It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Ron Paul: We overthrew the Taliban government in 2001 with less than 10,000 American troops, why do

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 05:58 PM
link   


This past week there has been a lot of discussion and debate on the continuing war in Afghanistan.

The current debate is focused entirely on the question of troop levels.

The administration has already approved an additional 21,000 American service men and women to be deployed by November, which will increase our troop levels to 68,000. Will another 40,000 do the job? Or should we eventually build up the levels to 100,000 in addition to that?

We overthrew the Taliban government in 2001 with less than 10,000 American troops. Why does it now seem that the more troops we send, the worse things get? If the Soviets bankrupted themselves in Afghanistan with troop levels of 100,000 and were eventually forced to leave in humiliating defeat, why are we determined to follow their example?
www.house.gov...,tx14_paul,blog,999,All,Item%20not%20found,ID=091013_3560,TEMPLATE=postingdetail.shtml


This makes an important analogy here!



The truth is it is no coincidence that the more troops we send the worse things get
We are hoping that good leadership wins out in Afghanistan
War does not quell bad leaders. It creates them.

How many innocent civilians have been harmed from clumsy bombings and mistakes that end up costing lives? but the killers never face consequences.

Imagine the resentment and anger survivors must feel when a family member is killed and nothing is done about it. When there are no other jobs available because all the businesses have fled, what else is there to do, but join ranks with the resistance


Terroism at this scale with such propoganda and futuristic weapons is unprecedented.

The question is, how far will they go?
Not in troop levels but war in how many other countries?

Then entire middle east?
And you think they will stop there?




posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   
I believe the troop levels have always increased til we have the government we like or can control. It is Empire building. I could give base locations and numbers throughout the world. Once we(the US) is in a country, we never leave. Ron Paul was correct in saying, in the past, we have to remove ourselves from other countries. TPTB learned that all out war(Germany) would never work, so they instituted the US policy of one country at a time and than a world police force controlled by us(US and UN).

The ENDISNIGHE



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Damnit, why is this guy not president? I mean, I don't know one thing about politics, but at least this guy seems pretty genuine in what his beliefs are. He doesn't just sound like a teleprompter dude with a charismatic charm.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Whine Flu
 


If the goal were to win, we would have already done so. What you are seeing is Exactly what the GeoPolitical players want. no more/no less



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Remixtup
 

I agree with this.

I and I am sure others have pointed out that the US had a chance to meatlocker the Taliban and Al Quaeda leadership after the siege of Tora Bora. Instead they let them fly out of Afghanistan into Pakistan on Pakistani C-130s.

I think they wanted them in Pakistan to make trouble, which is what they are doing.

The US wants a nice long low intensity military engagement going on near the Paskistan/Afghanistan border. The US needs to negotiate with both of these countries about oil and nuke issues and can do so much better if both countries are suffering a splitting .ache, which they are.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   
One problem with this entire premise: We didn't overthrow the Taliban in 2001 with less than 10,000 soldiers. We moved their strong-hold, which frankly I think is completely different.

I'm assuming (probably my first mistake) that this is all in reference to the war in Iraq.

Here's the thing: We still have troops in Iraq!!!

I'm of the belief that a war is not over until your men come home. All of them. Despite Obama's promises, our men and women are still in Iraq. I don't care if they're considered "secondary" support. Until they are firmly on US soil -- they are still fighting in a war.

We used 10,000 troops to demolish a statue of Suddam Hussein. I'm sorry, and I'm prepared to get creamed, but I hardly consider Iraq a shining example of our military winning a war. Not that I blame the military mind you, I blame the administration for going off half-cocked with no real plan or consideration for the fact that 'they' would fight back.

Further to the point, McCain (say what you want but the man knows the military) has said that the only reason we were at all successful in Iraq was AFTER the troop surge. The numbers seem to support this.

I agree with Ron Paul most of the time, but if this is his definition of a successful military offensive -- I don't think I can vote for him.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by lpowell0627
 

The Iraq war is a very interesting thing to look at, but behind the Iraq war is a very serious problem at home in the US. The problem is that there is a disconnect between what the ordinary American wants and is willing to do and what the American industrial oligarchy wants and is willing to do.

In Iraq a segment of the industrial oligarchy went to war for financial reasons. They intend to remain at war and in Iraq and other countries over there as long as there is a financial reason to do so.

The oligarchs did not plan the war well. The proverbial "bottom line" figured a little too importantly in their plans. They skimped on troops. Then they fired the Iraqi army and told them, in Al Franken's words, to "Get out of here and take your weapons with you!"

Thus an insurgency was founded and armed by American stupidity, yes American stupidity, but was it oligarchical stupidity?

You could make an argument that sustaining a little instability for a while in Iraq was what the doctor ordered in the situation. The malcontents all came out of the woodwork and started fighting each other and the Americans. Society re-ordered itself. All the real players, who were subdued by Saddam could show their fangs again and be dealt with.

The American people and military who were not really in on the plan couldn't understand why things were being done the way they were. Those two groups think it's "just another war". Tommy Franks, who would have been an all-star in WW2, was too sharp a tactician at the seige of Baghdad. A "quarterback sneak" put them over the line!

But they couldn't control what they had won. Was it an accident or design? I think the top dogs in the US want instability in the middle east, until they can get stability they can work with. Ideally, that would be a stable network of cooperative puppet states. After that they will pump the oil out of the region and be on their way, thankyou very much.

I think everything is going according to plan myself, oligarchical plan. The American people are a confused people and not in on the plan.


[edit on 13-10-2009 by ipsedixit]



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join