That at the rate we're going there's a good possibility we will be out of both Iraq and Afghanistan having not finished what we started?
Just curious.
Who Else Thinks.....
That at the rate we're going there's a good possibility we will be out of both Iraq and Afghanistan having not finished what we started?
Just curious.
Epic Foxbody Thread Crew Member #10Originally Posted by AlanŽ
Yeah cause Obama just fucks it all up....
See this here, this right here. Is bullshyt.
How does it become Obama's fault for a war that was "accomplished" by Bush before the Presidency exchange?
CHASE ->>> WHAT MATTERS
I was talking about us leaving cause he with draws our troops is how he will fuck it up lol
I think withdrawing our troops is the only way to leave.
If they leave without withdrawing the troops, they really haven't "left".
The thing about Al Qaeda is that they are all in Pakistan now anyway. Occupying AFGN does us no good in fighting Al Qaeda. Sure, we can keep them from coming back, but I think thats something the Afghanis should be able to do for themselves. We should be doing our fighting against AQ using intelligence, special ops, and precision strikes anyway.
IMO we stay until the job is finished. Regardless of how we got here, in for a penny in for a pound. Its not Obamas fault we are there, but its his responsbility to see the job through. Thats part of being the commander in chief.
I dont think hes really "fucking" anything up. He took too long to do what mchrystal wanted but in the scheme of things as long as he is supporting the troops and giving them what they need to win, thats all that matters.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
What exactly is the "job" in Iraq and Afghanistan and what is the criteria for being finished? I hear too many different answers.
Personally, I think our responsibility in Iraq is to support a self sustaining government and that's it. Then we should get out. In Afghanistan I don't know of any clear goal so I don't know how it can ever be finished. Ironically, I think what we did in Afghanistan was more justified than what we did in Iraq.
OUR OBJECTIVE IS TO WIN.
i would say to win in Iraq means setting up a self sustaining govt and economy for them. That will take many years.
Afghanistan i think our objective is to weed out all the insurgents and "terrorists" and to cut off the funding from the drug trade to al-qaeda over there (opiate sales).
I guess the question is if we pull out of both, can you live with us being attacked again?
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
We agree on the goal in Iraq. Not so much in Afghanistan. How do we know when all the "insurgents and terrorists" have been weeded out (killed?) If you can't answer that questions then we can never "WIN".
After 9 years, Afghanistan is producing more opium than ever before. They still produce more than 90% of the world's opium. Opium production has only gone up since we started this war and the Taliban were removed from power. Can you show me any metric at all that shows we have made any measurable dent in Afghanistan opium production at all?
Yes I absoulutely can. Honestly, with the amount of money and lives already spent on the war, I think we would save much more lives in the long run by using all those resources for cancer research, heart disease research, hell even increased car safety measures. The number of people killed from terrorism is barely a drop in the bucket compared to the lives lost from other causes. This doesn't mean we should do nothing but about terrorism but the response should be proportional to the threat. You can't make this decisions based on emotion...it's too important.
We will have our troops completely out of both countries before Obama's presidency is up in 2013. Gitmo will still be open though.
That is pretty much what is happening right now. The troop build-up is to root out the last of the strongholds the Taliban and al-Qeada have in the country and to get some control of the drug trade. Special ops and Air Force drones are consistently hitting targets in Pakistan. Obama got it right when he ramped up that program even further than Bush did.
I agree, but putting the timeline for leaving the country is opening our troops up for attack or it will simply give the taliban a reason to go under ground and wait it out. All the while they can increase in strength and technology.
The goal in Afghanistan is the same thing with the added responsibility of cracking down on the drug trade. Any hit to that will be dramatic hit to terrorist funding.
The problem with the drug trade is that its always gonna happen as long as theres a demand for it. The "war on drugs" is another subject entirely, and I think that most of the effort there with propping up militaries and dictatorships in Latin America and such is just a waste of money. If we would just legalize weed we could cut off a good bit of the black market that powers the drug trade and return that money to the legitimate economy.
we aint going nowhere.....you think they gonna leave all the money behind..LOL thats not how the US rolls.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/wo...4minerals.html
Best G20 SR2009 convention
in attendanceNissan national convention 2010(Omaha, Nebraska)
top 20 hotlanta autofest 09
In the last two weeks I've handled no less than 20 caskets draped with American flags headed back to the states. I'm not going to say because of that my opinion is higher than any of yours here, but I will say put your hands on those coffins as opposed to sitting behind a computer and it will add perspective. My opinion doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.
I know exactly how you feel. While I was in asscrackistan I rode along on an extraction of a Kiwi spec ops unit that fought out of an ambush.
At times it feels like a useless campaign, but in all reality every one of those men in the caskets knew they were headed for combat and they knew the risks.
Can't argue that, you know the risks going into the situation.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
