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.


US sending up to 45,000 more troops to afghanistan

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 08:09 PM
reply to post by KSPigpen

Afghanistan didn't break the Soviets. The arms and space race with the United States broke the Soviet Union. They simply could not keep up with our capitalist system, aka fiat currency and the Federal Reserve loaning money created ex nihilo.

[edit on 14/10/09 by MikeboydUS]

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 08:32 PM
reply to post by KSPigpen

McChrystal has come out today and said that 80 thousand more troops might not help.

Let me put it this way. If McChrystal really thinks it won't work, well that should be a sign to Obama that it is time to find a GENERAL who can get the job done.

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 08:37 PM
reply to post by KSPigpen

What silly crud that is. It's all about resources and raping a poor country for our empirical desires. It has nothing to Do with protecting afghan citizens. It sure SOUNDS good though, don't it?

Please list all of the resources we have taken from them in the last 8 years.

And we are not there to protect the Afghan citizens. We will try but we are there to seek and destroy those that we are after.

Of course, as of late, this administration is trying to turn it into a protect the Afghan agenda.

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 08:43 PM
reply to post by jam321

Well I think dooper and SLAYER69 have both pointed out that it is not just extra troops and correct equipment that is going to enable us to win this war but also a re-evaluation of current tactics resulting in us taking more positive and direct action against The Taliban.

Why we are in this mess is for historians and policians to argue about at a later date.
The simple fact of the matter is we are where we are.
What do we have to do to ensure that The Taliban are defeated and not allowed to advance any further?
End of story!

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 08:50 PM
reply to post by MikeboydUS

What are you talking about? We are already broke.

I know we are broke. That's the whole point!

Iraq, Pakistan,'s all of it. I've commented countless times on our debt and how government spending on the war and everything else has sapped us dry.

The majority in this country...those who are strongly against deficits and debt....seem to completely ignore the costs of the wars we are waging.

You can't end the deficit if you can't end the war.

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 08:51 PM
reply to post by Freeborn

Yeah but...

Here's the deal. Once we we get those increases McCrystal will hopefully take the battle to them on their turf of course causalities will mount again and all of a sudden the press and every bleeding heart will say that that's proof we are loosing.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by SLAYER69]

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 08:54 PM
I gotta give an old US president some credit, remember W. Bush?
When he send 20.000 more troops to Iraq, things went a lot more smooth down there, we dont hear a lot about Iraq anymore dont we?..This is good. If we would send all our SF's, SAS, SASR, CSOR, Ranger, Delta, KTC, Légion étrangère and keep the [marines-]youngsters at home we can eat those taliban and do the same with the help of Pakistan on their soil..

btw we should not forget to train their police and security forces, and help the bureaucracy and policy people so it doesnt turn into a police state... if the army gets its things together..

[edit on 14-10-2009 by Foppezao]

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 08:56 PM

I think that the troop increase is one issue.

The other issue that is just as important is what objectives Obama mandates to the military.

Will it be protect the populated cities or go after the enemy or some other unknown objective?

This IMO will ultimately determine what an increase amount of troops can accomplish.

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 08:56 PM
If you do not have the support of the people in Afghanistan, we'll never win the war and we'll never get out until we bust financially. We simply cannot afford to keep doing this.

Any innocent person that dies is not only hurtful for our standing with their people...but it also increases hate for our troops.

The USSR was a big entity....and not even they could afford a war in Afghanistan.

We're already do you think we are going to make it?

We're on freakin auto-pilot...someone needs to take over the plane and turn this baby around.

Let's keep fighting an enemy that will not go away...and in the process completely destroy ourselves financially.

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 09:07 PM
reply to post by David9176

David we do have the support of the people. Afghanistan was in the middle of a civil war when we had help kicking out the Taliban. We don't have support of all the people here in lies the problem.

We don't do good in civil wars. Korea. Vietnam and now Iraq. So I agree we need to change tactics and fast, but not give ground only to have to pay for it all over again come spring. This winter is going to be a tough fight.

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 09:08 PM
reply to post by David9176

But you must understand the enemy.

They are unwilling to negotiate.
And if they did negotiate they would not think it wrong to agree to anything just to get rid of the 'kaffirs' and then renege on everything and impose their brutal regime upon everyone in Afghanistan.
It would then only be a matter of time before Pakistan fell to the same fate.
India could not allow The Taliban to gain control of Pakistans nuclear arsenal and whole scale war would probably result between the two.
And where would that end and what consequences for us all.

Know your enemy indeed!

Oh, and the majority of Afghans DO support us, it is the pussy footing around in rural areas which endangers non-Talaiban that is causing frustration and disillusionment.

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 09:11 PM
reply to post by SLAYER69

I'm simply just replying to the inconsistencies in your posts. Not just here but in regards to other posts. Whenever it suits you, you change the thrust of your stance.

This has nothing to do with with Patriotism. I'm sorry that is the extent of your views on these matters.

I sincerely struggle to understand your unwavering faith in the strategies and actions of the United states. I chalked it up to 'patriotism' because I really just don't understand how a person can be so faithful to a nation that would just as soon grind you up as look at you.

I think it is completely honorable to have confidence in the men and women that fight for our country, I just have a difficult time accepting that the leadership is anything short of self-serving and corrupt.

We've seen it too many times. How many died in Viet Nam for lies? Did Communism turn out to be the big threat we were sold early on?

What I'm getting at, and really not intentionally being obtuse, is that the 'war' in Afghanistan can't be won. Every push we make raises new insurgents. Every one we kill has sons and brothers and cousins that take up the fight. It can't be finished in Afghanistan until everyone is dead. It just can't be won.

Its not the troops. they're the best. Their hands are tied. Not only by the leadership, but by the tactical positions they are forced in to. They can't separate the civilians, but they can't kill them either.

With very RARE exception, I don't think ANY military person get his jollies killing a civilian, but it happens. It happens because we're there. It'll happen as long as we're there because of the nature of that conflict. As long as we try to ride the fence of political correctness, fed in part by whackos like me that hate violence, and in part by commanders who have, maybe even necessarily, tied the hands of the troops they are responsible for, we can't win.

The insurgents will ALWAYS just blend back in, put on burkas and act like women, and raise the new generation to despise the occupational forces.

Instead, of 'victory' we get a few new weapons developed, trillions spent, international relations ruined and lots of people dead. It just seems like there ought to be a better way to be spending our time and money.

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 09:21 PM
reply to post by jam321

This is only one of the many sources you can check into if you like about the need to stabilize the region for a natural gas pipeline for UNOCAL. In 1998 they threatened to pull out of the project due to outrage over human rights violations by the Taliban.

You don't need to go very far to find 'alternative' reasons for securing Afghanistan. It is rumored that poppy production has been profitable for some time.

My point, Jam, is that a resource doesn't necessarily need to be 'taken' right now to be of use or value, and depending on which, if any theories you subscribe to, it is believable that hydrocarbons and poppies are possibly motivation enough.

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 09:24 PM
[edit on 14-10-2009 by SLAYER69]

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 09:32 PM
reply to post by KSPigpen

Troops in Vietnam died for lies?

Is that what you said?

Like hell they did! I've had a couple friends die in my arms, and it wasn't for any story, any lie, any power struggle.

We fought, struggled, cursed, and died for each other. Do NOT belittle that.

The entire time we were in Vietnam, the Soviets were not only helping create more problems for the US, but they were watching us, stunned.

The logic went like this: "If the Americans will fight so hard for a country they really care little for - imagine how hard they would fight us in Europe."

At the time, we were staring at each other across the Iron Curtain.

Not everything is isolated, not everything is a pure effort all if of itself.

An action is observed and analyzed - and not just by your friends. Your enemies also garnish some lessons - often sufficient warning in of itself.

Afghanistan in of itself is of little danger to the US. But the fundamentalist government and movement of the Taliban is a threat to Pakistan, and they're just waking up to that.

Pakistan goes fundamentalist, and India will not wait to be struck.

Everything is connected, intertwined, twisted, and by tendrils, joined. A sudden vacuum tends to suck in a lot of bad debris.

We're in a hell of a position. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

My only points is that if we're going to war, then crush forever those that we define as our enemies.

That means hunting them down, pursuit without ceasing, killing them where they are found, and using their cultural abominations against them.

If you ever find yourself in a fair fight, your planning eats dookey, and your execution positively sucks.

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 09:40 PM
reply to post by KSPigpen

Its been 8 years. Where is this silly pipeline?

We don't care about the pipeline. Unocal went defunct in 2005 and what was left was bought out by Chevron.

There is far more at stake here than a multi million dollar pipeline that we don't need, especially when we already have one in Georgia.

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 10:03 PM
reply to post by dooper

I'm not belittling the loss of life or the valor of the men that died in Viet Nam, just as I don't question the determination and honor of the men and women fighting now.

Viet Nam, like the war in Afghanistan, was started under false pretenses.

Before The war in Viet Nam started, LBJ gave a rousing speech that fired everybody up. Much like Bush did for Afghanistan.

The men went there and gave their lives for their brothers, but would not have even BEEN there had it not been for lies.

Nearly three decades later, during the Gulf War, columnist Sydney Schanberg warned journalists not to forget "our unquestioning chorus of agreeability when Lyndon Johnson bamboozled us with his fabrication of the Gulf of Tonkin incident."

Schanberg blamed not only the press but also "the apparent amnesia of the wider American public."

And he added: "We Americans are the ultimate innocents. We are forever desperate to believe that this time the government is telling us the truth."

again, Dooper, I mean NO disrespect to our war dead. I mean no disrespect to those that choose to go fight a war for principles they believe in. I just loathe when the lives of our countrymen are sacrificed for lies.

I don't like it when our troops are taken advantage of, lied to, treated like trash when they come back and forgotten about by the country that sent them to fight.

If it upsets someone that I disagree with that, then good. I couldn't hope for anything more.

I am done supporting this government and done supporting their endless wars.

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 10:11 PM

Originally posted by KSPigpen
We've seen it too many times. How many died in Viet Nam for lies? Did Communism turn out to be the big threat we were sold early on?

We faced the communist Chinese in Korea. The Koreans are still divided. The South is one of the wealthiest and most advanced societies in Asia, [Not to mention Japan and now China's rise] while North Korea is a Nuclear armed outcast. We won the cold war. China is now capitalist and the Soviet union is gone. You live somewhere free and can speak your mind freely online.

Think about how the world would have been under Communism. We have a very real history of how they handled Eastern Europe or China under Mao.

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 10:28 PM
Last week on 60 minutes, it was revealed that our NEW strategy in Afghanistan, was to essentially NATION BUILD. We're doomed if that is the new goal. It has never worked, anywhere, and especially in Neanderthal infested Afghanistan.

If we were serious about routing out the snipping and bomb planting rat bastards killing our guys, we'd go all in, whole hog, out for blood, take no names or prisoners, kill `em all let God sort `em out, once and for all.

But instead, we're playing political games, and our troops are paying the price.

It is going to be another stale mate, and non winnable war. Count on it!

Obama is no Commander in Chief. He is a paper tiger. Nothing more.

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 10:30 PM
The Taliban were allies for the US fighting the Russians, and were armed and trained by them (along with Al Quaida) while the ISI supplied fresh radical muslims to their forces from around the world.

When the Taliban burned the opium crops in 2000 - then they were invaded.

Certainly theres resources to be exploited in Afghanistan - and certainly that comprises part of the reason for its occupation.

That the US is occupying Afghanistan must surely be clear - seriously what results do you need to say - the war is over, hand it back to the people? Well - if you intend to totally control it - then you probably never get to that point.

The Alquaida story doesn't hold water anymore really.

October 07, 2009 "Truthdig" -- Every once in a while, a statistic just jumps out at you in a way that makes everything else you hear on a subject seem beside the point, if not downright absurd. That was my reaction to the recent statement of the president’s national security adviser, former Marine Gen. James Jones, concerning the size of the terrorist threat from Afghanistan:

“The al-Qaida presence is very diminished. The maximum estimate is less than 100 operating in the country, no bases, no ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies.”

Afghanistan is purely an occupation, the question is can the US afford to occupy Iraq at the same time.

It would be nice if people saw this for what it is - and aggressive invasion on false pretenses to occupy and control a country. It was never anything to do with terrorism - that was purely BS.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in