Obama General Discussion

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Actually, no, it really isn't believable at all. And if you (general you) honestly think it is believable, I'd say you're the one with intelligence issues.

Tiger Edge, obviously you're unintelligent.

bush-pet-goat-book-upside-down-photo.jpg
 
I remember Michael Moore joking about it back during the time of Fahrenheit 9/11 and getting jumped all over it. I kinda miss those days.
 
Honestly, Obama has really let me down by allowing a coup to happen in Honduras and it's fucking 2009. And don't tell me it's not important for the US to allow this type of thing. If the US hadn't supported it it simply wouldn't have happened which I won't even try to explain but that's just the way it is. :down:
 
thats actually not too far from the truth:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/25/us/politics/25policy.html?_r=1

same old shit, different face. looks like another endless war is about to begin. so much for your "hope and change"

.

Before the 2004 election, I had to pick up a two star general at the airport. We were chatting (meaning, he was talking directly to me and I was silent) in the car ride about the election (Kerry/Bush). He said it didn't matter who won, despite the rhetoric. He said back then (Autumn 2004) that as soon as Iraq cooled down, we would find a reason to shift the forces to Afghanistan. We are in the era of a permanent presence in the Middle East, especially near Iran. Even though he was just sharing his opinion, it seems he was right five years ahead of time.
 
We are in the era of a permanent presence in the Middle East, especially near Iran. Even though he was just sharing his opinion, it seems he was right five years ahead of time.



i fully agree. we've poured an unimaginable amount of blood and treasure into the most fucked up region of the globe.

this is where empires come to die, even non-empire empires.
 
i suspect this is part of the reason why our economy is so fucked up. :hmm:

Actually, that general claimed the world economy was the real reason. He said a spike in the cost of oil would lead to a collapse in the system, as it turns out - he may have been right about that too (only it was the Iranians).
 
we'll see what happens.

one wishes Bush/Cheney would have dithered just a bit longer, though.

It would have been unwise to give Saddam more time to prepare for the invasion there by inflicting higher casualties on coalition forces.
 
thats actually not too far from the truth:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/25/us/politics/25policy.html?_r=1

same old shit, different face. looks like another endless war is about to begin. so much for your "hope and change"

too bad people are so caught up in the left/right bullshit that they dont even see what is really going on.


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.:up:

Current news is the troop increase is 35,000 for Afghanistan which is about 90% of what General McCrystal asked for. Republicans will be happy!
 
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.:up:

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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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. :shrug:
 
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. :shrug:


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.
 
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.
 
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. :shrug:
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. :shrug:
 
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. :shrug:



could it be that Obama made a decision based upon his own judgment?
 
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).
 
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.
 
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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom