5%.

This is the fourth such BBC/ABC/ARD poll in the country, following the first news-sponsored survey ever conducted in Afghanistan at the end of 2005, a second at the end of 2006 and another at the end of 2007. from the link


If we take the poll at face value, though, we see Afghans were already getting weary of foreign troops nearly a year ago when the poll was taken. I'm in favor of crushing the Taliban. My concern is how to do it, and I admit I don't know. What I do know is that the Afghans are a mountain people with a proclivity to violence, and even if they don't want the Taliban it doesn't mean they do want a permanent occupation by Western troops. which country or leader has even hinted at a permenant "occupation " by western troops?There is still a substantial proportion of the population that strongly identifies with traditional Islamic an tribal values. There are still clan leaders and warlords who would like to overthrow Karzai regardless of whether they want the Taliban back. The Karzai government is by all accounts riddled with corruption. There is enormous potential for protracted fighting. And despite all this talk of withdrawing in 18 months, it seems that a permanent occupation is what we were planning under Bush and are still planning. Obama has not said we will withdraw in 18 months; he has said we will begin to draw down our troop level in 18 months, and that's not the same thing at all. Neither is

Obama's plan could work, but it's risky, and it comes at a time when public opinion in the U.S. and abroad is already turning against the war.


I didn't say it was "another Vietnam." I'm pointing out that we are in a situation similar to the one we were in 35 years ago. We are increasing our involvement in a land war in Asia for the purposes of (a) propping up a weak, corrupt and unpopular government and (b) eliminating an enemy which is both determined and elusive. Eight years into this war, we're not much closer to eliminating the Taliban than we were at the start. but you are not in a similar situation are you? what the heck are you talking about? this is a UN backed operation with the involvement of over 40 nations and the Taliban do not have popular support from the people .

I'd like to see the Taliban eliminated, but I'm not overly optimistic. A bombing campaign would undoubtedly make the Western powers more and more unpopular. A permanent presence there of our troops is unlikely to be popular in the long run. Sending in death squads to brutally eliminate the opposition as we did unsuccessfully in Vietnam and Nicaragua could easily backfire, too. I'm not sure what the best plan is, and maybe Obama's plan is the best plan. I'm just not convinced. We don't really know exactly what they're planning.


Why yes, Kai. Yes, I do. In fact, every time I see uniformed personnel, whether it's a Veterans Day parade or a Boy Scout jamboree, I foam at the mouth and scream Oh, my God, it's Vietnam all over again!!!! It's not easy to articulate the multiple exclamation points, but I can manage it, because I'm just that damned hysterical. Thanks for asking.

your welcome but i had to ask.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Seyorni,

Billions for "defense," nothing for domestic welfare

Why would you say something so incredibly ignorant? We spend more money on entitlements and education than defense in every budget.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

What I loved about Obama's speech is he destroyed any rationale from the left that we should not be there. The delivery of the speech sucked, but after reading the text of the speech I think his argument is pretty close to flawless (except for the 18 month timeline).

 

[kai]

What I loved about Obama's speech is he destroyed any rationale from the left that we should not be there. The delivery of the speech sucked, but after reading the text of the speech I think his argument is pretty close to flawless (except for the 18 month timeline).

i think the 18 months timeline was a warning to the Afghan government that they have to get their act together.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Hi Seyorni,



Why would you say something so incredibly ignorant? We spend more money on entitlements and education than defense in every budget.

The pie chart below is the government view of the budget. This is a distortion of how our income tax dollars are spent because it includes Trust Funds (e.g., Social Security, Medicare tax), and the expenses of past military spending are not distinguished from nonmilitary spending. For a more accurate representation of how your Federal income tax dollar is really spent, see the large chart (Bottom)

These figures are from an analysis of detailed tables in the “Analytical Perspectives” book of the Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2009. The figures are federal funds, which do not include trust funds — such as Social Security — that are raised and spent separately from income taxes.
“Past military” represents veterans’ benefits plus 80% of the interest on the debt.
The Federal Pie Chart

 

[.lava]

that's all? is it all about money that you concern about? do you expect the pain they caused is going to vanish just like that when USA government stops spending its money on war in Middle East?





.

 

[tumbleweed41]

that's all? is it all about money that you concern about? do you expect the pain they caused is going to vanish just like that when USA government stops spending its money on war in Middle East?





.

Merely responding to Joe,
The value of human life, no matter the nationality, race, or religion, is beyond measure.

 

[kai]

Merely responding to Joe,

The value of human life, no matter the nationality, race, or religion, is beyond measure

.

if only everyone thought like that, eh

 

[zenzero]

Friend xkatz,

Obama sends in 30000 troops to Afghanistan

It is a decision he has taken and surely his govt. is behind the decision.
If anyone has a problem, should simply stand for elections and take decisions he and his govt. then feels and owns responsibility for.

Let us do our own job and be responsible for that, instead of putting spokes in others job.

Love & rgds

 

[dogsgod]

Quote:
The value of human life, no matter the nationality, race, or religion, is beyond measure

if only everyone thought like that, eh

If only Obama thought like that, imagine the lives that won't be lost and ruined.

 

[Smoke]

It was conducted by the US pollsters D3 Systems. The fieldwork was carried out by the Afghan Centre for Socio-Economic and Opinion Research in Kabul.

Face-to-face interviews were carried out with 1,534 Afghans in all of the country's 34 provinces between 30 December 2008 and 12 January 2009. The margin of error is + or – 2.5%.

This is the fourth such BBC/ABC/ARD poll in the country, following the first news-sponsored survey ever conducted in Afghanistan at the end of 2005, a second at the end of 2006 and another at the end of 2007. from the link

Thank you.

which country or leader has even hinted at a permenant "occupation " by western troops?

It's a mountainous country between Iran and Pakistan. If they want it permanently stabilized, it's unlikely that there will be a complete withdrawal in the foreseeable future. Obama originally said he would withdraw the troops 16 months after he took office. He is now talking about beginning to bring home some of the troops next August.

The U.S. has agreed to withdraw all troops by the end of 2011. Obama has plenty of political incentive to do so. You'll have to excuse me, though, if I'm skeptical of Obama's promises, and especially skeptical of the ability of NATO to set things in order in Afghanistan as easily as you seem to think.

but you are not in a similar situation are you? what the heck are you talking about?

I've already explained why I think the situation is similar.

this is a UN backed operation with the involvement of over 40 nations

The Washington Post, 5 December 2009:

Twenty-five countries have announced that they will deploy additional troops next year, and more contributions are expected "during the coming weeks and months," said NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen.

However, officials were still trying to nail down some of the promises.
In addition, U.S. diplomats have some heavy lifting ahead, with Germany and France uncertain about increasing their forces. In addition, the U.S. government hopes to dissuade two other major contributors -- Canada and the Netherlands -- from their plans to pull out within two years. ...

France and Germany, however, did not budge from their decision to wait at least until a Jan. 28 meeting on Afghanistan in London before committing to any increases. They are among the largest contributors of troops, with 4,200 and 3,750, respectively. The U.S. government had asked each to provide at least 1,000 more, according to diplomats and news media reports.
​

and the Taliban do not have popular support from the people .

Obama himself has said -- correctly -- that the Taliban has gained momentum and could possibly overthrow the Karzai government. They may not be popular, but they are formidable. It would be a tragic mistake to underestimate the enemy. I doubt that either Obama or Brown takes your naive and overly optimistic view.

Your arguments in favor of the plan are the same as Obama's: We have other countries fighting with us and people hate the Taliban. Well, we have other countries fighting with us; so what? Does that prove our strategy is a sound one? And people hate the Taliban; explain this to me more fully. Does that mean they'll be easy to beat? Why haven't we been able to beat them in the last eight years?

One thing I think encouraging is that Obama seems to be trying to engage Pakistan. There is no point to trying to clean up Afghanistan unless you can clean up Pakistan, too -- and that's going to be hard.

I've said all along that I support crushing the Taliban. However, Karzai is ambivalent, and Pakistan is a haven of fundamentalist radicals. My reservations are not about whether we should proceed, but about whether we have all our ducks in a row to proceed effectively.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

that's all? is it all about money that you concern about? do you expect the pain they caused is going to vanish just like that when USA government stops spending its money on war in Middle East?

Don't worry. The Taliban will do a great job of making sure the pain doesn't stop once the US military leaves.

 

[Troublemane]

Obama is dumber than Bush because he didn't learn anything from those that came before him.

This is just further proof that who we elect as president doesnt matter. Its really the people behind the throne running the show. Recall Bush said in his debate with Gore, he would never use the military for 'nation-building'....and now Obama, who I am sure recalls his campaign promises, is going back on his word. Why? Because of the guys pulling his strings,...if he goes against them, Obama would quickly become the first dead, black president. :thud:

 

[kai]

Thank you.

your welcome

It's a mountainous country between Iran and Pakistan. If they want it permanently stabilized, it's unlikely that there will be a complete withdrawal in the foreseeable future. Obama originally said he would withdraw the troops 16 months after he took office. He is now talking about beginning to bring home some of the troops next August.

The U.S. has agreed to withdraw all troops by the end of 2011. Obama has plenty of political incentive to do so. You'll have to excuse me, though, if I'm skeptical of Obama's promises, and especially skeptical of the ability of NATO to set things in order in Afghanistan as easily as you seem to think.

i am well aware how hard it is and its not for NATO to set things right its for NATO to establish a situation on the ground so Afghans can put it right. and you havnt answered my question which as who said anything about a permanent "occupation"?

I've already explained why I think the situation is similar.
and it still bears no resemblance to Vietnam.

The Washington Post, 5 December 2009:

Twenty-five countries have announced that they will deploy additional troops next year, and more contributions are expected "during the coming weeks and months," said NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen.

However, officials were still trying to nail down some of the promises.
In addition, U.S. diplomats have some heavy lifting ahead, with Germany and France uncertain about increasing their forces. In addition, the U.S. government hopes to dissuade two other major contributors -- Canada and the Netherlands -- from their plans to pull out within two years. ...

France and Germany, however, did not budge from their decision to wait at least until a Jan. 28 meeting on Afghanistan in London before committing to any increases. They are among the largest contributors of troops, with 4,200 and 3,750, respectively. The U.S. government had asked each to provide at least 1,000 more, according to diplomats and news media reports.
​

Obama himself has said -- correctly -- that the Taliban has gained momentum and could possibly overthrow the Karzai government. They may not be popular, but they are formidable. It would be a tragic mistake to underestimate the enemy. I doubt that either Obama or Brown takes your naive and overly optimistic view. My friend my view is neither naive or overly optimistic no one underestimates the enemy especially me they gained momentum because there wasnt enough troops on the ground.not because they outfought anyone but that we are unable to consolidate gains.

Your arguments in favor of the plan are the same as Obama's: We have other countries fighting with us and people hate the Taliban. Well, we have other countries fighting with us; so what? Does that prove our strategy is a sound one? And people hate the Taliban; explain this to me more fully. Does that mean they'll be easy to beat? Why haven't we been able to beat them in the last eight years? I dont think your country or mine has tried hard enough to beat them they havnt had the capability to do so, what most people dont understand is that the Taliban spend most of their time in Pakistan , Pakistan is the pivot on winning the whole war.

One thing I think encouraging is that Obama seems to be trying to engage Pakistan. There is no point to trying to clean up Afghanistan unless you can clean up Pakistan, too -- and that's going to be hard.

its crucial as Pakistan is the bolt hole for Taliban and Alqueda.

I've said all along that I support crushing the Taliban. However, Karzai is ambivalent, and Pakistan is a haven of fundamentalist radicals. My reservations are not about whether we should proceed, but about whether we have all our ducks in a row to proceed effectively.

My concern has always been not enough ducks in the pond. do the job or get out , it puts mens lives at risk to not treat it for what it is--a war

 

[Shamuwn]

This is just further proof that who we elect as president doesnt matter. Its really the people behind the throne running the show. Recall Bush said in his debate with Gore, he would never use the military for 'nation-building'....and now Obama, who I am sure recalls his campaign promises, is going back on his word. Why? Because of the guys pulling his strings,...if he goes against them, Obama would quickly become the first dead, black president. :thud:

For Onces Someone using their ( Head ) .

 

[nameless]

afghanistan is the epicentre of terrorism, which is spread upto pakistan. Even pakistan government now recognized the evil side of taliban and other terrorist troops. See the bomb blasts done by these people to kill innocent lifes. Every possible steps should be taken as soon as possible to free afghanistan from terrorists. US government must make sure that common people are not affected by all these.