Rahm Emanuel says no troop Escalation in Afghanistan

[Ausm]

1) Careful assessment before sending any additional troops

2) no timetable for any decision

3)need joint effort from allies

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...roop-esc_n_325099.html

 

[Jaskalas]

So we'll sit and spin instead?

Get them the f' out of there!

 

[nageov3t]

3)need joint effort from allies

well, with Obama's soaring popularity and our newly rebuilt relationship with Europe being so important, I'm sure they'll be falling over themselves to send troops to Afghanistan.

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: loki8481

3)need joint effort from allies

well, with Obama's soaring popularity and our newly rebuilt relationship with Europe being so important, I'm sure they'll be falling over themselves to send troops to Afghanistan.

I doubt that anytime soon, I think we should pull out of the bottomless money pit.

 

[chucky2]

Awesome.

So we F the Afghani's back in the day when we used them to get slaughtered to further our policy with USSR...

...and now we F the Afghani's again.

Sure hope other peoples' of the world aren't taking note how we abandon folks......

Chuck

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: chucky2
Awesome.

So we F the Afghani's back in the day when we used them to get slaughtered to further our policy with USSR...

...and now we F the Afghani's again.

Sure hope other peoples' of the world aren't taking note how we abandon folks......

Chuck

Is it really worth spending a trillion dollars,another ten years and American lives to not abandon Afghanistan?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Sounds like the same thing the Dems in Congress have been saying for the past 3 years.

In otherwords, hang the troops out to dry for political gain/expediency. Do not listen to the professionals

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: loki8481

3)need joint effort from allies

well, with Obama's soaring popularity and our newly rebuilt relationship with Europe being so important, I'm sure they'll be falling over themselves to send troops to Afghanistan.

I doubt that anytime soon, I think we should pull out of the bottomless money pit.

Just remember how well that worked out after we up and left after we were done fighting a proxy war there.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: chucky2
Awesome.

So we F the Afghani's back in the day when we used them to get slaughtered to further our policy with USSR...

...and now we F the Afghani's again.

Sure hope other peoples' of the world aren't taking note how we abandon folks......

Chuck

Is it really worth spending a trillion dollars,another ten years and American lives to not abandon Afghanistan?

When the police are chasing down a group of people who's murdered and/or raped 1/3 your family and is out to get the rest, do you want the police to just say, 'Oh, well, we don't feel like doing this anymore, sorry, you deal with it.'?

Like it or not, the US/Western forces are the police over there. Do we send the message to every person in the rest of world that we abandon when the going gets tough, or, that we stick and help our allies? What message does that send Pakistan and Inda? Russia? China? Nations/Regimes/Groups that don't have a problem taking thousands of casualties to reach whatever goal they want.

It's just not as simple as leaving Afghanistan.

Chuck

 

[Ackmed]

Except Im going in a few months...

 

[bbdub333]

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: chucky2
Awesome.

So we F the Afghani's back in the day when we used them to get slaughtered to further our policy with USSR...

...and now we F the Afghani's again.

Sure hope other peoples' of the world aren't taking note how we abandon folks......

Chuck

Is it really worth spending a trillion dollars,another ten years and American lives to not abandon Afghanistan?

Yes, it is.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: chucky2
It's just not as simple as leaving Afghanistan.

You?re suppose to take the fight to the enemy, not sit around on the streets waiting to die. If we?re not in it to win it, then we shouldn?t be in it at all. If we?re not willing to use the manpower or policies necessary in order to achieve victory, then GTFO.

This is as simple as leaving Afghanistan.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Awww, Rahm. Don't you want to support another corrupt ineffective tin-pot government in south east Asia ?

 

[Nemesis 1]

I told you guys that some time ago , The USA will pull out. But that doesn't matter . I will tell you now . Hear IT. Germany will go in bigtime.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: chucky2
It's just not as simple as leaving Afghanistan.

You?re suppose to take the fight to the enemy, not sit around on the streets waiting to die. If we?re not in it to win it, then we shouldn?t be in it at all. If we?re not willing to use the manpower or policies necessary in order to achieve victory, then GTFO.

This is as simple as leaving Afghanistan.

This is not just as simple as leaving Afghanistan, unless you don't want to consider the message that sends to various groups all around the world.

And I never said we're not supposed to take the fight to the enemy. IMHO, we should have sent sh1tloads of troops to Afghanistan, and more sh1tloads of troops to Iraq. If that means re-instating the Draft, so be it. If that meant sending up some electronic warfare planes to broadcast a message to everyone in Pakistan on TV and radio that we were going to have to go into the northwest province so as to defeat the Taliban, but that we would not - under any circumstance - go past such and such lat./long., then so be it.

America has to stop this insanity of trying to fight a cheap and PC war. Wars are expensive in money as well as life. If we're not prepared to expend what it's going to take to crush - and stay crushed - the adversary in terms of money and American military manpower, then stay the F home. War on Drugs = halfassed. War on Terror = halfassed.

And this isn't just Obama, it's Bush as well. Including the entire Congress. This BS about authorizing the POTUS to use force and then b1tching when he does needs to also stop. If we're going in militarily someplace, we're at war. Declare it and let it be on, don't be chickensh1t and hide behind the POTUS and then stab him in the back when it doesn't go to perfection, but then take credit when it does.

In short: The entire country needs to "Man Up" when it comes to deploying our Military.

Chuck

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
You?re suppose to take the fight to the enemy, not sit around on the streets waiting to die. If we?re not in it to win it, then we shouldn?t be in it at all. If we?re not willing to use the manpower or policies necessary in order to achieve victory, then GTFO.

This is as simple as leaving Afghanistan.

I agree.

Originally posted by: chucky2
This is not just as simple as leaving Afghanistan, unless you don't want to consider the message that sends to various groups all around the world.

I believe it would send the message that we have largely pulled our heads from our collective ass, but I can imagine how it wouldn't seem that to those comfortable with our current posture.

 

[alchemize]

Pathetic. Shit or get off the pot.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Awww, Rahm. Don't you want to support another corrupt ineffective tin-pot government in south east Asia ?

Unless they've recently moved the country, your grasp of geography is weak.

As for propping up another corrupt government, that's the whole point of the "strategic review" the Obama administration is conducting. Evaluation of General McChrystal's troop options is predicated on the Aghani domestic political situation.

 

[Sacrilege]

Did you even read the 2nd phrase of the title of the article you linked to? No additional troops until the Afghan government is assessed....

Why would the US want to commit more troops until the corrupt as hell Afghan government sorts out its electoral crisis, and lays down some steps for becoming more accountable and less corrupt. Sending more troops would be pointless if the Afghan government has no authority or support to rule.

And you simpletons deliberately ignore this fact while trying to score cheap political points by branding Obama wishy-washy. Thank God thinking people are in control of foreign policy. And I mean that about the Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc. administration. Anyone but you mindless peons.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
You?re suppose to take the fight to the enemy, not sit around on the streets waiting to die. If we?re not in it to win it, then we shouldn?t be in it at all. If we?re not willing to use the manpower or policies necessary in order to achieve victory, then GTFO.

This is as simple as leaving Afghanistan.

I agree.

Originally posted by: chucky2
This is not just as simple as leaving Afghanistan, unless you don't want to consider the message that sends to various groups all around the world.

I believe it would send the message that we have largely pulled our heads from our collective ass, but I can imagine how it wouldn't seem that to those comfortable with our current posture.

Our current posture sucks. It tells the rest of the world we're not prepared to do what is necessary to win. So Yes, we should pull out heads out in that respect.

Chuck

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: chucky2

This is not just as simple as leaving Afghanistan, unless you don't want to consider the message that sends to various groups all around the world.

Sure, it is if that's the best move. Who are we fighting for? The corrupt Karzi regime who stole the election? The locals who don't want us there and will fight us, even if it means the return of the Taliban?

In short: The entire country needs to "Man Up" when it comes to deploying our Military.

That assumes we have the manpower to "man up." Your mercifully EX-Traitor In Chief and his gang blew that and the arms, equipment and funds to win that war when it could have been won when they pulled our forces out of Afghanistan to start their war of LIES in Iraq.

One alternative worth considering might be to pull our troops and use drones to torch all of the poppy fields. That would deprive the warlords from all sides, from the Taliban to Karzi's brother and beyond, of their primary source of income. Then, we could immediately help them by offering reconstruction aid for more benificial crops and infrastructure, all of which would cost less than fighting a logistically impossible war.

It would have the lovely side effect of saving the lives of heroin addicts and damaging the drug cartels here and around the world.

 

[nageov3t]

what could possibly go wrong with creating thousands of impoverished ex-farmers out in the wilds who hate the US with a fiery passion because we set their income on fire...

 

[Xellos2099]

This is SO like Obama policy. This announcement of no renforcement is like shooting ourselves in the foot. Think of it this way, this is a major moral blow to our forces' moral is there while it increase our enemy moral. It show we are not willing to help the men we send there and the enemy think they are winning since their native country is like left them for dead. To the liberal here, we send men there to fight a war, they need more man, POTUS refuse to send more man; we end up losing more soldiers. Liberal will blame Bush for start the war, pull out and it will be like just Vietnam war. When it come to death, the more soldiers we have there, the less chance of them being ambushed/kill. So the way to reduce our side death is to have an overwhelming force to defeat the enemy.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: loki8481

what could possibly go wrong with creating thousands of impoverished ex-farmers out in the wilds who hate the US with a fiery passion because we set their income on fire...

They're already impovrished, and they already hate the U.S. There's not much they could do to any of us if we weren't there, the American death toll would be non-existent, the Afghani death toll would be far lower than trying to fight them face to face on their turf and if we put a big enough dent in the world's heroin supply, we'd save American lives at home.

According to this report, Afghanistan now supplies around 90 percent of the world's heroin. That's only one source, but if it's anywhere near accurate, torching all of their fields would to wonders for our own drug problems while depriving the Taliban of a major source of revenue. Consider the last paragraph at the link:

So in a strange twist, the Taliban, a group at odds with the United States, stands to profit handsomely from the sale of drugs on America's streets.

Do you care if it pisses them off?

 

[classy]

I am not surprised. No doubt in my mind, we'll be leaving there soon, just like Iraq.