30,000 more troops

[domllama 10+ year member]

Rush Limbaugh is an inflamist bent on lining his own pockets using fear tactics. Just another gear in the political/media machine.

I agree with this - I used to listen to Limbaugh and Hannity..and at the time Hannity was OK, but Limbaugh is super biased and now I can't stand to listen to either.

 

[denim 5,000+ posts]

The peace prize committee really looks stupid now.

 

[magliteman 10+ year member]

Bomb and spray the shit out of the poppy fields.

Poppy fields gone -- money profit gone -- Taliban gone

 

[duece212 5,000+ posts]

The peace prize committee really looks stupid now.

so do a lot of US voters...

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Audio, Do i personally think we are doing good? Yes in some ways. does the ROE hold us back from doing our job? Yes. But in any war there are always give and take problems that are created. The Government will always be secretive about any and all wars we have or will go into. As it is my belief that there is always some personal agenda. The Iraq and oil thing i just dont see. 1. the US embargo would have to be lifted to get any of the oil. Now is that saying were not getting any, who knows. All we know is that American uses more oil products than any other country. As for the news reporters... I personally hate when there on mission with us as we have to watch everything we say and do.. Now dont take this as we are a bunch of misfits that do what we want but there are always grey areas. If the media knows these then our troops will have more problems then ever doing what they do. As for why we dont help out other countrys with horrible regime's that oppress there people idk the answer to that but i can only guess that we can only do so much at one time. But some of the countrys we have been to include egypt, somalia, hati,cuba, and im sure there are many more that i dont know about. I think it just depends on the status of the section of the world at that time.

I agree the govt should be secretive about sensitive material regarding a war. Protection of our troops, and protection of our plans/movements, if for no other reason. but there is a difference between being secretive for such noble reasons, and handing out false reasons to gain artificial support for an agenda we dont actually know. Im not even saying that is the case, Im merely mentioning speculation that obvious permeates these discussions on this topic. In fact, I believe our politicians give out too much sensitive info many times, again simply to garner false support from the population and further their own agenda. But if they say 'we are here because of this'... the this part of that statement better be true.

As for American's using more oil than any other nation, is that still true? I know China is gaining fast. And keep in mind, that statistic is a bit misleading, as the U.S. (less so every day, but still) makes products that support many other countries in the world. Its impossible to expect one of the world's leaders in production to maintain less oil usage than a nation who imports said products rather than make them themselves. Also, being that the U.S. is the second largest single country based economy in the world, it stands to reason we would maintain one of the highest oil usages in the world. Are we wasteful? Of course. But countries like Iran or even France, whom use less but produce less world marketed goods, really should consider what their own country and lives would be like if the U.S.'s industrial machine did not exist. We, the United States, tend to take lumps for oil usage, but get precious little credit for our attempts to clean up our industrial production. Does China put the complex and expensive scrubbers on the smoke stacks in the factories? Do they have an OSHA that maintains worker's rights? Do they have strict pollution laws that govern the production process of even their largest manufacturers? In each case, the answer is no. Can we do better? yes. But do we get enough credit for what we DO do? Not imo. (not aimed at your comments, just ranting here)

Cheers.

 

[ozzy87 10+ year member]

What we need to do is hunt 'em down where they live a kick the living crap out of them and anyone who harbors them...we teach them a hard enough lesson and we will be the last country they will ever **** with.

So when did you sign up to kick the living crap out of them?

 

[perfecxionX 10+ year member]

This will not matter until the top brass changes the rules of engagement. We are so worried about what everyone else thinks that we tie the hands of the soldiers to effectively do their job. Collateral damage is a part of war. As crappy as that is, war is not pretty. If we fought WWII the way we fight now, we would still be fighting against the Germans and the Japanese.
Go in, kick ***, kill 'em wherever they are, show them that if they fuck with us they will get their ***** kicked and then get the hell out. I'd say bomb them back to the stone age but alas, they already live that way.

You should really read what Gen Mcchrystal's strategy actually consists of. There is nothing that drives young muslims to taliban and al-queda recruiters more than american bombs killing muslim civilians.

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/Assessment_Redacted_092109.pdf?hpid=topnews)

Mcchrystal -

This is a different kind of fight. We must conduct classic counterinsurgency operations in an environment that is uniquely complex. Three regional insurgencies have intersected with a dynamic blend of local power struggles in a country damaged by 30 years of conflict. This makes for a situation that defies simple solutions or quick fixes. Success demands a comprehensive counterinsurgency (COIN) campaign.
Our strategy cannot be focused on seizing terrain or destroying insurgent forces; our objective must be the population. In the struggle to gain the support of the people, every action we take must enable this effort. The population also represents a powerful actor that can and must be leveraged in this complex system. Gaining their support will require a better understanding of the people's choices and needs. However, progress is hindered by the dual threat of a resilient insurgency and a crisis of confidence in the government and the international coalition- To win their support, we must protect the people from both of these threats.

Many describe the conflict in Afghanistan as a war of ideas, which I believe to be true. However, this is a 'deeds-based' information environment where perceptions derive from actions, such as how we interact with the population and how quickly things improve. The key to changing perceptions lies in changing the underlying truths. We must never confuse the situation as it stands with the one we desire, lest we risk our credibility.

Civilian casualties (CIVCAS) and damage to public and private property (collateral damage), no matter how they are caused, undermine support for GIRoA, ISAF, and the international community in the eyes of the Afghan population. Although the majority of CIVCAS incidents are caused by insurgents, the Afghan people hold ISAF to a higher standard. Strict comparisons of amount of damage caused by either side are unhelpful. To protect the population from harm, ISAF must take every practical precaution to avoid CIVCAS and collateral damage.

Central to McChrystal’s strategy are three principles: "protect the Afghan people, build an Afghan state and make friends with whomever you can, including insurgents." (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/magazine/18Afghanistan-t.html?pagewanted=all) The soldiers being sent to afgan are not being sent to fight the insurgency nearly as much as they are being sent to protect the afgan populace. The goal is to build a competent afgan govt that will defend the population and fight the taliban (so we dont have to for the next 20 years).

I'm quite skeptical about whether we can accomplish such a goal, not to mention doing it in 18months. If our concern is preventing another 9/11 like attack on the US i dont understand why we dont fight al-queda in afgan the same way we are currently fighting al-queda in Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen (spec ops, drones, airstrikes, etc). Even if we are successful in afgan (fingers crossed), this fight does not end there. Al-queda is a global organization that will run wild in any failed state with a heavy islamic population.

also, concerning your sig:

http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/The_democracy_will_cease_to_exist

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/j/jefferson-quotes.htm

 

[Ohioguy 10+ year member]

why are people in this thread talking about bush? obama has been our president for 1 year already. bush isnt ****ing in charge of anything. hes not our president. all this shit falls under obamas control now. i mean he is the current president. idc what bush did. whats done is done. if theres going to be change, its going to be now. but no, lets all sit around blame past presidents and not react or try to change anything

 

[ozzy87 10+ year member]

So far obama has been a terrible president, although i can't say bush was any better. Both terrible, just in different ways.

 

[perfecxionX 10+ year member]

So far obama has been a terrible president, although i can't say bush was any better. Both terrible, just in different ways.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/12/03/on_obama_survey_shows_gap_between_foreign_policy_elite_and_general_public

A new survey being released today by CFR and the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press shows that members of the Washington elite view the U.S. president's stewardship of American foreign policy in a much more favorable light than the average observer on the street. On issues ranging from terrorism to climate change, Iran, Iraq, China, Guantánamo, even immigration, CFR members surveyed overwhelmingly approved of the president's actions so far. Joe Sixpack? Not so much. "Members of the Council on Foreign Relations offer far more positive assessments of Obama's foreign policy in almost all areas."

Entitled "America's Place in the World," the survey polled more than 600 members of CFR and 2,000 members of the general public, comparing expert and amateur perceptions of not only Obama's performance one year in, but also their views on many of the top foreign-policy issues of the day.

The disparity was actually quite large. For example, 83 percent and 81 percent of CFR members approved of Obama's handling of Iraq and Guantánamo, respectively, whereas the general public gave approval ratings of 41 and 39 percent on those issues.

Obama's work on Iran, climate change, terrorism, and China were all rated in the 70s by the experts, dozens of points higher than when rated by people without a full-time job in foreign affairs. Only 33 percent of the ordinary Americans surveyed praised Obama's work related to the rise of China.

 

[AlterEgo99 5,000+ posts]

The peace prize committee really looks stupid now.

so do a lot of US voters...

WIN! //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/thumbsup.gif.3287b36ca96645a13a43aff531f37f02.gif

 

[djarmy2004 10+ year member]

Every president has his own faults but Oba,a should have never been elected. He never did the things he said he was going to do in IL but magically ppl thought he wouold do what he said as president. What a joke.

 

[yvangkwheng]

nice, making curry.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

You should really read what Gen Mcchrystal's strategy actually consists of. There is nothing that drives young muslims to taliban and al-queda recruiters more than american bombs killing muslim civilians.

And yet Muslim extremists have absolutely no problem killing Muslims with car bombs, suitcase bombs in crowded markets filled with almost 100% Muslims, etc. The problem isn't American bombs, as at least we attempt to keep civilian deaths to a minimum (and pay a high price in money AND American lives trying to do so). The problem is the middle east has such a backward economy that its people feel the first world countries are oppressing them. The sad reality is its the religion most of them follow that oppresses them. Women are oppressed. Technology is oppressed. Individual advancement is oppressed. And the big bad United States is the easiest entity to point fingers at, as they certainly wont point the finger at themselves. And the westernized countries are too wrapped up in being politically correct to admit this problem... cant possibly say anything bad against the Muslim religion... that would make *us* bad people somehow.

Human nature, aint it a bitch.

 

[perfecxionX 10+ year member]

Believe me, i am no apologist for Islamic extremism (i'm no friend of religion in general), but the United States has a tremendous PR problem in the Muslim world and part of it is a consequence of the policies we've pursued for the last 50 years in that part of the world. Because of this there is a huge amount of cynicism and conspiracy theories among middle east Muslims, which is very convenient for terrorist groups who want to convince young men that the US is waging jihad on Muslims. We are very much involved in a propaganda war, and nothing is more detrimental to our progress than civilian casualties.

Baitullah Mehsud, the leader of the Pakistani Taliban, has been reported telling an interviewer, “I traveled three months to recruit and only got 10-15 persons. One bombing by the Americans that killed innocents, and I got hundreds of recruits!”