MR

Posted: **Mon Oct 26, 2009 2:29 am**

I've been watching the polls lately, and it seems that 60% of USA citizens want their military to win the war in Afghanistan. But the same amount (60%) do not want Obama to send any more troops to fight the war. However, the USA military leaders have said that the only way they can win the war is with more troops, because the Taliban have them outnumbered.

We can't have it both ways. So what do you think - should we send more troops and win the war, or not?

Posted: **Mon Oct 26, 2009 2:37 am**

P.S. - If you vote "no", that is a vote to lose the war according to the USA military leaders.

Posted: **Mon Oct 26, 2009 2:41 am**

this is a troubling one. we should have never diverted the resources to iraq. it has become a clusterf'ck. we have to at the very least let what bit of (corrupt) democracy exists and let elections happen without a strong presence. the afghan people deserve the opportunity to reclaim their country. that said, it is with great difficulty i think we need to beef up our troop levels, if we have any available, and finish once and for all. the drone war may not be effective. i feel for the president in having to make this very unpopular decision. i could be persuaded i'm sure to just get he hell out of dodge, but there is that pesky al qaeda factor.

Posted: **Mon Oct 26, 2009 2:52 am**

Fox News wrote:Karzai Challenger Calls for 'Dramatic Increase' in Troops in Afghanistan
FOXNews.com Sunday, October 25, 2009

Afghan President Hamid Karzai's top challenger called for a "dramatic increase" in troops to ensure security in his country, suggesting a failure to send in reinforcements could put Afghanistan "at risk" of falling to insurgents.

"The need for more troops is there in order to reverse the situation," Abdullah Abdullah, who is expected to face off against Karzai in a runoff election in two weeks, told "Fox News Sunday."

President Obama is deliberating over a request from his top commander for such an increase. He's weighing a call by Gen. Stanley McChrystal and other military officials for 40,000 more troops against calls to pursue a more surgical strategy aimed at top Al Qaeda leaders, particularly in Pakistan.

But Abdullah did not say whether Obama is taking too long to determine whether to grant his top commander's request for more forces.

"Even if the decision is made today it doesn't mean tomorrow we'll have troops on the ground. It will take time," he said. But he suggested that as long as Karzai is in power, the war effort will be hampered.

"The Afghan side has not been able to deliver, and the Afghan side has been led by Mr. Karzai," Abdullah said.

A runoff was ordered following findings of widespread fraud in the August election, much of which tilted in Karzai's favor. Abdullah told "Fox News Sunday" that he was not inclined to consent to a power-sharing agreement to avoid the second round.

"I think I should rule it out, because I'm ready to go for a runoff," he said.

But he still warned about the possibility that the runoff will bring with it even more fraud if key reforms are not made. Abdullah reportedly wants the leadership of the election commission replaced before the vote.

"Perhaps we might have to go through the same sort of saga," he said. "It will make the situation very difficult if those conditions ... are not met."

Abdullah warned that without assurances that the vote will be credible it will be difficult to convince voters to turn out. He did not say whether he would consider a boycott of the runoff if reforms are not made.

Posted: **Mon Oct 26, 2009 2:56 am**

Here's my strategy: If we can get other allied countries to buck-up and provide more troops to win the war, then the USA should provide more troops also. But if not, then we should pull out of Afghanistan completely - and if we get another 9/11 because of it, we should nuke the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan and remove them from the face of the earth. If there is collateral damage to the "innocent" citizens who supported, defended, and housed the Taliban, then so be it.

Posted: **Mon Oct 26, 2009 4:19 am**

Fact Finder wrote:
PHOENIX, Aug. 17 -- President Obama on Monday defended his administration's new approach to the fierce fighting that rages in Afghanistan, calling it "not only a war worth fighting" but also one that "is fundamental to the defense of our people."

Candidate Obama

8/1/07

Obama is different than Bush and Cheney in the sense that he listens to the will of the people. If 60% of the people don't want to send more troops and 60% of the people want to win the war, that is a catch-22 for Obama. If he just forces his will on the people like the previous administration did, they will turn on him just like they did on Bush/Cheney. If you don't have the will of the people behind the leader who is waging the war, you simply have another Vietnam. Our leaders are voted into office to do the will of the people - not to force their will on the people. That is where Bush/Cheney missed the boat.

Posted: **Mon Oct 26, 2009 4:22 am**

Fact Finder wrote:Listen to your Generals Barry.

Kinda like how Bush listened to Shinseki, Casey, Abizaid, Powell, Zinni, and Fallon, right? :roll:

You're either an oblivious hypocrite or a shit sucking liar.
The Generals serve at the pleasure of the President, NOT the other way around.
The military is overstreched and we're broke.
Bring the boys home, and while we're at it, shut down a bunch of our bases in 63 countries.

Posted: **Mon Oct 26, 2009 4:23 am**

I had a feeling that the only way FF would be able to give his opinion would be to paste something he read elsewhere. Can you imagine if you have a debate with him in person ?!?! :lol:

Posted: **Mon Oct 26, 2009 4:25 am**

The_Noble_Cause wrote:The military is overstreched and we're broke.
Bring the boys home, and while we're at it, shut down a bunch of our bases in 63 countries.

Exactly!!! We are fighting wars with money borrowd from China, and they are laughing at us the whole time.

Bring the boys home, and if the sand monkeys pull another 9/11, lob a nuke at them - we've got plenty of them, so it won't cost any money to build them.

Posted: **Mon Oct 26, 2009 4:28 am**

Fact Finder wrote:
Our leaders are voted into office to do the will of the people - not to force their will on the people.

Whew, that's good to know then. No national health care bill huh?

Errrr... yes. The will of the people dictates one:

Time.com wrote:Forty-six percent of respondents said it was "very important" that Congress and the President pass major health reform in the next few months, and an additional 23% said it was "somewhat important." Only 28% found the immediate effort either not very or not at all important. In a separate question, more Americans said it would be better to pass "major reform" to health care (55%) rather than "minor adjustments" (43%).

Posted: **Mon Oct 26, 2009 4:43 am**

Fact Finder wrote:
Voyager wrote:
Fact Finder wrote:
Our leaders are voted into office to do the will of the people - not to force their will on the people.

Whew, that's good to know then. No national health care bill huh?

Errrr... yes. The will of the people dictates one:

Time.com wrote:Forty-six percent of respondents said it was "very important" that Congress and the President pass major health reform in the next few months, and an additional 23% said it was "somewhat important." Only 28% found the immediate effort either not very or not at all important. In a separate question, more Americans said it would be better to pass "major reform" to health care (55%) rather than "minor adjustments" (43%).

Now you understand what a President deals with - people don't really know what the fuck they want from month to month. A good President will explain things to them so they can make educated choices. A bad President will just force his will on them and leave them in the dark (i.e. the Bush/Cheney strategy). Obama hasn't made any cut-and-dry decision on this matter, and I would bet that he will try to sell whatever plan he wants to promote to the American people. It's not a done deal yet.

Do I want health care reform? Hell yes! Do I want to pay for the health care of illegal aliens and their babies? Hell no! If Obama's plan doesn't address these concerns, then I will not support it.

Posted: **Mon Oct 26, 2009 4:53 am**

Sep 28, 2009 ... Americans, the polls suggest, like Medicare but not government-run health care

That pretty much says it all right there.
Why should Obama, or anyone else for that matter, let a sample group this dumb set the agenda?

Posted: **Mon Oct 26, 2009 4:59 am**

Fact Finder wrote:It's stalled because enough people don't want what they are selling yet.

That's a good sign that our leaders are actually trying to run a democracy now. Bush and Cheney would have forced it up our asses with no stalling at all to see what the people wanted.

Good point! I think you're starting to see the light a little.

Posted: **Mon Oct 26, 2009 5:16 am**

Fact Finder wrote:
Voyager wrote:
Fact Finder wrote:It's stalled because enough people don't want what they are selling yet.

That's a good sign that our leaders are actually trying to run a democracy now. Bush and Cheney would have forced it up our asses with no stalling at all to see what the people wanted.

Good point! I think you're starting to see the light a little.

Name for me one thing Bush/Cheney rammed up our asses?

Ask the dead soldiers who defended the Bush/Cheney lies about the reasons we went to war against Iraq.

This will probably get locked since it has turned into a Bush vs. Obama thread, so I'm not going to waste any more time posting on it. Bush was a dictator, Obama is not. That pretty much sums up all my answers to all your questions.

Posted: **Mon Oct 26, 2009 5:26 am**

i don't think nuking a whole country is the answer. yikes.

Posted: **Mon Oct 26, 2009 6:15 am**

treetopovskaya wrote:i don't think nuking a whole country is the answer. yikes.

Well it sure turned shit around in short order when it was done in Japan.

Posted: **Mon Oct 26, 2009 6:19 am**

the hell with the polls...do what it takes for outright victory... but Obama wont have the guts...and he will end up like LBJ...especially if the troops lose morale and the WILL to keep on fighting... just my opinion...

Rick

Posted: **Mon Oct 26, 2009 6:30 am**

Fact Finder wrote:
Behshad wrote:I had a feeling that the only way FF would be able to give his opinion would be to paste something he read elsewhere. Can you imagine if you have a debate with him in person ?!?!

I'd imagine debating you in person would result in the same shocked looks I get from most of my silly friends. They throw out their stupid lib utopian ideas and I swat them away like nats. They still love me though, cause they know when the going gets tough who they're gonna call.

That's exactly how I pictured you debating. Swinging your arms all over the place as you are trying to come up with anything you remember reading online and trying your damndest to repeat it word by word , instead of coming with something original , thought of and described by your lil brain

Posted: **Mon Oct 26, 2009 6:34 am**

Fact Finder wrote:
lights1961 wrote:the hell with the polls...do what it takes for outright victory... but Obama wont have the guts...and he will end up like LBJ...especially if the troops lose morale and the WILL to keep on fighting... just my opinion...

Rick

+1

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 888996.ece

From The Sunday Times October 25, 2009

Morale dips for American marines in Afghanistan

In a remote part of Helmand troops are dismayed by the ambivalence of locals and a sense that the Taliban can outlast them

Hey , you finally used some of ur own words to defend your ideas.

"+1".

:lol:

I'm proud if you

keep it up and we may have a nice debate at the MR II Fest

. I'll buy you the first beer

Posted: **Mon Oct 26, 2009 6:51 am**

Fact Finder wrote:
Behshad wrote:
Fact Finder wrote:
Behshad wrote:I had a feeling that the only way FF would be able to give his opinion would be to paste something he read elsewhere. Can you imagine if you have a debate with him in person ?!?!

I'd imagine debating you in person would result in the same shocked looks I get from most of my silly friends. They throw out their stupid lib utopian ideas and I swat them away like nats. They still love me though, cause they know when the going gets tough who they're gonna call.

That's exactly how I pictured you debating. Swinging your arms all over the place as you are trying to come up with anything you remember reading online and trying your damndest to repeat it word by word , instead of coming with something original , thought of and described by your lil brain

You know, original thinking is ok, but a bit overrated. Learned reasoning and logic however trumps emotional ranting damn near everytime. Except of course for the entertainment factor.

Copying and pasting, so called facts is not learned reasoning and logic unless youre a parrot :lol:

No wonder you're so smart amongst your "friends "

Posted: **Mon Oct 26, 2009 6:54 am**

Fact Finder wrote:
Behshad wrote:
Fact Finder wrote:
lights1961 wrote:the hell with the polls...do what it takes for outright victory... but Obama wont have the guts...and he will end up like LBJ...especially if the troops lose morale and the WILL to keep on fighting... just my opinion...

Rick

+1

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 888996.ece

From The Sunday Times October 25, 2009

Morale dips for American marines in Afghanistan

In a remote part of Helmand troops are dismayed by the ambivalence of locals and a sense that the Taliban can outlast them

Hey , you finally used some of ur own words to defend your ideas.

"+1".

I'm proud if you keep it up and we may have a nice debate at the MR II Fest . I'll buy you the first beer

Because lights1961 had said it better than I. BTW, what do you think about Afghanistan?

I'll take you up on the Beer and I'll get next.

I think going to Afghanistan was one of the few right things Bush did. However, I think he shouldve focused 100% on Afghanistan ONLY and he shouldnt have divided our troops to send half to Iraq. You can not tell me we wouldnt have won the war few years ago, had we gone in Afghanistan FULL FORCE and cleaned the damn place up and got rid of Bin Laden and all his sad followers.....

Posted: **Mon Oct 26, 2009 6:58 am**

I voted yes we need to increase our military presence as our military commanders have repeatedly requested. Unless we want to turn tale and run, let the Taliban move back into Afghanistan and torture & murder all the people who opposed them, allow then to continue their expansion into Pakistan (a nuclear armed country). In addition Al Qaeda will once more use Afghanistan as a base of operations with impunity and plan & implement more terrorist attacks in the US. :roll:

I was completely against the Vietnam War and I felt that the war in Iraq was a mistake but since we were there we needed to win it and leave a stable government for the people , but this one is a no brainer IMO.

Posted: **Mon Oct 26, 2009 8:06 am**

Voyager wrote:Bush was a dictator, Obama is not.

Probably the stupidest comment I've ever read on this forum.

Bush was right to reject the Kyoto treaty. It'll take the American people and a whole lot of tea parties to stop Bamster from giving away our freedoms this December.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlTagSZPm7o

Posted: **Mon Oct 26, 2009 10:39 am**

Fact Finder wrote:
Voyager wrote:
Fact Finder wrote:
Voyager wrote:
Fact Finder wrote:It's stalled because enough people don't want what they are selling yet.

That's a good sign that our leaders are actually trying to run a democracy now. Bush and Cheney would have forced it up our asses with no stalling at all to see what the people wanted.

Good point! I think you're starting to see the light a little.

Name for me one thing Bush/Cheney rammed up our asses?

Ask the dead soldiers who defended the Bush/Cheney lies about the reasons we went to war against Iraq.

This will probably get locked since it has turned into a Bush vs. Obama thread, so I'm not going to waste any more time posting on it. Bush was a dictator, Obama is not. That pretty much sums up all my answers to all your questions.

Fine, explain the 74% approval in the March 2003 run up to the Iraq War.

All based on lies. We got our asses kicked on 9/11, and 74% of the USA wanted to return fire. Bush diverted their anger and aggression to Iraq and away from Afghanistan due to a personal beef between Saddam and his daddy. I thought everyone already knew that? It's old news. Bush and Cheney hoodwinked the entire country.

Posted: **Mon Oct 26, 2009 10:45 am**

Behshad wrote:
Fact Finder wrote:
Behshad wrote:
Fact Finder wrote:
lights1961 wrote:the hell with the polls...do what it takes for outright victory... but Obama wont have the guts...and he will end up like LBJ...especially if the troops lose morale and the WILL to keep on fighting... just my opinion...

Rick

+1

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 888996.ece

From The Sunday Times October 25, 2009

Morale dips for American marines in Afghanistan

In a remote part of Helmand troops are dismayed by the ambivalence of locals and a sense that the Taliban can outlast them

Hey , you finally used some of ur own words to defend your ideas.

"+1".

I'm proud if you keep it up and we may have a nice debate at the MR II Fest . I'll buy you the first beer

Because lights1961 had said it better than I. BTW, what do you think about Afghanistan?

I'll take you up on the Beer and I'll get next.

I think going to Afghanistan was one of the few right things Bush did. However, I think he shouldve focused 100% on Afghanistan ONLY and he shouldnt have divided our troops to send half to Iraq. You can not tell me we wouldnt have won the war few years ago, had we gone in Afghanistan FULL FORCE and cleaned the damn place up and got rid of Bin Laden and all his sad followers.....

Exactly... Bush shot our wad on Iraq, and that totally diverted away from the real problem. Now Obama is having to deal with a war that would have been won years ago had we not diverted our military resources elsewhere.

Posted: **Mon Oct 26, 2009 10:46 am**

RedWingFan wrote:
Voyager wrote:Bush was a dictator, Obama is not.

Probably the stupidest comment I've ever read on this forum.

No, you already won that award with your praise of Dumbya. Don't try pushing it off on me... maybe you can sell it on Ebay.

:lol:

Posted: **Mon Oct 26, 2009 10:48 am**

Voyager wrote:
RedWingFan wrote:
Voyager wrote:Bush was a dictator, Obama is not.

Probably the stupidest comment I've ever read on this forum.

No, you already won that award. Don't try pushing it off on me... maybe you can sell it on Ebay.

He already did put it on Ebay. Stevew2 tried to buy it but his payment was declinded cause he thought "pay pal "was a nice word for a prostitute.

Posted: **Mon Oct 26, 2009 10:54 am**

Behshad wrote:I think going to Afghanistan was one of the few right things Bush did. However, I think he shouldve focused 100% on Afghanistan ONLY and he shouldnt have divided our troops to send half to Iraq. You can not tell me we wouldnt have won the war few years ago, had we gone in Afghanistan FULL FORCE and cleaned the damn place up and got rid of Bin Laden and all his sad followers.....

So you believe every Al-Qaeda follower and operative are and were in Afghanistan? Alot of terrorists were killed in Iraq, Hussein is gone and that's a good thing. If he were still in power he'd be competing with Iran in the race for a nuke. Bush's actions in Iraq had Khadaffi acting like a boy scout. Obama's weakness has embolden him to start sabre rattling again.

Honestly if we had gone into Afghanistan exclusively, Saddam would still be in power competing for nukes. And Al-Qaeda terrorists would be gravitating to Afghanistan to fight the war there instead of Iraq. There's no way the war would be over either way. Bush was right when he said this war would outlast his presidency. He stated that from the outset. He told the truth and he was right.

Posted: **Mon Oct 26, 2009 11:07 am**

RedWingFan wrote:
Behshad wrote:I think going to Afghanistan was one of the few right things Bush did. However, I think he shouldve focused 100% on Afghanistan ONLY and he shouldnt have divided our troops to send half to Iraq. You can not tell me we wouldnt have won the war few years ago, had we gone in Afghanistan FULL FORCE and cleaned the damn place up and got rid of Bin Laden and all his sad followers.....

So you believe every Al-Qaeda follower and operative are and were in Afghanistan? Alot of terrorists were killed in Iraq, Hussein is gone and that's a good thing. If he were still in power he'd be competing with Iran in the race for a nuke. Bush's actions in Iraq had Khadaffi acting like a boy scout. Obama's weakness has embolden him to start sabre rattling again.

Honestly if we had gone into Afghanistan exclusively, Saddam would still be in power competing for nukes. And Al-Qaeda terrorists would be gravitating to Afghanistan to fight the war there instead of Iraq. There's no way the war would be over either way. Bush was right when he said this war would outlast his presidency. He stated that from the outset. He told the truth and he was right.

Saddam was not a big threat ever since Bush Sr put him in his place. He wasn't even close to START anything nuke related , let alone finish it.

Were there terrorists in Iraq ?! Sure. But there are terrorists in many other countries too. You suggest we attack and invade any and every countries that have terrorists hiding there ,!?!?!

While Saddams removal from power was an accompishment. It didn't benefit us any more than if we had capture bin laden.
Saddam was a huge threat in the 80s & early 90s. However he wasn't all that powefull ever since he was pushed back by Bush Sr. The fact that we went in through his countries that quickly is proof that his once so strong army was severely weakened as a result of sanctions and two previous was he was engaged in.

Posted: **Mon Oct 26, 2009 11:27 am**

Behshad wrote:Saddam was not a big threat ever since Bush Sr put him in his place. He wasn't even close to START anything nuke related , let alone finish it.

It certainly appears that way. But the only reason we're certain about that was because he was removed.

Behshad wrote: Were there terrorists in Iraq ?! Sure. But there are terrorists in many other countries too. You suggest we attack and invade any and every countries that have terrorists hiding there ,!?!?!

Certainly not, the US rightfully used Saddam's UN violations from the Gulf War to go in. Now if certain countries governments knowingly harbour and aid known terrorists, I believe they do stand with the enemy which makes them one also.

Behshad wrote:While Saddams removal from power was an accompishment. It didn't benefit us any more than if we had capture bin laden.

In the short term I agree. Removing Hussein or killing Bin Laden would not have ended anything. It would just be on to the next front or battle. Like I said Bush knew this and told us so. But I believe that it's a great thing that Iraq's future is now up to the Iraqi people.

Behshad wrote:Saddam was a huge threat in the 80s & early 90s. However he wasn't all that powefull ever since he was pushed back by Bush Sr. The fact that we went in through his countries that quickly is proof that his once so strong army was severely weakened as a result of sanctions and two previous was he was engaged in.

Again, we didn't know this for sure until we went in. I remember in the run up to the war the media predicting that it would, "take 10,000 bodybags" for the coalition to take Baghdad. Do you remember those reports?

Anyway, nice debating but I have to study for midterms coming up this week! :roll:

Make that START studying! Have a nice night Behshad.

MR

Should the USA Send More Troops To Afghanistan?

Should the USA Send More Troops To Afghanistan?