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.

 

Obama to deploy 30,000 troops to Afghanistan

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Obama to deploy 30,000 troops to Afghanistan


news.bbc.co.uk

President Barack Obama is to announce that he is sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, to deploy within six months, US officials have said.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 09:31 AM
link   
Hi from a first time poster, I just noticed this on the bbc site compare this to the uk sending 500 of our own troops.

according to the bbc source the "The US currently has 68,000 troops in Afghanistan, with foreign forces overall totalling more than 100,000"

is the US determined to go it alone.




news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 09:34 AM
link   
A exercise in futility.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 09:53 AM
link   
Obama is doing exactly what he promised before elections on Afghanistan.


"For at least a year now, I have called for two additional brigades, perhaps three."
Barack Obama on Sunday, July 20th, 2008 in Afghanistan

Source: politifact.com...

And these were his promises on Afghanistan.


No. 134: Send two additional brigades to Afghanistan
No. 164: Work to end NATO restrictions on forces in Afghanistan
No. 165: Train and equip the Afghan army
No. 166: Increase non-military aid to Afghanistan by $1 billion
No. 167: Make U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional on anti-terror efforts

Source:www.politifact.com...

All these promises are filed under "PROMISE KEPT.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Human1428


is the US determined to go it alone.


news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)


Well, no. But the United States is not afraid of going it alone. Two different things entirely.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by December_Rain
 

30,000 is more than two additional brigades
it's more like 7 or 8


Originally posted by lpowell0627
Well, no. But the United States is not afraid of going it alone. Two different things entirely.


The united states GOVT. is stupid enough to go at it almost alone would be a much better summary.

the United States is against this war

[edit on 1-12-2009 by ModernAcademia]



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by December_Rain
 


Only 30,000 troops though. McCrystal asked for 46,000 didn't he? So this is enough for Obama to say he did something yet make no difference at all on the war. Bravo for limp-wristed responses, Mr. Obama, sir.

If he were serious about winning this war, he would send in another 150,000 troops to go in and zerg the insurgents. Overkill? Maybe. But there would be no question that it would get the job done.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 


Put it this way my friend

he's sending 30,000 troops to Afghanistan

Do you think there's even 30,000 terroists in Afghanistan?

Seriously, do you think theres 30K worth of terroists in Afghanistan?



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


we have 68,000 troops there, there isnt 68,000 taliban there, we have over 100,000 w/ allies and were adding another 30,000. the taliban dont care, more targets for us they say. this war is unwinnable and obama is finding out just how hard it is to give up that kinda power.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by TheCoffinman
 


If there aren't 100,000 terroists in Afghanistan then why are there 100,000 soldiers from various countries?

Sounds stupid but no, my question is WHAT ARE THEY DOING THERE?
I mean really, what are they doing there?

Not in the sense of the obvious what are they doing there because they shouldn't be there, but if there aren't 100K worth of threats then why 100K troops? Even let's say 3 soldiers per terroist, is there even that many terroists?

What's going on here?



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 10:28 AM
link   
All he had to do was bring the troops home. Instead he sends 30k more. He doing a "surge" just like Bush did in Iraq. Not surprising, considering Bush and Obama are practically the same person. And there never was such a thing called the "Anti-war Left". Just a bunch of useful idiots, electing people that will do everything in their power to keep things the same, regardless of how much "change" they preach.

Silly people.....



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   
I hope he does it to
a) save face
b) give some relief to soldiers already there who are exhausted and in harm's way
c) wrap it up quickly, declare victory no matter the outcome, and get the heck outta there



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Did I dream it, or did Obama campaign that he would immediately start bringing troops home from middle east if he were elected?



[edit on 1-12-2009 by Bombeni]



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bombeni
Did I dream it, or did Obama campaign that he would immediately start bringing troops home from middle east if he were elected?


Exactly, you did dream it. Obama never said anything like that -- only that he'd redirect troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. You need to follow the news, man.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Bombeni
Did I dream it, or did Obama campaign that he would immediately start bringing troops home from middle east if he were elected?


Exactly, you did dream it. Obama never said anything like that -- only that he'd redirect troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. You need to follow the news, man.


Well, why should I follow the news when I have a completely neutral--choke, cough---person like you here at ATS to give me the er, real story?



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Why ….Why… Why, are we sending more soldiers to the Afgan-quagmire? Are we really supposed to believe the Taliban (the local faction that only operates in Afghanistan) is the biggest threat to our nation. Why are we getting into their civil war? Why do we bite at the bit to get into every nations business? Why can’t we just focus on our own nation’s infrastructure and internal problems? I really thought are “Liberal” leaders would pull the troops out of Afghanistan, that would have been the one thing they would have done right in this administration, but no, let’s get our rears beat back like the USSR did back in the day. I mean They where a superpower during that time and still had to pull out.
Can we just stop getting our service men in “conflicts” that really don’t have the American people interest in mind? It’s just a waste of time, effort, money, and blood.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Do you think there's even 30,000 terroists in Afghanistan?

Seriously, do you think theres 30K worth of terroists in Afghanistan?


How about as soon as the Taliban/Terrorists start wearing uniforms then we can get an accurate count. I would rather have a massive amount of troops patrolling then small groups that makes choice targets.

There is no such thing as a fair fight in war.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by MorpheusUSA
 


Yeah but you really can't blame Simpleton, he's just doing what the puppet masters tell him. I'm not sure now when the last time was we had a REAL president; I want to say Kennedy but even that is iffy.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bombeni
Well, why should I follow the news when I have a completely neutral--choke, cough---person like you here at ATS to give me the er, real story?


Because you are asking basic questions too late, and look embarrassingly uninformed.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


My gawd, Barry told so damn many lies, how am I supposed to keep up with all of them? I simply could not recall how he played this one in the campaign since all of what he said has turned out to be a LIE.

Beady eyes, I told my family the first time I laid eyes on him he had beady eyes and I was right. They got on that ridiculous CHANGE furor and I just sat back and shook my head. Now it is they who are hanging their heads in shame.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join