Author Topic: "Why does the president want to send more troops to afghanistan to kill people"?  (Read 1639 times)

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Wow... that helen thomas reporter is kinda off her rocker.

Answer: There are many people there who want to do terror against us.

Her follow up Q: "How do you know that"?


headhuntersix

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17271
  • Our forefathers would be shooting by now
She's been there since Kennedy, time to go.....
L

MuscleMcMannus

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6236
Obama is a fucking moron if he thinks we are just going to walk into Pakistan and topple their government and military.  The US will have the hardest fight they've fought since WWII.  Vietnam will look like a fucking cake walk compared to Afghanistan.  Obama knows this in his heart.....hence his comments regarding expect to see more US casualties. 

grab an umbrella

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2034
Obama is a fucking moron if he thinks we are just going to walk into Pakistan and topple their government and military.  The US will have the hardest fight they've fought since WWII.  Vietnam will look like a fucking cake walk compared to Afghanistan.  Obama knows this in his heart.....hence his comments regarding expect to see more US casualties. 

You're an idiot.  Afghanistan absolutely will not be like Vietnam.  We are fighting a completely different war and on top of that Petraeus is behind the fight over there.  Petraeus is a military genius.  He brought a close to the war in Iraq and he will do the same in Afghanistan.

headhuntersix

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17271
  • Our forefathers would be shooting by now
First off there cowboy....Obama is not talking about walking into Pakistan. The Pakistani military is a joke...a fucking joke. Yeah ok they have nukes...I've actually been to their country, watched them train...they're a joke. When Pakistan had their big earthquake in 2005, they didn't have enough heavy lift helicopters, medics or supplies to take care of their people. They asked us to help out. So despite the fact we were up to our asses in combat operations..we sent chinooks, supplies and medics to help them out.  Why do u assume that everybody else has a great military...Iran, China...Pakistan. Most likely because u've never served and have no idea in hell of what ur talking about.

We're not fighting, occupying or anything with Pakistan...we send drones and occasional SOF forces into Waziristan to wack AQ. Thats a major difference, but not one I'd exepct ur idiot mind to understand.
L

headhuntersix

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17271
  • Our forefathers would be shooting by now
Here's a great example of ur vaunted Pakistani army and the great job their doing kepping their own country safe.....

ARN13 Headline: Opinion: Creeping Talibanization in Pakistan's 'Paradise' Valley
Media: Middle East Times
Date: 26 January 2009
People in Swat - once called the 'paradise' on earth or Switzerland of Pakistan - are living in tense times. The Pakistani Taliban have stoked fear in parts of the valley, and their control is growing. They gave demolished schools and bombed bridges; political workers are assassinated, journalists are tortured, girls are forbidden from going to school. Even dead bodies have been exhumed from their graves and put on gallows. The power of the government has shrunk to a limited area in the district. Lands are getting barren and trees are growing fruitless. Female teachers are forced to live in their houses, video shops are burnt and barbers are warned against shaving beards because the Taliban see this act as un-Islamic. In the last two years, more than 800 hotels and 405 restaurants have been closed in the picturesque Swat Valley - one of Pakistan's main tourist hubs for decades and a major source of foreign revenue - as law and order deteriorates.
L

MuscleMcMannus

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6236
You're an idiot.  Afghanistan absolutely will not be like Vietnam.  We are fighting a completely different war and on top of that Petraeus is behind the fight over there.  Petraeus is a military genius.  He brought a close to the war in Iraq and he will do the same in Afghanistan.

Time will tell dumbass, time will tell.  You're probably one of the stupid sheep that though the current economic crisis was all conspiracy two years ago.  I remember having these exact conversations with idiots like you who had their head buried in the sand.  The US banks will not collapse.  blah blah blah. 

headhuntersix

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17271
  • Our forefathers would be shooting by now
Uh we're talking an invasion of Pakistan which is not now nor ever going to happen.....I didn't comment on banks failing or not failing....don't lump me in with somebody else. U have no idea on how our military works or how foreign policy works and I will continue to blast u every time u make some stupid post on it.
L

MuscleMcMannus

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6236
Uh we're talking an invasion of Pakistan which is not now nor ever going to happen.....I didn't comment on banks failing or not failing....don't lump me in with somebody else. U have no idea on how our military works or how foreign policy works and I will continue to blast u every time u make some stupid post on it.

Haha you may understand the day to day operations of the military.  I would hope so as that's your job.  But the only thing you seem to know or understand regarding America's foreign policy is what your government allows you to see or hear.  I.e. your spoonfed whatever the government flavor of foreign policy for the week is.  You should stick to doing what your told and leave the intelligent analysis to those who are objective and well informed. 

MuscleMcMannus

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6236
Uh we're talking an invasion of Pakistan which is not now nor ever going to happen.....I didn't comment on banks failing or not failing....don't lump me in with somebody else. U have no idea on how our military works or how foreign policy works and I will continue to blast u every time u make some stupid post on it.

My comment wasn't to you.  It was to the other guy that called me an idiot.  But it's the same type of mindset as you have about the military and American supremecy.  It could never happen to us.  We are too strong, too smart, too well equipped.  I'm sure the Russians thought that too.  I'm sure the Romans, the Chinese, the British, the Ottomans and every other failed empire thought that as well.  And so the cycle repeats itself. 

grab an umbrella

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2034
My comment wasn't to you.  It was to the other guy that called me an idiot.  But it's the same type of mindset as you have about the military and American supremecy.  It could never happen to us.  We are too strong, too smart, too well equipped.  I'm sure the Russians thought that too.  I'm sure the Romans, the Chinese, the British, the Ottomans and every other failed empire thought that as well.  And so the cycle repeats itself. 

Its not so much a power issue.  It's a strategy issue.  If we fought a regular ground war with pakistan, we would seriously blow right through them.  Remember the first Iraq War?  We we're predicted to lose up to 100,000 people.  Do you know why we didn't?  Because of A. The Great Norman, B. A great strategy.

Soundness

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1550
  • "Shootin' the shit..."
We did find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in 2003. What we found were precursors for biochemical weapons. They were ingredients that could have been converted into biological weapons within 24 hours!

In fact, in 1991 Saddam had massive amounts of biochemical weapons he didn't use due to psychological warfare, if you will. We implied that if he used them, we would nuke them. So, he basically didn't use them out of fear. Nevertheless, we ended up hitting some of their stockpiles on accident, changing the environment entirely.  :-\ They played a major role in these particular locations despite the fact that we didn't intend them to.

What is with all this "we didn't find weapons of mass destruction" bullshit? WE DID. Did you expect a fuckin crane?  ::) We found massive amounts of precursors for biochemical weapons.

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
We did find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in 2003. What we found were precursors for biochemical weapons. They were ingredients that could have been converted into biological weapons within 24 hours!

In fact, in 1991 Saddam had massive amounts of biochemical weapons he didn't use due to psychological warfare, if you will. We implied that if he used them, we would nuke them. So, he basically didn't use them out of fear. Nevertheless, we ended up hitting some of their stockpiles on accident, changing the environment entirely.  :-\ They played a major role in these particular locations despite the fact that we didn't intend them to.

What is with all this "we didn't find weapons of mass destruction" bullshit? WE DID. Did you expect a fuckin crane?  ::) We found massive amounts of precursors for biochemical weapons.

Didn't he get that stuff from the US?

Can we really get upset that he had bioweapons that we sold him?

MuscleMcMannus

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6236
We did find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in 2003. What we found were precursors for biochemical weapons. They were ingredients that could have been converted into biological weapons within 24 hours!

In fact, in 1991 Saddam had massive amounts of biochemical weapons he didn't use due to psychological warfare, if you will. We implied that if he used them, we would nuke them. So, he basically didn't use them out of fear. Nevertheless, we ended up hitting some of their stockpiles on accident, changing the environment entirely.  :-\ They played a major role in these particular locations despite the fact that we didn't intend them to.

What is with all this "we didn't find weapons of mass destruction" bullshit? WE DID. Did you expect a fuckin crane?  ::) We found massive amounts of precursors for biochemical weapons.

LMAO! Go to just about ANY civilized country and you can find "precursors" to just about anything.  Look at North Korea.  Iraq posed ABSOLUTELY ZERO threat to the United States.  Plus Saddam just like Bin Laden was a FUCKING PRODUCT of the US Government.  When he decided not to play ball anymore he was enemy number one.  Same thing with Bin Laden.  Go back to sleep!  

MuscleMcMannus

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6236
Didn't he get that stuff from the US?

Can we really get upset that he had bioweapons that we sold him?

We funded the Mujahadeen aka Bin Laden in the 80's against the Russians.  As usual it's come back to bite us in the ass.  Same thing with Saddam. 

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
We funded the Mujahadeen aka Bin Laden in the 80's against the Russians.  As usual it's come back to bite us in the ass.  Same thing with Saddam. 

That's my impression as well.

Soundness

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1550
  • "Shootin' the shit..."
LMAO! Go to just about ANY civilized country and you can find "precursors" to just about anything.  Look at North Korea.  Iraq posed ABSOLUTELY ZERO threat to the United States.  Plus Saddam just like Bin Laden was a FUCKING PRODUCT of the US Government.  When he decided not to play ball anymore he was enemy number one.  Same thing with Bin Laden.  Go back to sleep!  
Blind boy,

We're not talking about the same amounts every other country has relative to common needs. There is a certain amount of these ingredients you would need in a country for certain purposes, of course but an astronomical amount of the exact, particular comibination of ingredients you would need for biochemical weapons suggests you intend to use them for those purposes.

MuscleMcMannus

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6236
Blind boy,

We're not talking about the same amounts every other country has relative to common needs. There is a certain amount of these ingredients you would need in a country for certain purposes, of course but an astronomical amount of the exact, particular comibination of ingredients you would need for biochemical weapons suggests you intend to use them for those purposes.

You still have no argument.  The entire reason why we went into Iraq was because of a direc threat of weapons of mass destruction.  I mean shit even Bush himself has admitted they were wrong about WMD's.  Give it a rest.  Iraq was no more or no less of a threat than anyone else.  He threatened to sell oil in dollars is also another reason why we invaded.  We invaded for political reasons not national security reasons.  There were no WEAPONIZED biological weapons anywhere in Iraq.  Precursors are one thing.  Having ingredients laying around and even intent are entirely different things.  There was no threat. 

headhuntersix

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17271
  • Our forefathers would be shooting by now
Haha you may understand the day to day operations of the military.  I would hope so as that's your job.  But the only thing you seem to know or understand regarding America's foreign policy is what your government allows you to see or hear.  I.e. your spoonfed whatever the government flavor of foreign policy for the week is.  You should stick to doing what your told and leave the intelligent analysis to those who are objective and well informed. 

What like u.....whats ur clearance there civilian...what do u see that I don't. Please every post has mistake after mistake..u don't understand how our services work...u bring lib ideology into debates that don't require it. U have no understanding of threats, capabilites or even the histories of the countries ur talking about.
L

headhuntersix

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17271
  • Our forefathers would be shooting by now
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ROBERT M. GATES
SUBMITTED STATEMENT
SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
TUESDAY, JANUARY 27, 2009, 9:30 A.M.
Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, members of the committee:


Afghanistan and Pakistan
There is little doubt that our greatest military challenge right now is Afghanistan. As you
know, the United States has focused more on Central Asia in recent months. President Obama
has made it clear that the Afghanistan theater should be our top overseas military priority. The
ideology we face was incubated there when Afghanistan became a failed state, and the extremists
have largely returned their attention to that region in the wake of their reversals in Iraq. As we
have seen from attacks across the globe – on 9/11 and afterwards – the danger reaches far
beyond the borders of Afghanistan or Pakistan.
There are more than forty nations, hundreds of NGOs, universities, development banks,
the United Nations, the European Union, NATO, and more, involved in Afghanistan – all
working to help a nation beset by crushing poverty, a thriving drug trade fueling corruption, a
ruthless and resilient insurgency, and violent extremists of many stripes, not the least of which is
Al Qaeda. Coordination of these international efforts has been less than stellar, and too often the
whole of these activities has added up to less than the sum of the parts – a concern I’m sure many
of you share.
Based on our past experience in Afghanistan – and applicable lessons from Iraq – there
are assessments underway that should provide an integrated way forward to achieve our goals.
2
As in Iraq, there is no purely military solution in Afghanistan. But it is also clear that we
have not had enough troops to provide a baseline level of security in some of the most dangerous
areas – a vacuum that increasingly has been filled by the Taliban. That is why the U.S. is
considering an increase in our military presence, in conjunction with a dramatic increase in the
size of the Afghan security forces. Because of the multi-faceted nature of the fight – and because
of persistent ISAF shortfalls for training teams – all combat forces, whether international or
American, will have a high level of counterinsurgency training, which was not always the case.
In the coming year, I also expect to see more coherence as efforts to improve civilmilitary
coordination gain traction – allowing us to coordinate Provincial Reconstruction Teams
in a more holistic fashion, both locally and regionally. And there will be an increased focus on
efforts at the district level, where the impact of both our military and rebuilding efforts will be
felt more concretely by the Afghan people, who will ultimately be responsible for the future of
their nation.
While this will undoubtedly be a long and difficult fight, we can attain what I believe
should be among our strategic objectives: an Afghan people who do not provide a safe haven for
Al Qaeda, reject the rule of the Taliban, and support the legitimate government that they elected
and in which they have a stake.
Of course, it is impossible to disaggregate Afghanistan and Pakistan, given the porous
border between them. I do believe that the Pakistani government is aware of the existential
nature of the threat emanating from the FATA. The U.S. military knows firsthand how difficult
it is to wage counterinsurgency with a force designed for large-scale, mechanized warfare – a
fact complicated by Pakistan’s recent tensions with India. Pakistan is a friend and partner, and it
is necessary for us to stay engaged – and help wherever we can. I can assure you that I am
watching Pakistan closely, and that we are working with State, Treasury, and all parts of the
government to fashion a comprehensive approach to the challenges there.
L

headhuntersix

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17271
  • Our forefathers would be shooting by now
Muscles did u get his testimony sent to u..because its ur job to know. Sorry bud, but I know much more about all this stuff then u do. U can whine all u want about CT crap, or how the US is failing or how this army is better then us...but bottom line....u don't, ur not in a postion to know, and u will never know.
L

headhuntersix

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17271
  • Our forefathers would be shooting by now
12:11 PM EST, January 27, 2009

WASHINGTON - After more than seven years of combat, the United States still does not have a unified strategic plan for winning the war against radical Islamic insurgents in Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Robert Gates acknowledged today.

"This will undoubtedly be a long and difficult fight,'' said Gates, adding that the narcotics trade and official corruption "at the high levels'' of the Afghan government are impeding the fight.

"Our greatest military challenge right now is Afghanistan,'' he told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

With the fighting in Iraq largely subsided, Gates said, "the extremists have largely returned their attention to that region.''
He acknowledged that the coordination of military and political efforts against the Taliban "has been less than stellar.''

The search for a new Afghanistan strategy has been under way in Washington for months, with a thorough White House review completed in the final weeks of the Bush administration and parallel studies by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, by Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander in the region, and by the incoming Obama administration.

President Obama has vowed to send additional troops, and the top commander in Afghanistan, U.S. Army Gen. David McKiernan, has asked for about 30,000 more troops, almost double the number currently deployed there.

But with no overall guiding strategy, top military commanders and civilian officials are in disagreement over what missions the additional troops should be assigned, and how those missions should be coordinated into an overall strategy, officials said.

Among those uncomfortable with sending more troops without a clear strategy was Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican who lost his campaign for president last year to Obama.

"We need to develop and articulate a clear strategy with measurable performance goals'' in Afghanistan, McCain said at today's hearing.

"More troops are just a piece of what is required. And we need to address the corruption and narcotics problems much more forthrightly than we have so far,'' McCain said.

Explaining the lack of a strategy, Gates argued that Afghanistan is more complex than Iraq, where Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker forged a unified campaign plan that coordinated military action with political pressure and civilian development work. That effort is widely credited with helping quell the violence in Iraq.

But in Afghanistan, Gates said, the United States is partnering with some 40 countries along with the United Nations, NATO, the European Union and hundreds of private development agencies.

"Figuring out how to coordinate all that, and then how to coordinate that work with military operations, is a very complex business," he said.

Under sharp questioning, Gates also acknowledged that the narcotics trade, which provides some $400 million a year to finance the Taliban, must be brought under control before the war can be won.

In recent weeks, he has changed the combat engagement rules to enable U.S. forces to attack drug lords and drug labs if there is evidence they are financing the Taliban. He asked for patience to see whether this has an effect.

Previously, U.S. combat forces were directed not to engage the drug trade. Instead, NATO and the Afghan government were supposed to handle the narcotics trade, but senior U.S. officials say that approach has not worked.

Last week Gen. James T. Conway, commandant of the Marine Corps, said that the U.S. military role is to support Afghan forces in counter-drug operations and not to take the lead in such attacks. The Afghan government's weak military and police forces, and its own corruption with drug profits, raised some skepticism about whether it would begin now to act aggressively against drug lords.

Gates, asked today if he thought the Afghan government would move against the drug trade in the near future, replied: "Probably not.''

The Pentagon chief, who was appointed in late 2006 by then- President Bush and retained by President Obama, also acknowledged that U.S. air strikes that have killed hundreds of Afghan civilians each year are "doing us enormous harm.

"We have got to do better in terms of avoiding casualties -- and I say that knowing full well the Taliban mingle among the people, use them as barriers," Gates told the committee. "But when we go ahead and attack, we play right into their hands.

"My worry is that the Afghans come to see us as part of the problem rather than as part of their solution -- and then we are lost," Gates said.
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

L