kcinsu Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 So tonight he is announcing that he will be sending 30,000 more troops to afghanistan. What's everyone's thoughts on this? Right move? Wrong move? I personally think he's already sold us out, and I no longer trust him. If he had balls, and lived up to his promises, he would have pulled us put of there. He certainly doesn't deserve a Nobel peace prize... Can you retroactively strip someone of one? Good speaker... I voted for him... But seriously, fuck this. I've lost all faith. Ps not to mention that he'll be making his speach at west point in front of a crowd of cheering cadets. Gross . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Z_B_Z Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 wrong move. we should pull out but obamas turned out to be your average politician. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 277: 930-933 Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 Pulling out of Afghanistan would nullify all of the past efforts to bring some sort of structure to the chaos the country is in. I don't think you can call this a war surge, call it that as soon as he starts fucking with Iran or sending troops to Gaza. One more thing that should be taken into consideration is the fact that there are a lot of non-US troops in Afghanistan as well, it's pretty difficult to sell a plan where you ask them to stay but pull out your own troops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 no man you don't get it, his move on the Afghanistan war is a multi staged withdrawal, it's not an 'escalation' its a slow pull out, so of course he still deserves the prize. it's a peaceful military increase in order to stop terrorism, completely different from when George W Bush did his surges, those were nasty, evil and immoral and plus why should anyone criticize him for this anyways? he said he was going to do it in his campaign and if you voted for him just sit back and suck it up. also man we broke it you own it! you ever heard that before when you break something in a store? its true bros, if we killed millions of people at one point and it was a mistake, we should keep killing more people in order to 'correct' that mistake (hopefully eventually) in his campaign literature Barack laid out that he 'is not against all wars, just dumb wars' , well it happens that Afghanistan is a VERY smart war (parody ), Kcinsu this thread is like a flame and i am a moth i hope you are ready for me to spend all day in here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 277: 930-933 Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 Do you have any idea of the kind of escalation that will take place if all foreign military troops would leave Afghanistan today? There is no way their police force or army is competent enough to keep peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan C Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 Celebrate good Obama, c'mon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acidphakist Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 To all you who got sucked in by a smooth-tongued yet unproven quantity, PLEASE SUCK MY ASS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 Do you have any idea of the kind of escalation that will take place if all foreign military troops would leave Afghanistan today? i do it would be horrendous, all those people with soviet era ak47 and mortors super huge increase in violence compared to a force of 100,000 american soldiers with computer guided missles, tanks, drones, helicopters, missles, etc. mathematically it makes a shit load of sense that Afghan people themselves could cause more violence in their own country after we leave than the US army's insane technological arms. (sarcasm off) its true with every war, the propaganda used is if we leave than 'things will get a whole lot worse' , the rhetoric can be applied to any conflict where the people in charge do not really want to leave but play on the humanitarian angel of the populace (but there will be more violence if we leave!) in Vietnam after we left there was an increase in violence for a little while but if you compare the actual numbers of civilians dead from war AFTER we left VS BEFORE the amount is miniscule, just as it would be in Afghanistan. this rhetoric does not hold water Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blir Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 So is this thread under the assumption that Obama actually makes decisions himself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acidphakist Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 No, his teleprompter does the thinking for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Glass Plate Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 It's not too big of a surprise, he said many times before he was elected that he wanted to place more troops in Afghanistan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 So is this thread under the assumption that Obama actually makes decisions himself? i think partially yes It's not too big of a surprise, he said many times before he was elected that he wanted to place more troops in Afghanistan. this is true, i think a lot of the people who voted for him either convinced themselves Afghanistan was 'the good war' or they ignored to the best of their ability his plans to surge in Afghanistan, just seeing what they wanted to see out of his rhetoric. but on the same token i think people who voted for him or didn't have every right to be furious at his decision to do this. IT's the acquiescence of his voters that angers me the most, the ones who twist and turn painfully to try and 'match' whatever current Obama position is being trumpeted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 277: 930-933 Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 Do you have any idea of the kind of escalation that will take place if all foreign military troops would leave Afghanistan today? i do it would be horrendous, all those people with soviet era ak47 and mortors super huge increase in violence compared to a force of 100,000 american soldiers with computer guided missles, tanks, drones, helicopters, missles, etc. mathematically it makes a shit load of sense that Afghan people themselves could cause more violence in their own country after we leave than the US army's insane technological arms. (sarcasm off) its true with every war, the propaganda used is if we leave than 'things will get a whole lot worse' , the rhetoric can be applied to any conflict where the people in charge do not really ant to leave but play on the humanitarian angel of the populace (but there will be more violence if we leave!) in Vietnam after we left there was an increase in violence for a little while but if you compare the actual numbers of civilians dead from war AFTER we left VS BEFORE the amount is miniscule, just as it would be in Afghanistan. this rhetoric does not hold water I haven't got time for this right now, but there are fundamental differences between Vietnam and Afghanistan that make this a faulty comparison. I'm not familiar with the US propaganda, we get some bad shit here in the Netherlands but if you make a bit of an effort it's possible to get some slightly more factual information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blir Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 So is this thread under the assumption that Obama actually makes decisions himself? i think partially yes It's not too big of a surprise, he said many times before he was elected that he wanted to place more troops in Afghanistan. this is true, i think a lot of the people who voted for him either convinced themselves Afghanistan was 'the good war' or they ignored to the best of their ability his plans to surge in Afghanistan, just seeing what they wanted to see out of his rhetoric. Mate, you watch The Thick of It *respect knuckles*, I can't help but feel like it's a similar situation over in the US. The leader being manipulated by other people, people with money an influence most likely, for ulterior motives. This is pure speculation of course. But I'm finding it harder and harder to believe these days that world leaders actually make decisions themselves unless they're utterly fascist. I think my perspective is getting too bleak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kcinsu Posted December 1, 2009 Author Share Posted December 1, 2009 7,000 is a lot different than 30,000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blir Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 Do you have any idea of the kind of escalation that will take place if all foreign military troops would leave Afghanistan today? i do it would be horrendous, all those people with soviet era ak47 and mortors super huge increase in violence compared to a force of 100,000 american soldiers with computer guided missles, tanks, drones, helicopters, missles, etc. mathematically it makes a shit load of sense that Afghan people themselves could cause more violence in their own country after we leave than the US army's insane technological arms. (sarcasm off) its true with every war, the propaganda used is if we leave than 'things will get a whole lot worse' , the rhetoric can be applied to any conflict where the people in charge do not really ant to leave but play on the humanitarian angel of the populace (but there will be more violence if we leave!) in Vietnam after we left there was an increase in violence for a little while but if you compare the actual numbers of civilians dead from war AFTER we left VS BEFORE the amount is miniscule, just as it would be in Afghanistan. this rhetoric does not hold water I haven't got time for this right now, but there are fundamental differences between Vietnam and Afghanistan that make this a faulty comparison. I'm not familiar with the US propaganda, we get some bad shit here in the Netherlands but if you make a bit of an effort it's possible to get some slightly more factual information. Did you check out that link to Adam Curtis's blog that LUDD posted in a thread last week? Some incredibly fascinating backstory to the conflict over there. Worth a look if you haven't already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karmakramer Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 It'll be interesting to hear his speech on this... I knew he was always for the Afghan War, and I don't really know about what's happening currently to know where I stand on the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 Do you have any idea of the kind of escalation that will take place if all foreign military troops would leave Afghanistan today? i do it would be horrendous, all those people with soviet era ak47 and mortors super huge increase in violence compared to a force of 100,000 american soldiers with computer guided missles, tanks, drones, helicopters, missles, etc. mathematically it makes a shit load of sense that Afghan people themselves could cause more violence in their own country after we leave than the US army's insane technological arms. (sarcasm off) its true with every war, the propaganda used is if we leave than 'things will get a whole lot worse' , the rhetoric can be applied to any conflict where the people in charge do not really ant to leave but play on the humanitarian angel of the populace (but there will be more violence if we leave!) in Vietnam after we left there was an increase in violence for a little while but if you compare the actual numbers of civilians dead from war AFTER we left VS BEFORE the amount is miniscule, just as it would be in Afghanistan. this rhetoric does not hold water I haven't got time for this right now, but there are fundamental differences between Vietnam and Afghanistan that make this a faulty comparison. I'm not familiar with the US propaganda, we get some bad shit here in the Netherlands but if you make a bit of an effort it's possible to get some slightly more factual information. Make a bit more of an effort? Your sitting here using a 100 year old Military general propaganda phrase 'if we leave it will get worse' and you want me to find more factual information? please enlighten me. If you want me to debate you on facts, maybe show me a single one that backs up the idea that things will get worse when we leave. I heard this phrase uttered constantly by the Bush administration for 8 years, or variations of it. 'We can't leave Iraq, Al queda will use it as a staging ground to launch attacks against the united states, any many civilians would die without our protection' its a joke really Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ivan Lennovitz Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 Mate, you watch The Thick of It *respect knuckles*, I can't help but feel like it's a similar situation over in the US. The leader being manipulated by other people, people with money an influence most likely, for ulterior motives. This is pure speculation of course. But I'm finding it harder and harder to believe these days that world leaders actually make decisions themselves unless they're utterly fascist. I think my perspective is getting too bleak. Lobbying and favouritism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delet... Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 So tonight he is announcing that he will be sending 30,000 more troops to afghanistan. What's everyone's thoughts on this? Right move? Wrong move? I personally think he's already sold us out, and I no longer trust him. If he had balls, and lived up to his promises, he would have pulled us put of there. He certainly doesn't deserve a Nobel peace prize... Can you retroactively strip someone of one? Good speaker... I voted for him... But seriously, fuck this. I've lost all faith. Ps not to mention that he'll be making his speach at west point in front of a crowd of cheering cadets. Gross . yeah the same kids he'll be sending to their deaths .. a real american patriot .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 Do you have any idea of the kind of escalation that will take place if all foreign military troops would leave Afghanistan today? i do it would be horrendous, all those people with soviet era ak47 and mortors super huge increase in violence compared to a force of 100,000 american soldiers with computer guided missles, tanks, drones, helicopters, missles, etc. mathematically it makes a shit load of sense that Afghan people themselves could cause more violence in their own country after we leave than the US army's insane technological arms. (sarcasm off) its true with every war, the propaganda used is if we leave than 'things will get a whole lot worse' , the rhetoric can be applied to any conflict where the people in charge do not really ant to leave but play on the humanitarian angel of the populace (but there will be more violence if we leave!) in Vietnam after we left there was an increase in violence for a little while but if you compare the actual numbers of civilians dead from war AFTER we left VS BEFORE the amount is miniscule, just as it would be in Afghanistan. this rhetoric does not hold water I haven't got time for this right now, but there are fundamental differences between Vietnam and Afghanistan that make this a faulty comparison. I'm not familiar with the US propaganda, we get some bad shit here in the Netherlands but if you make a bit of an effort it's possible to get some slightly more factual information. Did you check out that link to Adam Curtis's blog that LUDD posted in a thread last week? Some incredibly fascinating backstory to the conflict over there. Worth a look if you haven't already. i did and it was awesome, very accurate. too bad America's Afghan debates are being framed by the likes of wolve in liberals clothing Thomas Friedman instead of people who aren't scared of muslims like Adam Curtis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rightsidedrive Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 What is it that we are actually fighting for in Afghanistan? Don't tell me we are looking for terrorists, because if that were true US involvement would have stayed minimal and specific, and not developed into this long drawn quagmire of a shit storm. What is so bad about leaving as well, what about the problems we have here. Lets tell everyone to leave and stop trying to impose our philosophies on other cultures. Should we consider perhaps some ulterior motives to these moves? And like someone else above said, I have also lost all faith in the two party political system. And don't give me that shit about "you voted for obama now suck it up" what the fuck other option did I have?, realistically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delet... Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 this is true, i think a lot of the people who voted for him either convinced themselves Afghanistan was 'the good war' What frightened me was when the leader of the only real political alternative in australia, the green party. Stated that we should be in afghanistan. I was shocked. But once that wore off i rationalized his stance away by thinking that he had bargained away that argument so that he could win some concessions on environmental issues. But really anyone in politics who favours that war is a war criminal in my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 as far as i can tell it seems to be a combination of the chess like imperial strategy of check-mating iran, (iraq and afghanistan are directly on either side of Iran) and constructing a huge pipeline that would eliminate the need for oil companies in the area to use tankers to ship the oil via ocean liners but if you want the 'official' reasoning for we went to war ill lay it out in a timeline for you 1 - to catch osama bin laden and al queda operating in Afghanistan for revenge to the 9/11 attacks. To catch one man and his cronies, we decide to threaten invasion on an entire country 2- the Taliban (supported under clinton) are now evil because they 'harbor' osama bin laden and al queda (even though they asked the US to provide evidence to turn him over, which we of course never did) and we need to stay there to make sure they don't regain power 3 - the women in afghanistan are repressed, we need to open schools and educate them so they arent supressed anymore (liberal heart tugs = success, jay lenos wife flies to afghanistan and has women 'throw off' their burkas as a protest) 4 - the drug trade in afghanistan is bad for the world, so we must use the US military to eradicate the poppy fields 5 - if we don't stabilize Afghanistan Pakistan will implode and al queda will have control of the nukes #5 is the most recent, as far as i can tell reasoning officially for why we are there edit: did you guys just read the recently leaked report from the Pentagon saying that General Tommy Franks and Rumsfeld let Osama Bin Laden go on purpose, and they did not take any steps required to make sure he was caught . hilarious shit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest idrn Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 if coalition forces were pulled out now then the entire country would implode. i think it's quite rude to leave the place in a worse state than it already was. the strategy now is to engage moderate taliban, ie. the brunt of the enemy who could be pursuaded to bat for the other team. s'all about realpolitik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.