From the article:

"[I]t costs the U. S. three times to maintain a soldier in Afghanistan that it costs it to maintain a soldier in Iraq. Consequently, the U. S.'s maintaining a force of 400,000 in Afghanistan would cost us nearly ten times what we're spending in Iraq right now."

Let's put aside for the moment questions body counts and money.

Where are those soldiers going to come from?

Hesse?

I was fascinated to learn the Saudis are bribing the Sunnis in Iraq not to attack as insurgents.

I guess we tack those bribes onto our own bribes. This helps explain why violence is down.

The fascinating question to be answered is if this amounts to our side winning a war? Or is a case of plastering over cracks?

Will people paid not to fight see the payments as appeasement? Will they be so happy with their money they eventually become bored with the notion of fighting?

Will those being paid fight once again once the money stops? Will they discover it's quite possible to take bribe money but attack anyway?

In any case, this issue illustrates once again how dishonest the debate about the war continues to be.

The fascinating question to be answered is if this amounts to our side winning a war? Or is a case of plastering over cracks?


In rightwingnutworld it is a victory. However, the insurgents are neither being killed nor apprehended and brought to trial so any victory will only last as long as the cash can pacify them.

Once their greed overtakes what the Saudis and US can pay them or they tire of being paid lackeys sitting idly by while a corrupt government runs Iraq they will resume their attacks.

Hopefully by then the Iraqis will be able to fend for themselves, but I doutbt it. With mother USA willing to spend the next 100 years policing Iraq and paying for it with our lives and money I doubt the Iraqis will have the incentive to take personal responsibility for their own safety.

Funny how when it comes to the US citizens the right is quick to drop kick people off of assistance in the name of "personal responsibility" but when it comes that an oil rich middle east nation.....eh not so much.

**** Funny how when it comes to the US citizens the right is quick to drop kick people off of assistance in the name of "personal responsibility" but when it comes that an oil rich middle east nation.....eh not so much.
Posted by 726 ****

......we are paying for the reconstruction because the Iraqis don't know how to get their oil money out of the bank......

......they are barely able to find the place to make the deposits......

......we are paying for the reconstruction because the Iraqis don't know how to get their oil money out of the bank......

They are as dumb as that Nigerian Prince that wants me to use my bank account info so that he can deposit $24 million because his account does not work.

Shit with that kind of business accumen I would expect them to work for the RNC. Funny how Tom Reynold's decided to "retire" when it came out that a million was "missing" from the RNC accounts.

When this is taken into consideration along with the fact that the Tallywackers will eliminate opium production, the simple solution seems to be write off the country. If you eliminate the poppy crop, the gross national product of Afghanistan will devolve to only more little Tallywackers and damn little else. The gross value of this rocky land is very close to zero.

Geez, Rob will be here any moment to tell us the war in afghanistan is virtually over.

...or ONE CHARLIE WILSON, 30 million stubborn Afghans, and a little Congressional Support.

Hmmm... where are all those repubs? Oh, I know, they have something better to do with there lives than to put it on the line for a cause they want. Better to leave that to others.

Dick

ZED

I was fascinated to learn the Saudis are bribing the Sunnis in Iraq not to attack as insurgents.

I guess we tack those bribes onto our own bribes. This helps explain why violence is down.

I can tell you right now why the Saudis are doing that and it's because they are helping swing the election for McCain. All McCain has been doing these last few days is say "how well the surge in Iraq has worked" and "violence is down and Obama doesn't know anything about running a war" and it all fits in like the pieces of a puzzle.

Don't you see? The ONLY way John "100 years in Iraq" McCain can look good and bash the Dems is if the killing of our troops go down and the attacks by the insurgents go way down in Iraq. Only then can McCain claim any kind of progress over there. During another one of our elections Bush had our troops ordered to just lie low in order to hold down the numbers being killed. This will not be the first time they've pulled this on us.

What else can McCain campaign on? The economy? Jobs? Affordable health insurance? Nope. Nothing. Up against the Dem candidates McCain has nothing the people of this country want or need and the GOP knows it. So they MUST make Iraq look half way successful -- hence you've been hearing nothing lately except the killings in Iraq are down. I mean I'm glad they are BUT it's only until November. How else can McCain run on being a soon be be successful "war president"? It's all a big sham -- again.

So Afghanistan is much harder to subdue than we expected. Gosh, who could have guessed? Kind of have to wonder about the wisdom of diverting our forces to Iraq doncha???? But hey, what passes for Republican wisdom today is..."well we're there, now we have to stay the course and win..." Well don't tell John McBush but his 100 years comment was probably the closest we will ever get to hearing the truth from his lips. Only problem, after 100 years we'll still be in virtually the same situation just poorer and with more dead and injured American soldiers.

"Hmmm... where are all those repubs? Oh, I know, they have something better to do with there lives than to put it on the line for a cause they want. Better to leave that to others.

Dick"

I'm to the right and I actually witnessed the change of command on Tuesday firsthand, and I do support the cause. Doing humanitarian aid missions here is a real eye opener to how these people live. Anyway, the 400,000 number would be made up of a plurality of Americans for sure, but considering that 39 countries are on the HQ ISAF base here, as well as more Afghan military being trained, that 260,000 shortfall doesn't seem that amazing.

We will never hit 400k though.

"that 260,000 shortfall doesn't seem that amazing."

Huh??? We've got soldiers on third and fourth tours in Iraq and Afghanistan already so where are you going to get ANY additional troops????
Do you ever consider how irresponsible it was to invade Iraq while we were already in Afghanistan or would that require too much honest reevaluation of the position you and the rest of the righties have held since Bush was elected???

Danni: We need more people in the military, I would not support an increase in levels in Afghanistan without an increase in troops overall. We can do that by increasing pay and benefits, which is what sucks about the new GI BILL controversy. "Honestly reevaluating" my position, it pisses me off that Republicans can't get behind more education benefits for soldiers. It also pisses me off that I see so many items I order through supply cost a shit ton when on the civilian side they wouldn't cost half as much, surely we could save money on those items and increase enlisted and officer pay. Yes I am certainly and personally aware of soldiers on third and fourth tours, and its not a good situation.

We need to increase benefits and increase our (NATO's) presence in Afghanistan to get this thing whipped, rather than fight a prolonged war having just enough guys to keep going.

Danni, would you rather see troop levels remain the same, decreased, or increased (through an increase in troops joining) or pulling out of Iraq, or pulled out of Afghanistan? As opposed to fighting a war with what McNeill considers an insufficient amount of soldiers? I'm not baiting I honestly want to know what you think would be a wise course of action.

400,000 troops? This sounds like a job for the dittoheads. Aren't there 12 million of them? If only 3.5% of them sign up. . .

"If only 3.5% of them sign up...."

One of the surest ways to provoke scathing condecension on a Red State blog is to suggest young conservative males and females should enlist in the US Armed Services in order to support the wars they support.

Red Staters appear to have decided recommendations to enlist, being another form of liberal attack, is another reason never to enlist at all.

And along comes Blackwater to fill in the gap.... Same war at 5 times the price.

Geez, Rob will be here any moment to tell us the war in afghanistan is virtually over.

Posted by northguy3


No, not over, but what I will ask, but I'm sure no one will have the balls to answer is why is my thread about one commander saying the Taliban is on the brink of defeat still on the back page, but when reinheitsgebot puts up a thread giving bad news on Afghanistan its immediately put to the front page?

Actually, forget that, because I know the answer... the answer is that until George W. Bush is out of office, you liberals will celbrate every bombing, cheerlead for the other side and refuse to recognize even the slightest bit of progress in any aspect of the war on terror.

ANDYHUENET I think we should be pulling out of Iraq and probably beginning to wind things down in Afghanistan too. I don't hink that if we stay there for fifty years things will change very much in that country. What really are we accomplishing there???? It might actually be smarter strategically as well because until Al Quaeda comes out of Pakistan we really can't get at them. Seems to me we should let them come out and then use CIA and special forces troops to swoop in and get them.

So Rob, you admit your posting is BS but are upset it didn't make the front page?

Ya want some cheese with that whine?

I have no problems sending troops from the US for UN needs.

But with one requirement.

The US sends, as a maximum, the same number of troops as the country sending the highest amount of troops (excluding the US).

Money has the same maximum ceiling as does aid.

The US should only foot a bill and body to the next country on the list.

Preferably-non intervention. Bring everyone home and secure the border. Don't let anyone in the country unless they've been seriously investigated. With all the troops home, we'll have plenty of people to do some investigating and securing.

Pay attention from the other thread wobbles



Sorry wobbles...way too much of what he says is unverifiable conjecture-since they're saying it's devolving into an Iraq-style insurgency-what does that mean for us..ANOTHER 100 Years in Afghanistan too?

Posted by frankf55 at 2008-06-02 04:13 PM

Rob-
Maybe it's because the Taliban has been on "the brink of defeat" for eight years, and the Bush people have so politicized everything, and have used "independent military analysts" so much in their propaganda campaigns that no one takes these pronouncements seriously anymore.

But that's just a guess.

Posted by BetelG

Just a few samples wobbles...
By the bye
You want some cheese with that WHINE?

So Rob, you admit your posting is BS but are upset it didn't make the front page?


Where did I admit that? According to the general from my thread the Taliban has been severely hurt over the last two years, losing over 7,000 of their fighters as well as key leaders killed and they are running out of weapons and ammo...

I'm just pointing out that yet again, good news stays on the back, bad news comes right to the front. Because RCade knows that good news from any area of the war is bad news for Dems...

Just pointing out the dishonesty...

FrankF Rob believes the propaganda. He eats it up. What do You expect out of a Bushite.

Larry Mohr

Just a few samples wobbles...

Posted by frankf55


That's a few samples of people offering their opinions of what the Bush Administration has done, but if you read the article, you'd have seen it was not about anyone in the Bush Admin, or even an American servicemen...

So that kind of throws a wrench in your talking points...

FrankF Rob believes the propaganda. He eats it up. What do You expect out of a Bushite.

Larry Mohr

Posted by LarryMohr


Prove what he said in the article wrong Larry...

This one is easy Rob. You wouldn't need 400,000 troops in Afghanistan if the Taliban was almost wiped out. Takes a little common sense to understand that Rob.

Larry Mohr

And why does this one generals opinion cancel out the one from the other thread?

Because you want it to, so that there can be more bad news...

You're barking up the wrong tree Rob.

Keep up with Your delusions Rob. I'd hate to see what You would look like if faced with reality.

Larry Mohr

larry, why is it you take one general's opinion as fact and another's as just garbage? How about answering that big guy?

Same fucking story regurgitated bwhahahahha Gotta love the propaganda ehhhhhhh Rob??

Larry Mohr

That's the best you have? That's your only reply?

Thought provoking stuff their larry...

You still haven't answered why you only take one general's opinion seriously and disregard the others...

Rob,
See if the AKC has any articles on Afghanistan. Larry will read those for sure.

holy shit... lol...

Hey 101 do You have any original thoughts left or do Youhave to regurgtate the same tired assed slams. You really are a waste of space.

Larry Mohr

Prove what he said in the article wrong Larry...

KIAs up every year since 2001. Attacks in afghanistan up every year since 2001. Truly a last throes.

Rob, if we killed that guy last year, why is the Commnader still saying we need 400,000 troops? Maybe he didn't get the memo....

An al-Qaeda trainer and explosives specialist involved in a range of European terrorist networks has been killed in Pakistan, the latest senior militant to die in a spate of controversial American missile strikes.

OMG!! Weren't you Righties all bent out of shape when Obama suggested doing just that? Said it was stupid?

Sounds like Bush finally has found someone to take directions from with the tactical vision the GOPpers have been lacking-Barak Obama.

Bodes well for him as Commander-in-Chief. We'll be back to the Democratic Party tradition of winning wars.

NG3.....well tell me how many wars were started by the Repubs that were lost

and then look at how many wars were started by the Dems.....i bet the Dems started 5X as many wars than any party in america

Danni use the Obama techn....answer NO QUESTIONS!

And say your against devisiveness while saying you are completely against GW and all republicans. It's OK to attack others, but HOW DARE you attack me?

I don't mean attack, I mean you ask them questions, and they act like it's an attack. Pretending of course that they aren't attacking themselves.