Obama General Discussion - Page 8 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-24-2009, 09:04 PM   #106
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Se7en's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: all around in the dark - everywhere
Posts: 3,531
Local Time: 12:45 AM
i'm convinced that strongbow has heightened spidey senses.
__________________

__________________
Se7en is offline  
Old 11-24-2009, 09:04 PM   #107
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
2861U2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: watching the Cubs
Posts: 4,251
Local Time: 12:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Its great to see Obama ignore the liberal democrats who got him elected and go with the Generals and Republicans when it comes to this nations security.
True, except he didn't 100% do what the generals and republicans wanted. I don't understand the reasoning behind sending 30-35K and not the 40. By doing that, he only pisses off the left and the right. Many liberals and many conservatives are saying to either send 40K or to send zero. Middle-ground is pointless.
__________________

__________________
2861U2 is offline  
Old 11-24-2009, 09:08 PM   #108
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,667
Local Time: 11:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2861U2 View Post
Many liberals and many conservatives are saying to either send 40K or to send zero. Middle-ground is pointless.
Middle ground is pointless?

I'm pretty sure he's privy to a little more info than you, Glenn Beck, and others, don't you think?

Do you think he did middle ground for political reasons?
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 11-24-2009, 09:17 PM   #109
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
2861U2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: watching the Cubs
Posts: 4,251
Local Time: 12:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Middle ground is pointless?

I'm pretty sure he's privy to a little more info than you, Glenn Beck, and others, don't you think?

Do you think he did middle ground for political reasons?
I'd like to know what advanced military insight he has that tells him 30K will do what 40K could.

As for the reasoning, I really have no clue. I'm pondering any sort of logic behind this call.
__________________
2861U2 is offline  
Old 11-24-2009, 09:19 PM   #110
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 05:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2861U2 View Post
True, except he didn't 100% do what the generals and republicans wanted. I don't understand the reasoning behind sending 30-35K and not the 40. By doing that, he only pisses off the left and the right. Many liberals and many conservatives are saying to either send 40K or to send zero. Middle-ground is pointless.

Middle-ground would have been 20,000. This looks like its going to be 35,000. It might be 35,000 and not 40,000 to throw a little bone to the liberals, although I think that will make them furious. But still 35,000 is 90% of what General McCrystal asked for.

Thing is there is a limit on how many troops can be sent at the present time do to:

1. Current troop rotations for Active Duty Army and Marine Brigades
2. There are still 120,000 troops deployed in Iraq
3. The logistical difficulty in getting troops into land locked Afghanistan

Its going to take all of 2010 to air lift that many troops with their equipment into Aghanistan. Some equipment is transported overland through Pakistan, but much of it has to come by air transport. In Iraq, the majority of the equipment comes by sea into Kuwait and then is transported overland, or in fact was already sent years ago, and is re-used by new troops that come in.

A year ago there were only 40,000 troops in Afghanistan so there is a lot of infrustructure that must be built to support the troop increase now going beyond 100,000.

All this means that it will take about 12 months to get 35,000 troops into Afghanistan. By then or before that time, Obama can add another 5,000, 10,000 or 20,000 as air transport assets become available.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 11-24-2009, 09:25 PM   #111
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 05:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2861U2 View Post
I'd like to know what advanced military insight he has that tells him 30K will do what 40K could.

As for the reasoning, I really have no clue. I'm pondering any sort of logic behind this call.
Again, it may just be a matter of whats currently available in terms of Brigades and transport assets. He can add more later once its logistically possible. Its more difficult to get troops and their equipment into Afghanistan than Iraq, especially with a brand new troop increase.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 11-24-2009, 09:27 PM   #112
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
2861U2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: watching the Cubs
Posts: 4,251
Local Time: 12:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Middle-ground would have been 20,000. This looks like its going to be 35,000. It might be 35,000 and not 40,000 to throw a little bone to the liberals, although I think that will make them furious.
I suppose. I could be wrong, but I always assumed the dominant liberal position was to just get out and not send any more troops at all, and if that's the case I couldn't imagine cutting the request short by 5K would be much of a bone.
__________________
2861U2 is offline  
Old 11-24-2009, 09:42 PM   #113
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 05:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2861U2 View Post
I suppose. I could be wrong, but I always assumed the dominant liberal position was to just get out and not send any more troops at all, and if that's the case I couldn't imagine cutting the request short by 5K would be much of a bone.

I agree. He probably agreed with the Generals and Republicans 100%, and the reason its 35,000 over the next 12 months is because that is the maximum, given the logistics, that can be sent during that time.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 11-24-2009, 09:54 PM   #114
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 12:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2861U2 View Post
True, except he didn't 100% do what the generals and republicans wanted. I don't understand the reasoning behind sending 30-35K and not the 40. By doing that, he only pisses off the left and the right. Many liberals and many conservatives are saying to either send 40K or to send zero. Middle-ground is pointless.


we'll see what he actually proposes, but i'll remind you and the rest of the GOP: it is the president who decides policy, not the military.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 11-24-2009, 09:55 PM   #115
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Tiger Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The Everglades
Posts: 4,740
Local Time: 01:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2861U2 View Post
I suppose. I could be wrong, but I always assumed the dominant liberal position was to just get out and not send any more troops at all, and if that's the case I couldn't imagine cutting the request short by 5K would be much of a bone.
Except upping the troops in Afghanistan is part of his campaign promise. If liberals are getting mad at this, they haven't been following him very closely. And conservatives who say that he is bending are ultimately wrong.
__________________
Tiger Edge is offline  
Old 11-24-2009, 09:56 PM   #116
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 12:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2861U2 View Post
I suppose. I could be wrong, but I always assumed the dominant liberal position was to just get out and not send any more troops at all, and if that's the case I couldn't imagine cutting the request short by 5K would be much of a bone.


could it be that Obama made a decision based upon his own judgment?
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 11-24-2009, 10:00 PM   #117
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 10:45 PM
I think it is a wise move on Obama's part. I wouldn't be surprised if Obama and generals reached the compromise before the number of the request was announced. Even if that isn't the case - Obama seems to be listening to the generals - but also sends the message "I won't give you everything you want."

That being said - I would like to hear what is the actual mission (even if it is made up).
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-24-2009, 10:07 PM   #118
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 12:45 AM
I heard on NPR that he might be hoping to have the last 5000 come from NATO allies? At least I think that's what I heard.

Anyway, the 35,000 is still rumor right? It's not official until next Tuesday.

I don't know why the liberals would be pissed. Obama has always said he was going to make Afghanistan a priority and he always talked about sending more troops there. After all, Iraq was the "bad war" and this was the "good one." As was said earlier, if liberal Obama supporters assumed he was just going to pull out of any and all wars, I think they must have not been paying attention.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 11-24-2009, 10:38 PM   #119
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 11:45 PM
Quote:
Top Dem to Obama: 'There Ain't Going to Be Money for Nothing if We Pour It All Into Afghanistan'
ABC News

The powerful chairman of the House Appropriations Committee has a stark message for President Obama about Afghanistan -- sending more troops would be a mistake that could "wipe out every initiative we have to rebuild our own economy."

"There ain't going to be no money for nothing if we pour it all into Afghanistan," House Appropriations Chairman David Obey told ABC News in an exclusive interview. "If they ask for an increased troop commitment in Afghanistan, I am going to ask them to pay for it."

His demand for a new war tax echoes a similar call by Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, also a Democrat, who recently told Bloomberg's Al Hunt that he favors a new tax on Americans earning more than $200,000 a year to pay for sending any additional troops.

Obey argued that the tax should be paid by all taxpayers, with rates ranging from 1 percent for lower wage earners to 5 percent for the wealthy.
This should help GOP chances in 2010
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 11-24-2009, 11:00 PM   #120
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 12:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
This should help GOP chances in 2010


and this is all the GOP cares about. stall, stall, stall! tactics, tactics, tactics! short-term, short-term, short-term!
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Democratic National Convention Thread MrsSpringsteen Free Your Mind 504 09-02-2008 03:37 PM
US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread - Part III phillyfan26 Free Your Mind Archive 1001 01-30-2008 02:07 PM
MERGED--> NH predictions + Hillary's win + NH recount? 2861U2 Free Your Mind Archive 586 01-12-2008 01:50 PM
Official Campaign 2008 Hot Stove Thread Varitek Free Your Mind Archive 1003 09-23-2007 03:31 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com