It is currently Thu May 28, 2026 2:57 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

Has President Obama decided on the correct measure of action?
Too little too late 13%  13%  [ 3 ]
Just about right 22%  22%  [ 5 ]
We shouldn't be there at all, bring them home now 30%  30%  [ 7 ]
Timetable should be set 17%  17%  [ 4 ]
Timetable shouldn't be set 17%  17%  [ 4 ]
Total votes : 23
Author Message
Crosscheck
PostPosted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:07 pm 
Offline
Sober enough to run a server
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:10 am
Posts: 7477
Location: 2,568 miles from the F'n arena
So, later on tonight the President will announce he's authorizing a mini-surge in Afghanistan of 30,000 troops plus 10,000 NATO troops.
Those troops will be in place by 2010.
He will also announce that withdrawal of those troops will begin 1 year after that in 2011.

Poll included, you can choose multiple options, comment as you see fit.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...


Top
 Profile  
 
mechaphil
PostPosted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:09 pm 
Offline
Thy Horror Cosmic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 4:57 pm
Posts: 19086
Location: BFLO
Too bad we can't choose multiple options.

_________________
mechaphil


Top
 Profile  
 
Crosscheck
PostPosted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:14 pm 
Offline
Sober enough to run a server
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:10 am
Posts: 7477
Location: 2,568 miles from the F'n arena
mechaphil wrote:
Too bad we can't choose multiple options.

Bah...sorry, that's fixed now.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...


Top
 Profile  
 
Squanto
PostPosted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:14 pm 
Offline
Carlos Spicy-Wiener
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 10:31 am
Posts: 9240
Location: FAP TURBO
I chose just about right.

A straight pullout isn't a good idea. Since we're in there, let's do what we need to do CORRECTLY. I think giving them the troops they want, yet setting some timetables to get the job done is the right course of action. Undersizing the force and having no defined timetable were my biggest complaints about the previous policy. This seems to address both.


Top
 Profile  
 
Crosscheck
PostPosted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:18 pm 
Offline
Sober enough to run a server
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:10 am
Posts: 7477
Location: 2,568 miles from the F'n arena
I think it's about right (see, I don't disagree with everything he does ;) )...however I think he waited about 4 months too long...He's had those recommendations for a long time.
I also think setting a timeline (at least one made public) is a bad idea.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...


Top
 Profile  
 
mechaphil
PostPosted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:19 pm 
Offline
Thy Horror Cosmic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 4:57 pm
Posts: 19086
Location: BFLO
I agree with Squanto. See, Afghanistan is where the military should have been all along, not Iraq. There's a real purpose to the presence in Afghanistan, so why not finish it the right way. Boost numbers, get the job done, and get the fuck out.

Besides, if I remember correctly, isn't decreasing troop presence in Iraq and increasing troop presence in Afghanistan something Obama was campaigning with? Way to make good, Pres!

_________________
mechaphil


Top
 Profile  
 
Crosscheck
PostPosted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:31 pm 
Offline
Sober enough to run a server
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:10 am
Posts: 7477
Location: 2,568 miles from the F'n arena
mechaphil wrote:
Besides, if I remember correctly, isn't decreasing troop presence in Iraq and increasing troop presence in Afghanistan something Obama was campaigning with? Way to make good, Pres!

Well, technically the decreases in Iraq troop levels we committed to under Bush...we signed an agreement to get out by 2011.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...


Top
 Profile  
 
Squanto
PostPosted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:59 pm 
Offline
Carlos Spicy-Wiener
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 10:31 am
Posts: 9240
Location: FAP TURBO
I think the public timeline isn't the greatest idea, simply because it's liable to go past that date regardless because of the nature of the task at hand, and passing that end date will mean the opposition will scream about his failure to get the troops home like he promised.

On the other hand, if he doesn't set a timeline, his party flips out about open ended wars.

So, he's dammed either way really.


Top
 Profile  
 
Rud
PostPosted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:03 pm 
Offline
Superstar Goalie
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 6:16 pm
Posts: 4121
Location: Hamburg
I don't think releasing a public time line is a good idea in this scenario. Fairly easy for non-uniformed combatants to scale back while US & NATO forces are at their peak, then begin to escalate once forces begin to dwindle.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Crosscheck
PostPosted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:07 pm 
Offline
Sober enough to run a server
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:10 am
Posts: 7477
Location: 2,568 miles from the F'n arena
Rud wrote:
I don't think releasing a public time line is a good idea in this scenario. Fairly easy for non-uniformed combatants to scale back while US & NATO forces are at their peak, then begin to escalate once forces begin to dwindle.

Well, speculation is the public timeline is meant to put the screws on the Afghan government to shape up in a hurry...I still think it's a bad idea though and 18 months just seems unrealistic.

let's not forget the damn Soviets couldn't wrangle Afghanistan into shape with a much larger military presence.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...


Top
 Profile  
 
Rud
PostPosted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:09 pm 
Offline
Superstar Goalie
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 6:16 pm
Posts: 4121
Location: Hamburg
If you're just running it between the governments involved, that's fine. I just wouldn't let everyone in on it.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Crosscheck
PostPosted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:20 pm 
Offline
Sober enough to run a server
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:10 am
Posts: 7477
Location: 2,568 miles from the F'n arena
Who in NATO is going to give us 10,000 actual fighting troops????

The UK public is kind of sick of following America into war...Australia probably would but they're not in NATO.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...


Top
 Profile  
 
BlueandYellow
PostPosted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:31 pm 
Offline
Hart Winner
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 10:42 pm
Posts: 9770
Location: Buffalo, NY
I'm sorry get our guys the hell out... I'm sick of this...

_________________
"Counting all the assholes in the room, I'm definitely not alone!" ~ Michael Poulsen, Volbeat, Still Standing.


Top
 Profile  
 
End The Curse
PostPosted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:40 pm 
Offline
Star Sniper
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 11:45 am
Posts: 3798
Location: Boca Raton
I don't care about the number of troops, I care about how the war is fought. If we will be attempting to win the hearts and minds of the enemy with 30,000 troops in a benevolent military police action, focusing on outreach and trying to demonstrate our goodness to the Afghani people at the expense of total military victory, I want out right now. Not one more fucking American soldier should lose their life needlessly in that Vietnamish morass of fighting with our hands tied behind our backs.

If we go in with a slash and burn, scorched earth policy of win at all costs, as fast, brutal and uncompromising as possible, using the entire force of our military to crush the enemy without any other objective except total victory, than I support it.

I suspect it's the former, and if correct I support a complete and total withdrawal.

_________________
Oh lord, it's hard to be humble, when you're perfect in every way. I can't wait to look in the mirror, 'cause I get better looking each day. To know me is to love me, I must be a hell of a man. Oh lord, it's hard to be humble, but I'm doin' the best that I can.


Top
 Profile  
 
Crosscheck
PostPosted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:44 pm 
Offline
Sober enough to run a server
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:10 am
Posts: 7477
Location: 2,568 miles from the F'n arena
End The Curse wrote:
If we go in with a slash and burn, scorched earth policy of win at all costs, as fast, brutal and uncompromising as possible, using the entire force of our military to crush the enemy without any other objective except total victory, than I support it.

The problem with that, which no one seems to be mentioning, is that would involve invading Pakistan.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...


Top
 Profile  
 
End The Curse
PostPosted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:55 pm 
Offline
Star Sniper
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 11:45 am
Posts: 3798
Location: Boca Raton
Crosscheck wrote:
End The Curse wrote:
If we go in with a slash and burn, scorched earth policy of win at all costs, as fast, brutal and uncompromising as possible, using the entire force of our military to crush the enemy without any other objective except total victory, than I support it.

The problem with that, which no one seems to be mentioning, is that would involve invading Pakistan.

In Vietnam we were unwilling to go after major strategic military targets out of fear of upsetting the Soviets. How'd that go for us?

_________________
Oh lord, it's hard to be humble, when you're perfect in every way. I can't wait to look in the mirror, 'cause I get better looking each day. To know me is to love me, I must be a hell of a man. Oh lord, it's hard to be humble, but I'm doin' the best that I can.


Top
 Profile  
 
Crosscheck
PostPosted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:57 pm 
Offline
Sober enough to run a server
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:10 am
Posts: 7477
Location: 2,568 miles from the F'n arena
End The Curse wrote:
Crosscheck wrote:
End The Curse wrote:
If we go in with a slash and burn, scorched earth policy of win at all costs, as fast, brutal and uncompromising as possible, using the entire force of our military to crush the enemy without any other objective except total victory, than I support it.

The problem with that, which no one seems to be mentioning, is that would involve invading Pakistan.

In Vietnam we were unwilling to go after major strategic military targets out of fear of upsetting the Soviets. How'd that go for us?

I wasn't disagreeing with you, just stating the obvious ;)

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...


Top
 Profile  
 
End The Curse
PostPosted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:57 pm 
Offline
Star Sniper
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 11:45 am
Posts: 3798
Location: Boca Raton
Crosscheck wrote:
End The Curse wrote:
Crosscheck wrote:
End The Curse wrote:
If we go in with a slash and burn, scorched earth policy of win at all costs, as fast, brutal and uncompromising as possible, using the entire force of our military to crush the enemy without any other objective except total victory, than I support it.

The problem with that, which no one seems to be mentioning, is that would involve invading Pakistan.

In Vietnam we were unwilling to go after major strategic military targets out of fear of upsetting the Soviets. How'd that go for us?

I wasn't disagreeing with you, just stating the obvious ;)

Obvious to you and I, perhaps. ;)

_________________
Oh lord, it's hard to be humble, when you're perfect in every way. I can't wait to look in the mirror, 'cause I get better looking each day. To know me is to love me, I must be a hell of a man. Oh lord, it's hard to be humble, but I'm doin' the best that I can.


Top
 Profile  
 
SchonyGal
PostPosted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:10 pm 
Offline
Franchise Defenseman
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 9:26 am
Posts: 2279
Location: WNY
Overall, I'm very pleased. It's tough to celebrate sending more troops, but it's a job that needs to be finished. Let us remember that those in todays Armed Forces freely and willingly chose to fight for our Freedom.


Top
 Profile  
 
slesh
PostPosted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:17 pm 
Offline
Franchise Defenseman

Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:25 pm
Posts: 2419
Location: Driving Ms. Daisy, from behind!
End The Curse wrote:
Crosscheck wrote:
End The Curse wrote:
Crosscheck wrote:
End The Curse wrote:
If we go in with a slash and burn, scorched earth policy of win at all costs, as fast, brutal and uncompromising as possible, using the entire force of our military to crush the enemy without any other objective except total victory, than I support it.

The problem with that, which no one seems to be mentioning, is that would involve invading Pakistan.

In Vietnam we were unwilling to go after major strategic military targets out of fear of upsetting the Soviets. How'd that go for us?

I wasn't disagreeing with you, just stating the obvious ;)

Obvious to you and I, perhaps. ;)

In order to go out and slash and burn as you stated you would have to call up an all out wartime draft. Every able bodied man age 18 to 45 to immediately enter into military service. Then of course there is the implications of what this would mean to the military branches, the Marines, Army and Air Force would fold roughly 85% of those drafted, the Navy not so much as this is a land action.
The Navy has the existing capabilities to go after them in Somalia, Yemen and along the Coast of Pakistan on the Western edge of the country.
It could be done and should be done. I think people need to understand, the war on terror is not going to end in our lifetimes. To many holes in the policies implemented both by Bush and by this most recent moron.

_________________
Lord Stanley's Cup is what its all about.
Mr. Pegula, your destiny awaits you sir.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron