It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Obama approved 13,000 more troops to Afghanistan

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 09:15 AM
reply to post by XXXN3O

He did not end the war in in Iraq; bush did (can't stand bush but what i said is true). barry was just in office when it took effect, and of course took credit.
I hate war, in fact my son/my hero is overseas as I type
But if we're there already and it seems we need to be (could be wrong here) then send in enough troops to take care of business and get out. 13,000 troops are basicly enough to be future casualties.

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 09:23 AM
reply to post by XXXN3O

Problem: The video you linked was from February 2009.

That would be AFTER he took office. Campaign promises occur BEFORE one takes office. Promises used to get a candidate elected.

I specifically remember, during a debate with McCain, Obama drew the line in the sand so to speak and used the withdrawl of troops from Iraq by the end of June 2009 to distinguish himself from McCain. MCain was the one that said he did not want to provide an exact date for complete withdrawl.

It was not until AFTER he took office that he changed his definition of what withdrawing troops from Iraq actually meant to HIM.

Again, two different things entirely. I stand by what I said. He broke his CAMPAIGN PROMISE.

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 09:44 AM

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Understand whats happening.

Pakistan is a known Taliban hideout during the winter months from their fight in Afghanistan that's why there is the new big Pakistani push being assembled. This is also why McCrystal is asking for more troops. Once the Pakistanis push them out of their safe haven they will flood back into Afghanistan.

It's important to understand what's happening here

U.S. overthrew the Pakistani govt. and put Musarraf into power as a military dictator, this created much resistance and anti-americanism or what you would call terroism. Now they put the next puppet Syed Yousaf into power.

U.S also have been giving hundreds of millions to Pakistan to fight taliban for years all while knowing Pakistan was really giving that money to taliban officials and to finance arms purchase to prepare a war against India. This is called Funding Terroism!

Yes it's a taliban hideout, but it's important to understand why!

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 09:44 AM
go go nobel peace prize winner

second line

posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 01:53 AM

Originally posted by Jacob08Yep at this point we are just sending young kids to die for nothing. The best that can be done in a country like Afganistan is to disrupt the more dangerous elements using highly trained SAS troops and work with the lesser evil locals (anyone who isn't al qaeda).

No, I'm afraid that wouldn't work either. You don't send small snakes to devour and deceive pythons.

posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 02:05 AM

Originally posted by aravoth
Please do not criticize Lord Obama. He wants peace, he believes in hope, which is why he won the Nobel.

Just three more years and I won't have to worry about being one of Lord Obama's military members.

posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 02:13 AM
Fantastic - now maybe we can fight the REAL war - but unfortunately the momentum that we had at the beginning of the Afghan war is lost forever and Bush let the taliban regroup, restructure and grow so Obama's job is much harder now.

posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 02:38 AM
reply to post by ShadoMan

By the real war I guess you mean the war on terror. I don't consider this to be a real war and we are trying to fight ideas with bullets. That has never worked and it won't work now. Terrorism needs to targeted with the scalpel of law enforcement and special forces, not the blunt and indisciminant hammer of standing armies. Even if it was a real war no empire has ever been able to influence the polictial course of Afghanistan for more than a short period of time. It's the graveyard of great empires.

[edit on 15-10-2009 by 4ortunate1]

posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 03:32 AM

Originally posted by 4ortunate1I don't consider this to be a real war and we are trying to fight ideas with bullets.

And this is exactly why the "War on Terror" is non-winnable. Its very conception is flawed. The moment I heard "war on terror" on a newscast I scoffed and laughed thinking, people are going to buy this bull# until they're broke.

posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 05:12 AM
im not looking forward to this next trip there. usually SOF does pretty well, but conventional forces are making the same mistakes as the Russians did and the Afghans are starting to assemble just like they did then right before they pushed the Russians out. we are following the same tactics and to be honest, i think i may actually get seriously wounded/killed this time. its only a matter of 'when' instead of 'if' like it has been on my previous 4 deployments...

i better make sure i got my Will straight...

and have an illegitimate child too...

posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 06:10 AM
reply to post by Historical-Mozart

Anyone who know some history would tell you it repeats itself, why? Maybe because we can learn from it, and those who don't learn get wiped off the map, look at Atlantis as an example

[edit on 15-10-2009 by oozyism]

posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 08:37 AM
Wars are no longer profitable once over.

posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 04:26 PM
At the end of it all, we brits and our american cousins, fmily or friends, which ever way you want to put it, should not be arguing amongst ourselfs.

What about those countries whom do not contribute thier fair share?

Those counries should be named and shamed!

posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 04:40 PM
Good that he finally decided to enhance the US force over there. I believe too many USA Soldiers have died or getting seriously injured through a less than acceptable number deployed thus far to Afghanistan.


posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 09:58 AM
reply to post by Decoy

Wishes do come true.....

Officials: Gen. McChrystal Now Seeking 80,000 Additional Troops for Afghanistan
Military Doesn't Have Remotely That Many Available

Are you going to sign up?

Because it won't be troops, it will be Blackwater/Xe and Kroll Mercs.

Who even McCain thinks are a bad idea...

posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 10:21 AM

Originally posted by Laurauk
Why is it the US that is sending more troops, why is it none of the other NATO countries aresending more troops. Seems to me the US is having to carry the burden once more.

Can you blame them? Its pretty clear that the Obama administration does not want to fight this war and that he is desperately attempting to avoid the label 'war president'. If I were leading one of those other countries, I would be very hesitant about sending more of my own troops to die when the leader of the alliance is reluctant to commit the resources that his commanders are asking for.

IMO, he made the worst possible decision with these 13k troops. He needed to either give McChrystal the forces that he requires or he needs to pull the plug and get out of there. This doesn't solve the problem of inadequate troop levels, but it does provide the enemy with more targets, unfortunately.

[edit on 17-10-2009 by vor78]

posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 10:31 AM
This is a token jester to send 13,000 troops to Afghanistan and this is to

temporarily quite both sides the left and right. obama knows the middle east is

a powder keg ready to go off in the next 90 days. When this happens the whole

world turns upside down expect the unexpected. The extra troops we have in

the U.S. will be needed elsewhere and do not think for one minute that obama

will side with Israel I believe he will side with the Muslim nations.

Israel will have to make the decision to let Iran go ahead and finish developing

their nukes or to take action. There action will determine what kind of

Christmas or holiday the world will have and the future of the planet. ^Y^

[edit on 17-10-2009 by amari]

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in