Afghanistan, more troops? - Page 5

Dan40 · #1 (**permalink**) 10-07-2009, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by computerworks

Uh, Dan.... try and have a civil dialog without insults....it just flows so much better.

thanks.

I map out a lucrative career for the guy.
I give him a BRILLIANT [IMHO] plan to cover the mythical uncovered.
I tell him its raining while beer halls are emptying out and lining up to get at his back.
And I'm WRONGFULLY accused of attacking him!
Oh the humanity!!

computerworks · #2 (**permalink**) 10-07-2009, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan40

I map out a lucrative career for the guy.
I give him a BRILLIANT [IMHO] plan to cover the mythical uncovered.
I tell him its raining while beer halls are emptying out and lining up to get at his back.
And I'm WRONGFULLY accused of attacking him!
Oh the humanity!!

Damn...after a second look...you're right.

Carry on.

Excaliber · #3 (**permalink**) 10-07-2009, 12:08 AM

I've heard some estimates that up to 400,000 troops will be needed to stabilize the country. Obviously we can't do that, they would have to come from the Afghan's.

40,000 American troops is starting to sound like a drop in the bucket.

Scott S · #4 (**permalink**) 10-13-2009, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excaliber

I've heard some estimates that up to 400,000 troops will be needed to stabilize the country. Obviously we can't do that, they would have to come from the Afghan's.

Yes we can if we start sending every Afghan and Pakistani here on a visa back home to clean up their own country before we let them back in.

I can deal with not having a Slushy for awhile.

Bring our troops home now!

BeanCounter · #5 (**permalink**) 10-13-2009, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott S

Yes we can if we start sending every Afghan and Pakistani here on a visa back home to clean up their own country before we let them back in.

I can deal with not having a Slushy for awhile.

Bring our troops home now!

How about the Mexicans too? We need slushies just as much as lettuce and pot.

Jamo · #6 (**permalink**) 10-07-2009, 12:30 PM

Damn Ernie...you owe this guy a beer!

Excaliber · #7 (**permalink**) 10-07-2009, 01:36 PM

Yeah, I got a beer for him, it's "raining" you know...

Dan40 · #8 (**permalink**) 10-07-2009, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excaliber

Yeah, I got a beer for him, it's "raining" you know...

No 'used' beers need apply!

Excaliber · #9 (**permalink**) 10-08-2009, 12:53 AM

Interesting developements in the "war room" council as the debate continues. Some are saying the Taliban poses no direct threat to National Security and has no direct ties to Al Queda. Therefore, focus on Al Queda with surgical strikes, drones, less emphasis on direct action against the Taliban. Hmmm,,,

The very question I posed some posts back. How closely allied are the Taliban and Al Queda? Difficult question because I think it depends on "time". Not that close NOW, but in time they could get a lot more chummy.

Perhaps Pakistan is where the real threat lays and where our focus should be?

Man is this thing screwed up or what!

Jamo · #10 (**permalink**) 10-08-2009, 01:03 AM

Well...Pakistan already has the bomb.

Taliban is a different creature than al-Queda...like diarrhea and constipation. They both gotta go.

fsstnotch · #11 (**permalink**) 10-09-2009, 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jamo

Well...Pakistan already has the bomb.

Taliban is a different creature than al-Queda...like diarrhea and constipation. They both gotta go.

Maybe we could pour a metaphorical 'Pepto' on the whole region?!

392cobra · #12 (**permalink**) 10-09-2009, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jamo

Well...Pakistan already has the bomb.

Taliban is a different creature than al-Queda...like diarrhea and constipation. They both gotta go.

New White House spin: Taliban not really an enemy, has role in Afghanistan’s Future

No foolin’.They’re looking for any way they can to avoid giving McChrystal the troops he says he needs to secure the country, so they’ve come up with a way out. If the people we’ve been fighting for eight years aren’t the enemy, then the country no longer needs to be secured from them, does it?
In other words, rather than eat crap by forthrightly admitting he’s prepared to abandon huge swaths of the country to Islamist fascists rather than invest another 40,000 troops, he’s going to create an artificial distinction between the Taliban and Al Qaeda to let him save face by claiming he’s focused on “the real enemy.” Much like how he was focused during the campaign on “the good war” in Afghanistan rather than “the bad war” in Iraq. I wonder how long it’ll be before he decides that not everyone who’s in Al Qaeda is an enemy either — or, better yet, that AQ’s been “substantially defeated” or something, which has been the unstated thrust of all those WH-leaked pieces in the press lately about how weak Bin Laden’s gang has become. Why, I’ll bet in a year or so we’ll be told that they’re so weak that we can start pulling out of Afghanistan altogether. Things sure have improved over there since Bush was president, huh?

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/0...istans-future/

fsstnotch · #13 (**permalink**) 10-09-2009, 07:46 AM

the Taliban was once a very positive impact to this region. However, power and corruption destroyed it. Now, they feed on these poor people. Charge them a tax for breathing and take whatever they want, whenever they want, not to mention provide something like 90% of the opiads to the world!

Hey, they're trying to legalize Marijuana, maybe they'll go ahead and legalize heroin too! haha Then guess who would become a world power......

VRM · #14 (**permalink**) 10-09-2009, 08:22 AM

This is just colossally bad...we went from a president who thought it was a good idea to attack anybody who looked at us funny to a president who wants peace at any cost.
Are we capable of electing somebody even a little bit rational?

Steve

Excaliber · #15 (**permalink**) 10-09-2009, 08:29 AM

Wow, this is a surprising development, less emphasis on the Taliban more on Al Queda in PAKISTAN. The numbers I heard were like a 100 Al Q in Afghan and thousands in Pakistan. As the primary target has always been Al Q I can see the logic in focusing our efforts there (Pakistan).

It's leaves me sad for the Afghan people though, the Taliban are SO brutal, so radical. But countries and the world are filled with evil people, corruption and suffering. We simply do not have the resources to address all of it. Reality is, we may to accept the fact that the Taliban will have a say in the Afghan Government, that really stinks.

VRM · #16 (**permalink**) 10-09-2009, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excaliber

Wow, this is a surprising development, less emphasis on the Taliban more on Al Queda in PAKISTAN. The numbers I heard were like a 100 Al Q in Afghan and thousands in Pakistan. As the primary target has always been Al Q I can see the logic in focusing our efforts there (Pakistan).

It's leaves me sad for the Afghan people though, the Taliban are SO brutal, so radical. But countries and the world are filled with evil people, corruption and suffering. We simply do not have the resources to address all of it. Reality is, we may to accept the fact that the Taliban will have a say in the Afghan Government, that really stinks.

I do not like what the Taliban have done to that country and its people, but it is not our job to police everything.

The Taliban had the choice to either hand over Al Quaida or end up on the bad guy list themselves. I understand Muslim rules about hospitality, but I also understand Muslim rules on killing innocents.

Bush made the right choice in adding the Taliban to the bad guy list - they need to stay there.

Unless Obama wants to suck in the Taliban and use them against Al Quaida, and then take wipe out the Taliban after Al Quaida is taken care of. Nahhhh... what was I thinking!!

Steve

Excaliber · #17 (**permalink**) 10-09-2009, 08:43 AM

From what I understand this plan does NOT involve "abandoning" the Taliban war aspect entirely. We will continue to monitor their level of activity and take limited action as the need arises. The consensus seem to be that there is no immediate danger of the Afghan Government falling, that could change in the future. The Afghan country poses no immediate threat to the USA whereas Al Queda does. If Pakistan falls to Al Q that is a far more serious a threat to our national security than if Afghanistan falls to the Taliban.

Jamo · #18 (**permalink**) 10-09-2009, 12:08 PM

Gee guys, what's the matter? Don't you think having the Taliban around will provide a buffer against Iran? Brutal? But leaving Saddam in would've been the smart move?

VRM · #19 (**permalink**) 10-09-2009, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jamo

But leaving Saddam in would've been the smart move?

Well, gee...Scowcroft (a guy with a lot more expertise on the subject matter than any of us) thought so.

Jamo · #20 (**permalink**) 10-09-2009, 01:28 PM

Hmmm....same guy who toasted the Chinese after the man-tank battle in T-square. He let Saddam be the first time.

Last guy on earth I'd cite as an example of making correct decisions.