US troops may stay in Afghanistan until 2024, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 21 times

reply posted on 19-8-2011 @ 11:23 PM by Enlightenme1111

Originally posted by brindle
Hopefully they will catch bin laden.

This is a definite exception to the two line post rule. Comment of the day!

reply posted on 19-8-2011 @ 11:42 PM by MikeboydUS

Gitmo, the base in Cuba, is from a war we had over 100 hundred years ago.

We tend to stay where we fight wars.

We still have thousands of troops in Germany, Italy, South Korea, and Japan.

reply posted on 20-8-2011 @ 01:06 AM by The GUT

Originally posted by seedofchucky

ron paul is a differnt kinda beast

ron paul is a complex machine

ron paul has same principals for 30 years and track record to prove it

none of the other candidates come as a gentlemen of his words like ron paul

a doc with delieving 4000+ babies you know he has huge empthy and knows how important it is to keep his word

ron paul ftw lol

if he does flip then i will never ever trust a man ever again lool,,,

This one deserves to be read again. Laid out brilliantly, Chucky. The pen really is mightier than the sword.

Funny how we can all debate & squabble over our different beliefs on a variety of subjects here, but it's a testament to Dr. Paul's character and intellect how unified we've become in our hope in a tiny little giant of a man.

Let our votes be the smooth stones in the sling of the little fella that fearlessly challenges Goliath! I haven't voted in years for obvious reasons. Gonna this time.

Go Ron!!!!

edit on 20-8-2011 by The GUT because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 20-8-2011 @ 02:03 AM by RoguePhilosopher

REASON IS

It is reported that there is $1 trillion worth of precious and base metal deposits in Afghanistan. Gold, Lithium and other rare metals etc!

TPTB want it!!!!!!!!!!

reply posted on 20-8-2011 @ 08:38 AM by Observor

Oh! They will leave Afghanistan much sooner than that. Not because the US wants to, but because it will have no choice left.

reply posted on 20-8-2011 @ 08:41 AM by gladtobehere

reply to post by Vitchilo

S + F.

Of-course they are singing a "pact", just in-case Ron Paul gets elected. They'll say, "hey, we cant leave, we signed a pact".

edit on 20-8-2011 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 20-8-2011 @ 09:12 AM by caladonea

Originally posted by illuminatislave
I feel sorry for the troops, their families, and any young poor soul that enlists into this country's military. They are all being used and taken for fools.

The military should be used for national defense. I agree with Ron Paul on this issue

Barack Obama is a lying piece of garbage.

I agree with Ron Paul on this issue too....that is exactly why TPTB don't want him to run for President and get elected...he will follow through. War is big business and big bucks.....TPTB don't want to give up this lucrative business.

reply posted on 20-8-2011 @ 09:13 AM by CasiusIgnoranze

Just like every politician, Obama is nothing but a corrupt lying puppet.

reply posted on 20-8-2011 @ 09:30 AM by dolphinfan

reply to post by Vitchilo

Its interesting to consider what exactly this extended engagement is intended to accomplish. What is the problem we are attempting to solve?

Are we looking to create a functioning state in Afganistan? I have yet to hear an expert, either from the military, academic class, State Department or think tank that even suggests that there will be anything akin to what we would consider a functioning state in Afganistan, let alone one that it is sustainable.

Are we looking to strike down terrorism? By the administration's own admission, the fluid nature of these stateless actors makes that impossible, that it is like pushing on a balloon. Drive them out of Afganistan and they show up in Yemen, then in Somalia, than on the Arabian Peninsula. Push them everywhere and they pop up in Iran where you really can't go after them absent a full scale war. The government's strategic assessment is based on the fact that you can not take it to a stateless organization in the traditional sense, yet here we go - for another 12 years. If you consider the government's official description of the global network of terrorists, the only reasonable strategy would be to not occupy these countries to bring the terrorists into the open and then to assisinate them with covert operations, claiming zero responsibility.

Are we looking to create stability in that part of the world? Our methods of operation don't lead to stability, they lead to more unrest. Our policy has essentially resulted in a political culture that enables recruitment on the part of the terrorists coupled with better infrastructure, either for the terrorists to blow up or use. In a number of ways our efforts assist the terrorists by simply modernizing the country they happen to be in.

This entire business is a military industrial complex boondoogle and it always has been. If we pull out of Afganistan all together in 2024, it will be back into a dysfunctional disaster by 2026. If we pull out in 2012 it will be a dysfunctional disaster in 2014. At the end of the day, there is no difference other than the one option costs hundreds of billions and a lot of US lives.

We have been in this war for longer than any war in US history, yet our leaders, neither the political or military leaders have ever given a reasonable and common language description of what they hope to leave behind. What does Afganistan look like in 2024 that makes it worth staying? Hard to tell because it has never been described outside of purposefully generalized statements like "a working government" what ever the hell that is "a functioning police organization" "a military that can stand on its own" that kind of rubbish, achievement of which can be spun anyway you need to.

Obama is the biggest neo-con to ever occupy the White House. I'm no fan of Obama, but seriously thought that he would bring rationality to foreign affairs. I was extremely naive, obviously. All he has done and all he ever intended to do was double down on these failed policies.

For the strenuous supporters of the US military and our foreign policy, I would like to have you list one thing, just one thing that is measurable that has been accomplished by the $780bn/year we spend on the military. None of this "we're safer" bs because that can not be proven and I tend to not agree with it anyway. One concrete accomplishment that, upon reflection I would say "great. That needed to be done, the US military was the right and appropriate organization to do it and we're better off now that it has been done successfully"

Just one

reply posted on 20-8-2011 @ 12:56 PM by PresentMalice

US troops will probably be in Afghanistan until 2054, and may very well be here until 2124.

reply posted on 20-8-2011 @ 12:56 PM by PresentMalice

reply to post by dolphinfan

The US has occupied Germany and Japan and even Italy for over 70 years, I guess you're not counting that war.

reply posted on 20-8-2011 @ 01:01 PM by davewr25

That's because we are slowly conquering and occupying the entire world. That's what empires do.

You just can't be as obvious about it like Hitler was. Counter terrorism is the way to go

reply posted on 20-8-2011 @ 01:03 PM by DerekJR321

Of course they are staying in Afghanistan. There is WAY too much opium money there. Hasn't anyone noticed since the Afghan war started there has been a huge influx in heroin addicts in the US? Big money that the government WON'T pass up on. Well... that and they need the area as a jump off for all the other wars they want us to get into.

Obama has back tracked on every single promise he has made since he started campaigning. Frankly I think the man shouldn't even be allowed to run for a second term. Seriously... go back and Youtube any single one of his speeches. He is nothing but a bold faced liar.

I plan on voting for Ron Paul. If he is not on the ballot, I simply won't vote. If my choices are something ridiculous like Bachmann -vs- Obama or Perry -vs- Obama... we all lose.

The only way Ron Paul wouldn't be able to change things if he was elected is because the Senate and Congress will block him at every turn. No matter what the change is. War is big business. Sure it costs us trillions of dollars. But the key word is "US". It doesn't cost "THEM" a single penny. They are making money hand over fist.

As sad as it is to say, I have no real hope that Ron Paul will even make it to the ballots. Simply because the medias attitude towards him. Oh sure, people online have a much clearer understanding of what Dr. Paul is about. But there are SO many who do not. Just the other day my father said to me "Oh I would never vote for him because he wants to get rid of disability insurance". I had to explain to him for an hour that he doesn't want to do that, he wants to put that sort of thing back into states control. How it is supposed to be. People seem to forget that the states created the federal government. Not the other way around.

reply posted on 20-8-2011 @ 01:22 PM by dolphinfan

reply to post by PresentMalice

Certainly not counting the troops who have been on the ground since the war was over.

I would agree that both the first and second world wars were useful uses of the US military. Thats the end of it. You could also argue, as many have that the Wars in Europe were irrelevant to the true interests of the US, that both the Kaiser and Hitler could have been contained and would have been satisfied with a German empire that covered all of Europe.

Since WWII, it is hard to think of a use of the military that has legitimately been in the national interest.

reply posted on 20-8-2011 @ 03:07 PM by John0Doe

reply to post by Vitchilo

Ron Paul or not US troops are gonna be in Afganistan and Iraq as long as there is Oil or natural gas to explore,once they are done,they will go.... ;o)

reply posted on 20-8-2011 @ 03:10 PM by Evanzsayz

reply to post by Signals

You mean the civilans?

reply posted on 21-8-2011 @ 01:04 AM by Observor

Originally posted by John0Doe
reply to post by Vitchilo

Ron Paul or not US troops are gonna be in Afganistan and Iraq as long as there is Oil or natural gas to explore,once they are done,they will go.... ;o)

There is not much oil or natural gas to explore in Afghanistan. However there is a lot of natural gas in Central Asian republics bordering Afghanistan and Afghanistan is intended to provide a pipeline corridor to get that gas out.

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^