Author Topic: Obama to Send 17,000 Troops to Afghanistan (Read 2346 times)

lrs · « **on:** February 17, 2009, 12:34:52 PM »

Well, for the past 8 years, liberals have been whining about Afghanistan. Now they are gonna get their chance to go over there and fight.
I'm not sure who they are gonna fight, or why. That's can be attributed to the fact that I do not listen to anything the left wing media has to say. Still maybe there is a good reason.
I don't know much about that place, except that they ( the Afghani's ) defeated the Soviet army when I was in my 20's, and the British army in the 1930's.
They also grow poppy plants in the mountains.
I get the impression those people are hard core. I saw a TV documentary about the mountain people there. Seemed like all the villages had local artisan - gunsmith types who could build an AK-47 from scratch.
I hope President Obama knows what he's doing.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #1 on:** February 17, 2009, 12:44:22 PM »

someone might know better than i but it seems Afghanistan has never been successfully invaded and held .

Dee · « **Reply #2 on:** February 17, 2009, 01:16:37 PM »

As far as Afghanistan, they drove Alexander the Great out of there, just a little while before they started with the rest of us.
The Soviet Union no longer exists because of Afghanistan, and the HELP OF THE U.S. If one recalls we (the U.S. government ) were great friends with the now hated Taliban when the Soviets were there. It would seem that pay back is being administered at the sacrifice of our LOYAL AMERICAN TROOPS.
As Merle Haggard once sung in his song "That's the News". The politicians do all the talking, and the soldiers pay the dues.
We as non-combatant Americans whom are either now too old to fight, have already fought, and some whom have no intention of fighting but, like to talk about fighting can CHEER THEM ON, as they (our brave young men and women) continue to sacrifice themselves for US, their own honor, and THE LIE IN WASHINGTON.
GOD BLESS OUR TROOPS, AND GOD _____ OUR POLITICIANS.

Let us not forget that Afghanistan is nothing more than a 15th Century Country of War Lords, whom WILL NEVER GIVE UP, HAVE NEVER GIVEN UP, and are FIGHTING FOR THEIR COUNTRY AND WAY OF LIFE, whether we like it or not.

lrs · « **Reply #3 on:** February 17, 2009, 01:43:36 PM »

Exactly !

Unless there are terrorists actively planning to hit U.S. targets, this seems foolish to me.
I always had the impression the liberals first latched onto Afghanistan b/c they just wanted to whine about George Bush. If he would gone to Afghanistan first I really think they would have been screaming we should be in Iraq.
Over time, somehow they ultimately convinced themselves we just HAVE to be in Afghanistan.
So now we're sending 17,000 troops to Afghanistan.

mirage1988 · « **Reply #4 on:** February 17, 2009, 02:02:45 PM »

Why would the terrorists hit us when they have one of their own as president? He has already done what no terrorist has been able to do. A terrorist strikes fear- not by what they have done- but what they might do. It, and Its party has scared the heck out of most Americans. If it was up to him he would send all of our troops to afganistan so there would be no-one left to slow down his "security force"... JMHO

Questor · « **Reply #5 on:** February 17, 2009, 02:17:03 PM »

Probably one of those Sunni vs. Shiite things.

Oldshooter · « **Reply #6 on:** February 17, 2009, 02:21:17 PM »

The only thing I cant agree with is this statement ;
"Now they are gonna get their chance to go over there and fight."

It wont be "them" it will be the same people that always do the fighting only this time they probably wont have what they need to fight with, and then when some get dead we will back out like we did the last time we had a leftist in the White house.

Cabin4 · « **Reply #7 on:** February 17, 2009, 02:25:54 PM »

The Liberals and there freinds that run the main stream media in this country now like wars. Makes sence.

alsaqr · « **Reply #8 on:** February 17, 2009, 02:28:42 PM »

Wya the Great wussed around and let the Taliban and alQueda take back over one third of Afghanistan while the senior US generals there were begging for troops. Bush refused to send more troops to Afghanistan because he bought into a scheme by the Saudis to host US-Taliban negotiations in Saudi Arabia.

May God bless our fine troops.

Dee · « **Reply #9 on:** February 17, 2009, 03:56:19 PM »

Gentlemen we can no longer afford to be the world's policeman or referee. If we were not in either country, they would go back to shooting each other, and that in my opinion would be a good thing. JMO

Buckhammer74 · « **Reply #10 on:** February 17, 2009, 04:56:27 PM »

Quote from: alsaqr on February 17, 2009, 02:28:42 PM

Wya the Great wussed around and let the Taliban and alQueda take back over one third of Afghanistan while the senior US generals there were begging for troops. Bush refused to send more troops to Afghanistan because he bought into a scheme by the Saudis to host US-Taliban negotiations in Saudi Arabia.

May God bless our fine troops.

Quote from: Dee on February 17, 2009, 03:56:19 PM

Gentlemen we can no longer afford to be the world's policeman or referee. If we were not in either country, they would go back to shooting each other, and that in my opinion would be a good thing. JMO

+1 to both of you.

But atleast attacking Afghanistan made sense. Iraq was a major screwup.

JonnyC · « **Reply #11 on:** February 18, 2009, 12:31:04 AM »

What happened to the arguement-"if we fight them over there- we won't have to fight them over here?"

ms · « **Reply #12 on:** February 18, 2009, 01:39:01 AM »

Terrorists ARE IN DC.

Dixie Dude · « **Reply #13 on:** February 18, 2009, 02:24:42 AM »

Fighting them over there is the best idea. However in talking with members of the national guard here, the surge in Iraq should have happened 2 years before it did. Noone in the military liked Rumsfield, he wanted to do things with the least amount of troops. If he had listened to the men on the ground, Iraq would already have wound down. The dems would not have taken congress in 2006 and Afganistan would be winding down now. The situation in Afganistan can't be solved unless Pakistan helps clean out their northern mountains alongside of us in Afganistan. Otherwise this could go on for years. Dems also speak with a forked tongue. Obama hasn't been in office a month and has already broken many promises. Dow is going to 5500 by summer. Unemployment will be 10% by fall. Welfare reform of 1996 is out, now able bodied people can stay on it forever. Government is spending 40% of our economy and aren't producing anything. We need capital gains tax cuts for stock investments so companies can grow, hire, and expand. We need corporate tax cuts so companies will stay home instead of going overseas (we have the highest in the world). Our economy isn't going to grow from the ground up, but from the top down. Poor can't hire people to work, but rich can with tax cuts. European banks are about to fail like ours, this will bring us down further. If the stock market doesn't go up, nothing will come up. Stocks are pieces of the company that individuals own. Stocks are money borrowed by selling a piece of the company to expand and grow. There are a lot of people and investment companies just sitting on the sidelines waiting to invest. Unless there is a tax cut, no investment, no growth. Believe me I know, my wife is a stock trader.

LONGTOM · « **Reply #14 on:** February 18, 2009, 02:40:54 AM »

Believe me I KNOW!
I am losing my butt in the market!

LONGTOM

Heather · « **Reply #15 on:** February 18, 2009, 03:32:01 AM »

I heard on the news last night that 30,000 troops were requested, but we could only send 17,000. I don't know a whole lot about the military, but simply using common sense I can see that maybe we are stretched a little thin. If we can only send a little over half of the troops needed how on earth do they plan on being successful? There are few things in life that can be accomplished with only half of the necessary materials, and I just don't think war is one of them.

Heather

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #16 on:** February 18, 2009, 03:41:03 AM »

will troops on the ground have more effect than well place ordinance ?
other than save American lives ?
Would one well placed limited nuke have been less effective at tora-bora (sp) ?
We spend the bulk of our wealth on high dollar weapons then fight with conventional weapons why?

magooch · « **Reply #17 on:** February 18, 2009, 03:41:43 AM »

Well, I remember when this War on Terror kicked off and I remember thinking, here we go again. We didn't learn our lesson in Korea, we didn't learn it in Vietnam and now it looks like we haven't learned it in Iraq, or Afghanistan. That doesn't mean that I was against any of those wars--just the way they were and are being conducted.

We have the means to take out our enemies very efficiently, albeit with a lot of so called innocent humans being toasted along with the bad guys. Hey, war is and should be Hell. I said we should have nuked Iraq and was criticized for it. It's still not to late to put on a little display in Afghanistan.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #18 on:** February 18, 2009, 03:51:41 AM »

innocent ?
You mean the ones that claim to be on our side after we win ?
or the ones in the planes that hit the twin towers ?
or the mothers and fathers that gave birth to the terrorist ?
Or the citizens who lived side by side with the terrorist and allowed training/brain washing to go on since his birth ?
OUR OWN REVOLUTION PROVED YOU ARE ONLY AN INNOCENT VICTOM IF YOU ALLOW IT !

Dee · « **Reply #19 on:** February 18, 2009, 03:53:35 AM »

This "War on Terror" seems much like the "War on Drugs" which I participated in for 20 years. I continually complained to supervisors whom were more interested in seizing property than drugs. The government whom CLAIMED to also participate in this so-called drug war, would push out funding to police agencies thru bills passed, and it finally occurred to me that they were lining these so-called war on drugs bills with THEIR PORK PROJECTS and the "war on drugs" was an excellent disguise, and played well with the American Sheeple.
As in Home Land Security, had the government "TRULY BEEN INTERESTED" in stopping the drug flow into this country, they would have closed our borders to outlaws from Mexico and Canada.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #20 on:** February 18, 2009, 04:14:41 AM »

seems the cat is getting out of the bag with the enomics the way they are

gstewart44 · « **Reply #21 on:** February 18, 2009, 04:50:27 AM »

Quote from: lrs on February 17, 2009, 01:43:36 PM

Exactly !

Unless there are terrorists actively planning to hit U.S. targets, this seems foolish to me.
I always had the impression the liberals first latched onto Afghanistan b/c they just wanted to whine about George Bush. If he would gone to Afghanistan first I really think they would have been screaming we should be in Iraq.
Over time, somehow they ultimately convinced themselves we just HAVE to be in Afghanistan.
So now we're sending 17,000 troops to Afghanistan.

If my short term memory serves me correct we (George Bush) did go to Afghanistan first in 2001. The whole country was in support of this move at that time. Where the libs got bothered was with the invasion of Iraq.

And it is quite a history lesson that no one has been able to invade and subdue Afghanistan throughout thousands of years. The British were massacred (20K troops) in 1842, decided to withdraw after winning in 1880. We know what happended to the Soviets. Tough bunch of tribal natives that are living culturally 300 yrs in the past but with modern weapons. So they are able to carry out their blood feuds with much more efficiency.

Dee · « **Reply #22 on:** February 18, 2009, 04:50:39 AM »

More like the genie is out of the bottle, and has no intention going back in.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #23 on:** February 18, 2009, 05:19:48 AM »

Westbound · « **Reply #24 on:** February 18, 2009, 06:02:46 AM »

What I love is watching my Obama supporting friends eat crow over this. "Obama loves peace and will end wars" "Obama's going to bring all the troops home"

These people voted blindly, for reasons they thought he stood for.

I am glad to see that he at least will follow through with what he said. There is nothing worse than a leader that is non-commital when it comes to military action. Bill Klinton wanted to play around in Serbia and Croatia while pandering to the UN on these so-called peace keeping missions.

JonnyC · « **Reply #25 on:** February 18, 2009, 07:41:40 AM »

So far, it seems he is willing to adjust as the situation changes; unlike the last prez who wouldn't .

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #26 on:** February 18, 2009, 07:44:02 AM »

The build up wasn't an adjustment ?

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #27 on:** February 18, 2009, 07:46:43 AM »

if we are attacked there will be alot of splaining to do , cut Bush all you want that stopped on his watch . No small feat with the wreck of a spy system Clintion left him . Even the new VP expects one !

slim rem 7 · « **Reply #28 on:** February 18, 2009, 08:02:07 AM »

i didn t vote forim.. but im glad he seems to understand the enemy
over there is the same one that took dn the world towers..
ignore them and they will destroy us.. according to them its thier duty to god. think about it..the truth to me, is that western civilization can show a pretty ugly polluted face..but it also is the only thing to promote individual freedom of what ever you talkin of..also the individuals right to pursue his own brand of happiness..i can never adjust to being an controlled critter as for instance a mule or such..history is loaded down with slavery an those whos lives were lived in servitude..so freedom is not a guaranteed thing..every generation probably ought to have to pay the price ..if they are to understand what not being free means..jmo slim

Graybeard · « **Reply #29 on:** February 18, 2009, 09:29:21 AM »

Quote from: ms on February 18, 2009, 01:39:01 AM

Terrorists ARE IN DC.

NOT quite correctly stated. In truth the TERROISTS are the folks who are running DC.

Guys you really are still not getting it. You are falling into their trap just as they intend for you to. You are believing too darmn much of the BS propaganda they are still feeding you by the shovel full. Ya need to open your eyes to the bigger picture here.

BIG MONEY interests, the Illuminati call them what you wish are running the world these days not just the US. Russia and China strike me as being possible maybe even likely exceptions to this. The rest of the "so called free world" are under their control. If you think the politicians in DC are interested in you, your thoughts and ideas or your vote then you are sadly mistaken. They could care less.

They work for this super rich super powerful cabal of people who are the real power behind the world's governments. They are the ones calling the shots, they are the ones whose bidding the politicos in DC are doing. It's all a ruse. There is no war on terror anymore than their ever was a war on drugs. It's a scam. The folks behind the drugs are the same folks supposedly trying to stop them they are profiting from them and so will never really do more than make it look like they are trying. Same with the war on terror.

The REAL TERRORISTs are those supposedly fighting the war. War means money in the hands of the super rich who provide the equipment to fight it and the young soldiers dying and being wounded for their war are just fodder to feed their appetite for more money and more power.

The end game is to have these super rich folks sitting at the top controlling the entire world from their golden thrones. It is a one world government controlled by them. It will mean that billions not millions must die and the rest will serve them and do their bidding or they like the other billions will be put to death by those who will serve them.

If you can't see what's coming you need to open your eyes.