Author Topic: Obama to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan  (Read 1140 times)

David Mack

  • Muthafuckin' Double OG
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 597
  • Karma: -26
  • $700,000 richer Blood
Re: Obama to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan
« Reply #25 on: December 03, 2009, 04:54:24 PM »
Obama is starting to sound alot like George Dubya Bush and this is no coincidence either. It just shows that all US presidents are puppets that are bending over to their puppetmasters. If they the puppets try to break free and cut the strings that connect them to their masters, they will end up like our old pal JFK.

PS to the ignorant Masses: There is nothing to "win" in Afghanistan they just want to portray that to the public inorder to justify the profit induced war. It is just a continuation of the Miltary Industrial Complex AKA the war economy where big oil companies, banks, Miltary contractors etc all create mass profits with the bloodshed of innoncent Afghans and US soldiers. They constanly feed us with the "War on Terror" Bullshit to justify this.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2009, 05:00:22 PM by David Mack »

Officer Perez

??? I don't know this guy so fuck you!
 

the ghost

  • Guest
Re: Obama to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan
« Reply #26 on: December 03, 2009, 05:10:47 PM »

You must be joking right? there are tens of thousands of mercenaries there who essentially operate with impunity, therefore that alone would ridicule the notion that anyone is operating with kid gloves. This is a country with vast terrains, with a population of in excess of 75 million, the third poorest country on this earth. Their prosperity has not improved, they haven't benefited from even the rebuilding efforts of their own country. Added to that, we already know the trigger happy ill disciplined nature of American soldiers anyway and so it's reasonable to assume there was never any kid gloves. This is an occupation force which is intent on staying there for several decades, there is clearly no doubt about that. People have a truly unrealistic view of what a "victory" is, if Russia could not succeed with some 500,000 troops, then neither can this contingent of much smaller number, therefore their remit is not total victory, instead it's to occupy the key resources and strategic areas.

No sir, I am not joking.  The Afgan peoples resolve and will has been proven many times in the past as you pointed out.  Victory must be defined before we can really get into this, but in my mind, Victory for America is when the "Taliban" and other factions that the  American government deems undesirable are unable to function.  Right now we are trying to play recess referee over there, because we are worried about how the civilian population thinks about us.  That tactic is flawed from the beginning and we only need to look back 35 years for a major example of that.  I think that time will also show that Iraq will fall when we fully remove ourselves from that situation. The only way to "win" if you can call it that, is to completely and utterly crush any thing even remotely related to an uprising, or faction in that country.  If America could stomach that, they "war" could be won according to my perceived definition.  The problem is that we would have to become like the people we try and say we are better than.  It is a huge country , but if people were aware of martial law, and that anyone out after say 10 pm might catch a missle from a drone, you would see a drastic reduction in travel at night.  But what's the cost?  America's Honor?  We should not have gone after the entire government to begin with.  So I think that if we want to win we will need to employ much harsher tactics than we are capable of given the average Americans stomach for what they see on CNN.
 

The Overfiend

  • Guest
Re: Obama to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan
« Reply #27 on: December 03, 2009, 07:22:42 PM »
From speaking with people who are actually there, the main force is the international coalition, not the mercenaries. The mercs are mostly hired by Afghan politicians or foreign civil servants to guard and such, not major fighting.


From what I'm told, there is the same problems, like Vietnam, as the Taliban simply blend into the population. My mates over there have been shot at multiple times, the problem is identifying where it always comes from.... However, special forces hit-men usually blend into the population and execute collaborators and suspected Taliban.

Anyway, the Taliban does not enjoy popular support, in neither Afghanistan or Pakistan. People genuinely don't like the Taliban, but it isn't like their minds can comprehend an alternative.



As for reasons for being there, most dudes in the army don't give a fuck for the moral or political reasons, they are going there to get their hustle on. In the words of Nick Rockefeller: 'Whaddayou care? Worry about yourself!!':D They get 10K a month on top of their normal salary and for a kid in his late teens to early 20s, after 1 year you got yourself 120K that isn't bad...I ask my mates 'but what if you die, you can't spend it?' They say: 'Well, I will be dead so why would I care? Its not im gonna be sad, I will be dead'  :D

For these guys this is a way to make a scientist or principal's yearly salary without having a university degree at a young age. In the short term they win, because they are way more ballin' than me currently as I am still a poor uni student still only an initiate into the mystery schools, but in the long term it is not so great because the only way for them to keep making that money is to keep doing tours. But they can always pursue civilian qualifications through the army, there are opportunities.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2009, 04:46:51 AM by Illuminati Clique »
 

Mr. O

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3266
  • Karma: 123
Re: Obama to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan
« Reply #28 on: December 04, 2009, 10:02:46 PM »
damn..obama fucked up.
[flash=200,200<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AlIxU8SiFZU?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AlIxU8SiFZU?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>[/flash]
 

Teddy Roosevelt

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7537
  • Karma: 179
  • The Trust-Buster
Re: Obama to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan
« Reply #29 on: December 06, 2009, 08:07:38 PM »
No Firm Plans for a U.S. Exit in Afghanistan

Article Tools Sponsored By
By MARK MAZZETTI
Published: December 6, 2009

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration sent a forceful public message Sunday that American military forces could remain in Afghanistan for a long time, seeking to blunt criticism that President Obama had sent the wrong signal in his war-strategy speech last week by projecting July 2011 as the start of a withdrawal.

In a flurry of coordinated television interviews by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and other top administration officials, they said that any troop pullout beginning in July 2011 would be slow and that the Americans would only then be starting to transfer security responsibilities to Afghan forces under Mr. Obama’s new plan.

The television appearances by the senior members of Mr. Obama’s war council appeared to be part of a focused and determined effort to ease concerns about the president’s emphasis on setting a date for reducing America’s presence in Afghanistan after more than eight years of war.

“We have strategic interests in South Asia that should not be measured in terms of finite times,” said Gen. James L. Jones, the president’s national security adviser, speaking on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “We’re going to be in the region for a long time.”

Echoing General Jones, Mr. Gates played down the significance of the July 2011 target date.

“There isn’t a deadline,” Mr. Gates said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “What we have is a specific date on which we will begin transferring responsibility for security district by district, province by province in Afghanistan, to the Afghans.”

On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Mr. Gates said that under the plan, 100,000 American troops would be in Afghanistan in July 2011, and “some handful, or some small number, or whatever the conditions permit, will begin to withdraw at that time.”

In his prime-time address at West Point on Tuesday, Mr. Obama said that even as he planned to send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, his administration would “begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011.”

The president’s speech set off alarms inside Afghanistan and Pakistan, as some officials worried about an American pullout before Afghan troops were ready to fight the Taliban on their own. It also set off a barrage of criticism from Republicans that the president was setting an arbitrary withdrawal date that would embolden Taliban insurgents to wait the Americans out.

On Sunday, the administration’s top civilian and military officials marched in lockstep in insisting that July 2011 was just the beginning, not the end, of a lengthy process. That date, General Jones said, is a “ramp” rather than a “cliff.”

As they seek to explain the new war strategy, administration officials face the task of calibrating the message about America’s commitments in Afghanistan to different audiences, foreign and domestic, each of whom wants to hear different things.

During weeks of wrenching internal debate, administration officials decided on the July 2011 benchmark in part to send a signal to Afghanistan’s government that the clock was ticking for Afghan troops to take a greater role against the Taliban. The message was intended equally for domestic consumption: assuring skeptical Democratic lawmakers and many Americans that America’s military presence in Afghanistan was not open-ended.

But the White House has also faced sharp criticism from Republicans, who said it made little military sense to set a withdrawal date 18 months in the future because it handed the American strategy to the enemy.

The announcement of the July 2011 benchmark was also greeted with concern during private conversations among American officials and their counterparts in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and administration officials in recent days have acknowledged that they were surprised by the intensity of the anxiety among Afghan and Pakistani officials that the United States would beat a hasty retreat from the region.

Since the White House strategy was announced, President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan has publicly pledged to work with the United States to bolster Afghan forces. But he asked for patience and indicated that his country’s military might not be ready in 18 months to take responsibility from American troops.

During his recent inaugural address, Mr. Karzai said that Afghan forces would be able to take charge of securing Afghan cities within three years, and could take responsibility for the rest of the country within five years.

So officials attempt a balancing act as they sell the Afghan strategy. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander of United States Central Command, said Sunday that there was a natural “tension” between a message of resolve and the message of impatience after eight years of war. But he said the twin messages were not mutually exclusive.

Appearing on “Fox News Sunday,” General Petraeus said that the Obama administration was not planning a “rush to the exits” in Afghanistan, and that depending on the security conditions there could be tens of thousands of American troops in Afghanistan for several years.

Both Mr. Gates and General Petraeus also have the job of easing concerns among military commanders about rigid withdrawal timetables. Mr. Gates has said in public that he opposed firm timelines, and during the administration’s Afghanistan strategy review he insisted that any decisions about troop withdrawals be based on security conditions inside the country.

Administration officials on Sunday were also asked about the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden, the leader of the Qaeda network and the reason that the United States entered the war in Afghanistan in 2001.

Mr. Gates said it had been “years” since the United States had had reliable intelligence about Mr. bin Laden, but he said it was still the assumption of American intelligence agencies that he was hiding in North Waziristan, in Pakistan. General Jones said that Mr. bin Laden was believed to cross the border into Afghanistan occasionally, but he gave no further details about American assessments of his location.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/world/asia/07afghan.html
 

morbidenigma

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1055
  • Karma: -23
Re: Obama to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan
« Reply #30 on: December 25, 2009, 09:58:58 AM »
so where have all the niggaz on dub cc who got erections over having a mixed raced president gone ?
 

SO PRUP

  • Guest
Re: Obama to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan
« Reply #31 on: December 26, 2009, 03:04:15 PM »
Obama said before he got elected he was sending troops to afganistan now everyone wants to cry and act like he didn't say that from the start...
 

morbidenigma

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1055
  • Karma: -23
Re: Obama to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan
« Reply #32 on: December 26, 2009, 04:01:34 PM »
Obama said before he got elected he was sending troops to afganistan now everyone wants to cry and act like he didn't say that from the start...

take your nigga spectacles off. Obama criticised Bush for doin that & said if he got elected, he'd withdraw all the troops within 6 months
 

Shallow

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7281
  • Karma: 215
  • I never had a digital pic of myself before
Re: Obama to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan
« Reply #33 on: December 30, 2009, 08:48:11 PM »
Obama said before he got elected he was sending troops to afganistan now everyone wants to cry and act like he didn't say that from the start...

take your nigga spectacles off. Obama criticised Bush for doin that & said if he got elected, he'd withdraw all the troops within 6 months

From Iraq. Not Afghanistan. But he hasn't done shit with Iraq. So you're still right.
 

Mr. O

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3266
  • Karma: 123
Re: Obama to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan
« Reply #34 on: January 14, 2010, 02:39:57 PM »
obama got his dick in iraqi's mouth and fuckin' republicans. Apprently, I don't see change in anything iin his administration.  At least, he's lot better of a choice than palin and mccain in a sense of being "sencerity".
should of picked ron paul.
fuck.he gotta focus on healthcare....where's the public option.
[flash=200,200<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AlIxU8SiFZU?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AlIxU8SiFZU?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>[/flash]