It's official: President Obama will send 34,000 more troops to Afghanistan

Could anyone tell me how many US troops are in Iraq now, and how many will this bring the number in Afghanistan to?

reply to post by David9176

Yes, let's get out now so we can blame the failure on a democratic administration. Is that what your saying? Did you say the same thing eight years ago? Or were you one of the ones that said we should invade Iraq? Are you now saying we should "cut and run"?

Oh, no..

Another promise broken by the master of change.

No offense, but there are much worse things to come.

Are you shocked?

[edit on 28-11-2009 by NewWorldDisorder]

What about if Obama leads the troops?

He could march at the front, carrying the flag, and declare that he is the President.

It is a pity that no-one who sends these brave people into danger ever has to face that danger themselves.

reply to post by spellbound


You're absolutely right.

Could you imagine one of the Clinton or Bush children going in to battle?

I wish I could leave this place before we're all killed.

reply to post by NewWorldDisorder


Of course, it is not only Obama, Bush etc. It is every leader since the so-called civilised world began.

At least Attila the Hun led his men into battle.

Our leaders hide.

We could just say the new Nobel Peace prize winner is sending additional peace keepers overseas until they stop fighting. I mean if he got the Nobel peace prize, he is only promoting peace around the world right?

Getting serious instead of sarcastically, I hope the plan is good or it will be a huge waste of people and resources. The other choice is to leave and let the Taliban take back over and set up training camps. If our government continues to take over all aspects of our lives, the Taliban won't be a whole lot different than the current ruling party in Congress.

I heard on CNBC the democrats are talking about adding a new tax to pay for all of this called Share the sacrifice tax. I wish the people who voted would be a little bit wiser instead of believing everything a politician tells them. You can't keep fighting two wars, keep giving out bailouts, keep increasing government spending, and increase costs on business that deliver our energy with possible future cap and trade, and cover everyone with government spending on medical care without tax increases on everyone.
I read that most Americans believe any new health care legislation will not affect them. I don't see how increasing costs can not be paid for without increasing taxes on everyone. I'm not in favor of increasing costs or new taxes.

[edit on 28-11-2009 by orionthehunter]

reply to post by spellbound


That was a time when men were men and women were women. Sorry but it's true. Men fought with courage and bravery. Now men hide behind their guns and their bombs and their computer screens. It's not women who have emasculated men......it's men who have emasculated themselves.

Lol, the title should read '2009 Nobel Peace Prize Winner Obama sends another 34,000 troops to continue the illegal rape and pillage of Afghanistan"

I would have hoped that this campaign promise would be one that he actually broke. I would like to see both wars ended. Iraq is fine, doesn't need us there anymore, and Afghanistan has always been a lost cause.

We should have gotten out of Afghanistan when we stopped actively searching for Bin Laden. That was the whole point of being there right?

Originally posted by carewemust
Why did it take President Obama 6 months of meetings and soul-searching
to make such a basic decision?

NONE of the proposals or reccomendations for troop increases called for deployment prior to 2010...the idea that he should make up his mind instantaneously was an idiotic bit of right-wing rhetoric. Both the right and the left wing in DC know this.

I'd rather our President take the time afforded him to weigh heavily the options and potential outcomes before putting American soldiers in harms way....and that is what he did...everything else is spin and politics.

reply to post by whatukno


Bottom line...a surge is neccessary for withdrawl. You don't turn your back and walk away from someone throwing punches. Between the 30k American Troops, International troops...likely to match 30k and bringing the locals online to some degree it should be able to depress the attacks and afford time to withdrawl troops before the enemy regroups...in a perfect world the Afghans would step into the void as withdrawl occurs...that is the theorey anyways.

But just pulling out...it's a slow process and in the current climate it would just embolden the enemy to increase the gradually shrinking coalition forces.

We need to knock them down first and leave the room before they get back up...and like I said...in a perfect world the Afghans would be ready to take over the fight. Either way we are getting out of there.

I've heard this fresh influx of more troops has nothing to do with afgahnistan, more to do with getting ready for iran next door??

After hearing Obama's rationale last night, I am reluctantly deciding to give him the benefit of the doubt.

I personally would like both wars to end immediately.

It's true, though, that when the U.S. withdrew from Vietnam so suddenly it threw the whole region into chaos. There was little advance preparation for the pull-out. Vietnamese civilians who had been aiding the Americans during the war were dealt with harshly by the Viet Cong and in many instances killed. Another one of the results of the rapid withdrawal was Pol Pot took over Cambodia, and history has recorded what happened there. The movie "The Killing Fields" is all about that.

The communists probably would have taken over Vietnam anyway, but a more gradual de-escalation would have probably been more workable and better for the region as a whole.

It's true Obama said during the campaign that he would step up the war in Afghanistan, and that's what he's doing.

His speech last night made some sense to me. I'll be more enthusiastic, though, when I see progress being made in stabilizing Afghanistan and effective pressure being put on Pakistan, which is in some ways more of a threat to us.

Originally posted by Sestias
After hearing Obama's rationale last night, I am reluctantly deciding to give him the benefit of the doubt.

I personally would like both wars to end immediately.

It's true, though, that when the U.S. withdrew from Vietnam so suddenly it threw the whole region into chaos. There was little advance preparation for the pull-out. Vietnamese civilians who had been aiding the Americans during the war were dealt with harshly by the Viet Cong and in many instances killed. Another one of the results of the rapid withdrawal was Pol Pot took over Cambodia, and history has recorded what happened there. The movie "The Killing Fields" is all about that.

The communists probably would have taken over Vietnam anyway, but a more gradual de-escalation would have probably been more workable and better for the region as a whole.

It's true Obama said during the campaign that he would step up the war in Afghanistan, and that's what he's doing.

His speech last night made some sense to me. I'll be more enthusiastic, though, when I see progress being made in stabilizing Afghanistan and effective pressure being put on Pakistan, which is in some ways more of a threat to us.

Pakistan is 7,678 miles from the US.. that is a little far to be scary.

obama made no sense because he never mentions things like... they know we're there killing them on false pretenses.. and there is no friggn way they fight this fierce... just to accept a US puppet.

Folks in that area saw how US installed govts do things...with the Shah who was a despot a-hole, the iranians we not interested why will the afghanis? its freak'n laughable.

obama never mentions the US has a rich history of being a ME puppet master and there is a certain amount of resentment and out-right hate that won't allow another prosthetic US creation to exist without a steady violent rejection.

reply to post by maybereal11

Bottom line...a surge is neccessary for withdrawl. You don't turn your back and walk away from someone throwing punches. Between the 30k American Troops, International troops...likely to match 30k and bringing the locals online to some degree it should be able to depress the attacks and afford time to withdrawl troops before the enemy regroups...in a perfect world the Afghans would step into the void as withdrawl occurs...that is the theorey anyways.

I disagree, western countries don't need to be in there. Who does need to be in Afghanistan is the people that are directly affected by that countries stability.

Why should our soldiers get killed? Other mid east countries have far more at stake with the Taliban running amok than we do. We should be replacing our soldiers with middle eastern troops.

reply to post by whatukno


I agree with you. There's no point in sending more troops out to Afghanistan. Too many people are dying for a cause that is not of their own agenda, we need to stop fighting for everyone and funding both sides of all the wars. And when I say "we" I really mean "them" and when I say "them" I really mean TPTB.