I wonder how many contractors will be needed to support the support troops?

Funny that the distinction between contractors and military only means something to us. Not so big a distinction for the Afghani's or Iraqi's.

I wonder how many contractors will be needed to support the support troops?

I wonder how much more load the already creaking supply line can take?

Not so big a distinction for the Afghani's or Iraqi's.

Not for me either.

It is good business though....

Over 90% of whatever is shipped to Afghanistan, is local Pakistani stuff... from toilet paper to shampoo to ice-cream to fuel, ammo, water, etc.

"Support" troops are not the first line troops requested. Obama could have just as well sent in the ATF again.

Peace prize material:

The deployment of the support troops to Afghanistan brings the total increase approved by Obama to 34,000. The buildup has raised the number of U.S. troops deployed to the war zones of Iraq and Afghanistan above the peak during the Iraq "surge" that President George W. Bush ordered, officials said.

When I was in the Air Force I read an analysis that said each front-line soldier requires 23 'support' people, from logistics to transport to medical.

That was for the Army. Front-line warriors for the Air Force (pilots, weapons officers, missileers) was about 750 in support of each.

Why was the news "unannounced?"

More Troops from Wisconsin to Iraq in November. I guess they are required to help with the draw down.

Why was the news "unannounced?"

Someone might lose his Peace Prize

How about the 40k requested by McCrystal??

Oh--making up his mind and doing focus groups takes a couple of weeks.

The 40k will need their support personnel as well.

War forever!

Hope and change motherfuckers!

government-subsidized revisionists are also hard at work rewriting the history books to make it look like britain and russia actually "won" in afghanistan so in a few years america can pull out and "win" too.

War is Peace. That's why Obama got the Nobel.

GTFO

FUBAR

HOPE and CHANGE

So...Mchrystal won?

#15 | POSTED BY LARRYMOHR

Well said. Ridding ourselves of the Federal Reserve and quashing the pursuit of empire would help to begin remedying our little 'FUBAR.'

History repeating itself?

PRESIDENT OBAMA TO STAFF:
"Hey, does anybody remember what happened with those Russian guys? Find out and get back to me..."

Pertinent paragraph:

""The deployment does not change the maximum number of service members expected to soon be in Afghanistan: 68,000, more than double the number there when Bush left office."

Hello????

More smoke and mirrors; people are raising hell about 40+K more personnel committed, so they say "just a few more combat troops, no big deal". But wait! You mean there's more to it than what was stated? Golly...

Don't get me wrong, If McChrystal says he needs 100K more, he needs 'em; he's the best chance we have of getting this job done right. The mission is important. I'm just sick of the double-talk and half truths.

When I was DoD contracting I'd estimate a 200-1 military to conractor ratio, nothing official, just my guess. That's another pot of money, and as private citizens nobody is forcing them to be there, but they are serving a great purpose. Not every contractor is a Blackwater shooter or KBR electrician, many high tech gizmos need a Subject Matter Expert (SME) in the rear to keep the queertrons running. MTCW

"We had to destroy the village to save it."

One of my favorite Vietnam quotes

"love the smell of napalm in the morning"

Here the left and right will argue about the decision as if it was easy.

Gfy all of you.

There is NO right decision here.

We should have already been done with afghan but since we are not its turned into a clusterfuck and every decision about it is the wrong one and yall need to think about the complexity before making partisan criticisms.

I hate to tell you but you haters over simplify EVERY political decision.

And it is really sad that you do.

Some of you all are sensible except when you express your opinions. It sounds like all sensibility is gone.

We should have already been done with afghan but since we are not its turned into a clusterfuck and every decision about it is the wrong one and yall need to think about the complexity before making partisan criticisms.

I hate to tell you but you haters over simplify EVERY political decision.

And it is really sad that you do.
#24 | Posted by klifferd

You're right. Forget I said anything.

What makes the green grass grow?

BLOOD! BLOOD! BLOOD, Drill Sergeant Klifford!

Carry on.

I hate to tell you but you haters over simplify EVERY political decision.

And it is really sad that you do.

Some of you all are sensible except when you express your opinions. It sounds like all sensibility is gone.

#25 | Posted by klifferd

BS - you have to stand for something. If you want war, it is all out war. If you are against war, then you are all out peace. You can't half fight a war. If your general says they need 100,000 troops, you send 200,000 and overkill the enemy.

This isn't simplifying anything. You destroy your enemy, you take their country for everything they got to pay for your cost, and leave after they agree to unconditional surrender.

Barbara Lee and Jeanette Rankin

"In a singular act of courage, a lone congresswoman, Barbara Lee of California, cast the one dissenting vote in a resolution passed 420-1 in the House and 98-0 in the Senate granting President George W. Bush advance authority to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against anyone associated with the attacks of September 11. What manner of woman is Barbara Lee? And why did she refuse to run with the lemmings as they raced off to war?"

"Many have compared the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon to Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, which prompted Congress to declare war in 1941. That vote, too, had one lone dissenter, Jeannette Rankin, a lifelong pacifist and feminist. The first woman elected to the House of Representatives and Congress in 1917, three years before women in all the states of the US had won the right to vote, Rankin (representing Montana) was one of fifty-six Representatives to vote against entry into World War I and the only one to vote against entry into World War II, thus becoming the only member of the US Congress to vote against our entering both world wars of the twentieth century."

I miss Senator Wellstone.

We have learned nothing, this is no longer a war it is an occupation and the only way to win an occupation is ethnic cleansing. We really had no choice in the last election. At least McCain was honest when he talked about a one hundred year war.

If your general says they need 100,000 troops, you send 200,000 and overkill the enemy.

If wishes were horses....

I told you the supply lines can't cater to that many.

However, your stupid Generals can try and prove me wrong. LOL

You people have shot yourself in the head by electing this person.

McCain... though a mental patient... had a better understanding of the dynamics of warfare.

In theory, if the supply lines could somehow cope (they can't... but if), you might even pump up the numbers to half a million troops.

Then what?

Still no match for ten million on the other side. LOL

""The deployment does not change the maximum number of service members expected to soon be in Afghanistan: 68,000, more than double the number there when Bush left office."

Hello????

#20 | Posted by danni at 2009-10-14 10:39 PM

Are you defending our escalation in Afghanistan? Perhaps you could make an argument for why we need to be there.

he's the best chance we have of getting this job done right. The mission is important.

#21 | Posted by Mountain_Mano

What is the mission?

What constitutes "getting this job done right?"

Just questions...

Perhaps you could make an argument for why we need to be there.

#32 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

Per the DR expert in situ, the Paks can do the job all by their little lonesomes.

toss

you know just as well as i that not even mccain could save afghanistan

nothing the usa can do will fix it

pulling out as it is now is going to be a complete disaster

staying there as it is now IS a complete disaster

more troops will be a disaster

we've pretty much as americans left ourselves with 3 options that all suck and we can't expect anyone no matter who, obama, clinton, mccain, bush, anyone to make the right decision because all of it is bad.

a republican friend of mine was like "maybe its time we talk to the taliban." the guy hates obama. But, if he's talking like that, maybe it IS time to talk..

OR make all the congressmen marry the daughters of the warlords Alexander the great style ;)

by the way.. the guy is a born and raised new york republican...

he hates obama

he witnessed the 911 attacks

and HE Is saying we should talk to the taliban

Per the DR expert in situ, the Paks can do the job all by their little lonesomes.

#34 | Posted by ZOT at 2009-10-15 08:50 AM

"nothing the usa can do will fix it
pulling out as it is now is going to be a complete disaster
staying there as it is now IS a complete disaster
more troops will be a disaster"

Which way costs the least amount of American lives?
Yes, maybe its time we spoke to the Taliban.

How humiliating.

Thanks, shrub.

This is like Vietnam and it was like Vietnam for the Russians. We are going to leave and nothing will be accomplished. We could kill the local population and bring in Han Chinese or Russian Jews or some other settler and in fifty years we might have a colonial force willing to do the fighting for us, but the Governments in Kabul and the Green Zone in Iraq have no core support from the majority of people and would be killed the moment we leave.

McChrystal and Petraeus should resign and tell the Fucking Coward in Chef to go to Hell.

""The deployment does not change the maximum number of service members expected to soon be in Afghanistan: 68,000, more than double the number there when Bush left office."

Hello????

#20 | Posted by danni at 2009-10-14 10:39 PM

Hello??? Those numbers were approved by the Pentagon back in December of 2008. They authorized 60-70 thousand by the end of 2009. Before Obama was sworn in. The number was set regardless who won the election.

"U.S. troop funds diverted to pet projects"

"Senators diverted $2.6 billion in funds in a defense spending bill to pet projects largely at the expense of accounts that pay for fuel, ammunition and training for U.S. troops, including those fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to an analysis.

Among the 778 such projects, known as earmarks...$20 million to launch an educational institute named after the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat.

I had to stop by this thread to see the funny comments from all those who think they know more than the CIC and all the kings men and horses....LOL.

What i find most humorous is watching the rw trollboys spin around in a circle, simultaneously denouncing Obama for sending more troops to a country that protected/sheltered the terrorists who actually attacked the usa, while still harboring the neocon war on terror at all costs mantra.

Hilarious.

Obama is getting flak from both right and left for sending more troops. He must be doing something right, and not based on any political ideology, but on the facts on the ground presently according to ALL those who report to him.

Someone says they are just support, yet obama shifted 21k combat troops back in april or march.....

i guess he wants no support for them, or to help train Afghanis to stand up on their own or to secure it long enough so we CAN get our troops out of that shithole?

People should also remember that the entire world supported this invasion/occupation and it has been accomplished, not by the usa alone, but by NATO. Anyone think we should just leave them to fight an insurgency alone?

I don't want our troops there, but they are there. Obama didn't invade/occupy that shithole, neocons did, then they cut and ran to find more lucrative war profits in iraqnam after claiming there was "no good targets" in Afghanistan....

However, I will defer to the CIC to make these decisions. He was elected by a majority of Americans to do so. And so far, he hasn't fkd up like his predecessors whose disasters he inherited did.

#4 kbm=ignoring the combat troops obama already sent

#42 kbm=quoting the washtimes that troop money might be being diverted to other projects he disagrees with.....write your congressman kbm.....and btw....who owns/operates the washtimes, moonman? do you always consider it credible? did you decry the diversion of troops and funding to iraqnam "project"??

you might want to review this 7 pages of articles of washtimes bias before quoting that rag again....

Why was the news "unannounced?"

#7 | Posted by OohRah at 2009-10-14 08:39 PM |

Because the Peace Prize is given to people who reduce the standing armies of the world, not increase them

Senate appropriators insisted that the O&M accounts, despite the cuts, do not shortchange the troops.

"The operation and maintenance title is fully funded," Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel K. Inouye, Hawaii Democrat, said during the debate on the bill. "There is no shortage. ... The committee is deeply concerned that the critical operational needs of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are met with the finest equipment available."

Money for the Kennedy Institute was inserted by Mr. Inouye and Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat. Sen. Mary L. Landrieu, Louisiana Democrat, and Sen. David Vitter, Louisiana Republican, sought the funding for the World War II museum.

Whitney Smith, a spokesman for Mr. Kerry, said the earmark was "a worthy investment."

"Sen. Kennedy served on the Armed Services Committee for 27 years, where he fought to deliver top-of-the-line body armor and armored Humvees to protect our troops and save lives. Educating Americans about these battles is a core mission for the Edward M. Kennedy Institute, which showcases one senator's ability to make a difference," Mr. Smith wrote in an e-mail. "This funding will help the Edward M. Kennedy Institute become one the nation's pre-eminent civic educational institutions, and Sen. Kerry is proud to have worked with Chairman Inouye to make it possible."

Mrs. Landrieu said she was "proud to fight" for money for the World War II museum, which is not just a "monument to the brave men and women who served during World War II," but also "a constant reminder to future generations about the tremendous sacrifice of millions of Americans." She added that the earmarked funds "will help to increase tourism to New Orleans."

from kbm's linked article washingtontimes.com

Apparently, kbm fails to recognize the need to win the hearts and minds of Americans at home in order to insure support for our military missions, eh?

What a laugh. This is a scheduled deployment of support troops agreed to by the Bush admin before Obama ever took office.

Pitiful. Just pitiful.

I don't want our troops there, but they are there. Obama didn't invade/occupy that shithole, neocons did, then they cut and ran to find more lucrative war profits in iraqnam after claiming there was "no good targets" in Afghanistan....
However, I will defer to the CIC to make these decisions. He was elected by a majority of Americans to do so. And so far, he hasn't fkd up like his predecessors whose disasters he inherited did.
#43 | Posted by woke

You're right. Forget I said anything. Its nobody's business to be suspicious/critical of ANY sitting President, regardless of party.

What makes the green grass grow?

BLOOD! BLOOD! BLOOD, Drill Sergeant Woke!

Carry on.
#26 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine

"the Pentagon is deploying -- at least 13,000 troops beyond that number, according to defense officials."

Someone turn on the Bullshit Alert siren. These troops are going to Afghanistan because of Bush Administration scheduling.

What constitutes "getting this job done right?"

Just questions...

#33 | Posted by ZOT at 2009-10-15 08

holy shit

its the same fuckin answer as iraq........
a viable govt that can keep the terrorist from killing people...and thats a good place to start.
cleaning up the govt there..of course we have our own problems in that regard right here at home

RUMOR from england this morn that obama will be sending 45,000 and great britain a lot as well.
anyone else hear that or was I still asleep and dreaming of two of the fox news babes with me.
laura savon for one....
whew!!!

the Paks can do the job all by their little lonesomes.

What IS the job???

Do you know? I sure as hell don't.

Yes, the Paks can do the job (what we would call "the job"), but the result of THAT job YOU won't like. LOL

Obama has moved the war into Pakistan per his campaign promise further destabilizing a government with a nuclear arsenal. I would say he has fkd up. This move may be on a par with bombing Cambodia.

or was I still asleep and dreaming of two of the fox news babes with me....whew!!!
#50 | Posted by afkabl2

"This move may be on a par with bombing Cambodia."

LOL

you know just as well as i that not even mccain could save afghanistan
nothing the usa can do will fix it

That's true.

But I bet you would be talking to them by now and have a much clearer idea of what you are supposed to do in there.

In my experience, most people who once wore a uniform aren't stupid. They are not geniuses either, but they are not morons... those get weeded out early in training.

Politicians... lawyers.... neighborhood organizers... they can be very very stupid people however, with big egos. They never went through a weeding out process.

Obama has moved the war into Pakistan

When did he do THAT? LOL

"This move may be on a par with bombing Cambodia."

Somebody's got a fit of the vapors.

Tosser,five killed in a U.S. Drone attack on Pakistan today.

I would say he has fkd up.

He fucked up the second he made McCrystal in charge.

Then he fucked up again when he accepted the fake and rigged elections putting drug-lord Karazai in charge again.

But then he is a born fuck-up because he lets his mother-in-law stay in the White House where she practices Voodoo.

Such a man can't win.

DiFi leaked the fact that we have drone bases in Pakistan. Do your homework before you spout off.

The Afghan war is over and we are there now nation building. To quote LBJ: "I will not send American boys halfway around the world to do a job that Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves"

Tosser,five killed in a U.S. Drone attack on Pakistan today.

But why are you giving Obama the credit for that?

Bush started the drones since long before Obama.

Obama actually promised to send American troops into Pakistan, my dear. Boots on the ground.

So he has NOT fulfilled his "promise".

Sending drones a few hundred yards this side of the border isn't something remarkable since only two at a time are allowed and only Pakistan can tell them which target to attack.

If anything, it makes Obama look kind of pathetic.

Bush never let us have the kind of access we have now.

With Tosser you are damned if you do and damned if you don't.

DiFi leaked the fact that we have drone bases in Pakistan. Do your homework before you spout off.

Stupido... at least a year before your "DiFi" opened her mouth *I* said there is a 4th base... only for drones... inside Pakistan.

*I* was the first one to give you all that info and I believe, outside the Pakistani press, DR was the first website to carry that info.

Do some research about just who you are talking to punk. LOL

Resorting to name calling seems a bit childish Tosser.

Bobp.... one more new guy... No wonder....

What's with all the new people here jumping into our conversations ass first?

Don't people in America have the time to say hello-hi to each other... introduce themselves?

Or is this general lowering of standards something to do with the Age of The Messiah?

Resorting to name calling seems a bit childish Tosser.

OK.. I'm childish... and you're Stoopid.

Oops! I did it again. LOL

I think we just make it all look so easy, people don't realize the skill it takes.

Our conversation? I thought this was a public forum.

#1 Fox News Babe: 3.bp.blogspot.com

#2 Fox News Babe: trinitypastor.files.wordpress.
com

Whew! indeed.

#53 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2009-10-15 10:17

reminds me of those ashley madison comercials

can you get reception for those in the basement that you live in.....

Don't people in America have the time to say hello-hi to each other... introduce themselves?

Or is this general lowering of standards something to do with the Age of The Messiah?

#66 | Posted by Tosser at 2009

good morning tosser
my name is afkabl2 and IM a part of the american revolution...part two.
its a BEAUTIFULL day here in southeast texas and I will be enjoying the great outdoors here shortyly with a bag of clubs and several balls IF I CAN GET my BALLS CLEANED in time...
heres hoping that your day goes exactly as you wish..

( OH SHIT>>>HOW BORING IS THAT?????)

Tosser,five killed in a U.S. Drone attack on Pakistan today.

#58 | Posted by BobP at 2009-

so didnt they get the word that OBAMA has the nobel peace prize??

you know what that is
its the PEACE AWARD that these people DIDNT EVEN GIVE TO GANDI.....but gave to arafat...

#71 - one of my husband's associates sent home a PING 24 degree hybrid for our daughter - SCHWEEEEET! We've never seen anyone who can hit it 280-300 yards consistently with one. One university will be scouting her next year - with her golf skills and grades, she'll get a full ride.

thats great nanc
women have it a lot easier to make teams and I am in no way denigrating her ability because I am jealous as hell.
but junior golf hasnt made womans golf quite as competitive as it has mens golf
women can shoot in the 80's and get scholarships..80's on the mens side wont get you squat.

BOTTOM LINE...tell her to hit as many shots as she can
over and over and over and over
and while she is doing that you can count the scholarship money....

AND you never know..someday you might be able to tell us to watch tv today.....

I just hope I can continue contracting here(Iraq)and making good money for sitting on my ass, most of the time. But I do fix a vehicle now and then.

Will do, bee ell two!

God Bless America

Hello??? Those numbers were approved by the Pentagon back in December of 2008. They authorized 60-70 thousand by the end of 2009. Before Obama was sworn in. The number was set regardless who won the election.

What a laugh. This is a scheduled deployment of support troops agreed to by the Bush admin before Obama ever took office.

However, I will defer to the CIC to make these decisions. He was elected by a majority of Americans to do so. And so far, he hasn't fkd up like his predecessors whose disasters he inherited did.

The House in 2008 was Controlled by Democrats.
The CiC can bring everyone home now. The military can move very quickly with orders, faster than people really believe is possible. Just order them to move and I bet they'll say "How fast". When told they'll do it.

So, every death in Obama's fault. When Bush was Pres, they posted every month his faults on the DR. It stopped when he left office, so I started posting them.

Remember the fallen- for no one can explain why the continuing losses for 2009 are necessary.

my name is afkabl2

YOU, I know.

YOU, everyone knows! LOL

What a laugh. This is a scheduled deployment of support troops agreed to by the Bush admin before Obama ever took office.

Pitiful. Just pitiful.

#47 | Posted by Corky at 2009-10-15 10:06 AM

LoD makes the case for why he is not involved in strategic military planning and logistics that resources troop replacements months in advance.

Obama is such a focused visionary with solid leadership skills. Oops, I was dreaming. He actually is a bumbling idiot that is pushing our country to the brink of communism.

Cheers!

CORK
the BOTTOM LINE
he has had the generals report on his desk since august..at some point and SOON he is going to have to either do what his radical leftwing masters want him to or actually try and win
he cant do both

I'm not saying this wasn't planned in advance, just that Obama is responsible for what goes on. It's up to him to decide how to proceed with it, whether or not to stay the course. Looks like this Nobel Peace Prize winner will be escalating the war there.

Tell me again, who won the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE?

I can't seem to understand, maybe my ears are full of wax.

Looks like this Nobel Peace Prize winner will be escalating the war there.

This No-Bull-Please-Prize winner will never commit 100% to anything unless it is for his personal gain.

Tosser,
It is starting to become clear that he has no plan and hoped the hype alone would heal the wounds of this nation. He haphazardly is jumping from one thing to another, never bothering to fix anything before starting his next project and forgetting the previous one. Obama is on the "one term" path to historical insignificance and will only be known as "the first Black President" and nothing more. Historians will say "at least he wasn't Bush."

What a laugh. This is a scheduled deployment of support troops agreed to by the Bush admin before Obama ever took office.

Pitiful. Just pitiful.

#47 | Posted by Corky at 2009-10-15 10:06 AM

You're joking, right?

It is starting to become clear that he has no plan and hoped the hype alone would heal the wounds of this nation.

Exactly.

I once said he wore a cheap suit (it looked cheap) but Klifferd said his suits were very expensive.

That made me think... I'm a t-shirt and flip-flop kinda guy... in my world, if you wear a suit and tie (in 40 C weather), you are probably a crook. And the more your suit costs, the bigger crook you probably are.

will only be known as "the first Black President" and nothing more.

At the risk of sounding racist, I did ask before he was elected, "name me ONE place with a black leadership, that is going places".

Answer... none.

I did say, if you want to elect this guy, be prepared to bring more of Africa into how America is run.

will only be known as "the first Black President"

That was Bill Clinton, btw... first black President. LOL

You're joking, right?

#88 | Posted by wisgod at 2009-10-15 12:25 PM

What's funny is you won't see him make that same argument when Obama follows through on the status of forces agreement in Iraq, set in place during the Bush admin. Then Corky will be praising Obama for his great military leadership in bringing our troops home, even though the plan was in place before.

Tosser, America is not going to be "going places" ever again. The race of the President has nothing to do with that fact.

Tell me again, who won the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE?

I can't seem to understand, maybe my ears are full of wax.

#85 | Posted by richardrhine

well lets see

kofi anon right after 9/11

and YESSIR IMAFAT...

no other explanation needed

EXCCEPT WHO did they ignore

GANDI

YEs THAT gandi

and of course the real irony is how alfred nobel made his fortune...but then the author of amazing grace was a slave trader so..hey...what the hell

Whitney Smith, a spokesman for Mr. Kerry, said the earmark was "a worthy investment."

from kbm's linked article washingtontimes.com

#46 | Posted by woke at 2009-10-15 10:01 AM
------------------

Guess you missed this part you delusional libtard:

"While earmarks are hardly new in Washington, "in 30 years on Capitol Hill, I never saw Congress mangle the defense budget as badly as this year," said Winslow Wheeler, a former Senate staffer who worked on defense funding and oversight for both Republicans and Democrats. He is now a senior fellow at the Center for Defense Information, an independent research organization."

As usual you are on the wrong side of the issue....

EH?
.

but the result of THAT job YOU won't like. LOL

#51 | Posted by Tosser

I don't like it now, Wanker. What makes you think I'll like it even less when it's only your butts getting shot off?

its the same fuckin answer as iraq........
a viable govt that can keep the terrorist from killing people...

#50 | Posted by afkabl2

Who? Us? Them?

By your measure then, the US should have invaded Africa decades ago, considering the 100s of thousands who have been brutally murdered, the millions who are currently starving.

Try again. What is the US getting out of 100s billions of dollars in expenditures and thousands of US troops being killed?

-Corky's dead serious on trying to minimize Obama's responsibility as Commander in Chief when it comes to the war and troop levels in Afghanistan.

Thread article correction....

"Later, spokesman Robert Gibbs rejected a published report that the president had authorized 13,000 additional troops that were now arriving in Afghanistan. He said those troops were part of a deployment ordered by the former Bush administration, but had not made their way to the Afghan theater by the time Obama became president.

The Washington Post had reported those forces were authorized by Obama."

I just give 'em the facts and they think it's hell.

Whiner.

What makes you think I'll like it even less when it's only your butts getting shot off?

That's just it.

Our butts won't be getting shot at.

Why?

We will just hand you over to them. LOL

You people are so stupid, you failed to see again what happened when your outpost got smacked by the Taliban and you had to abandon it.

A week ago before the attack on the American base, there was a disruption in the supply line.

Whenever there is a jolt in the supply line, American troops feel the jolt when they run short of ammo, for example.

If we turn off the supplies totally... and I hope we do one day... you will have only 2 weeks survival time.

That will win the Afghans over. Problem solved.

I think you won't like THAT solution. LOL

Your time in Afghanistan is limited.

2 years, 3 at the most.

You have that long to pretend you won and leave.

I just give 'em the facts and they think it's hell.

Whiner.

#97 | Posted by Corky at 2009-10-15 02:04 PM

Unless, of course, you'd like to again make the case that Obama as Commander in Chief is not responsible for what goes on in the military concerning war and troop levels.

By your measure then, the US should have invaded Africa decades ago, considering the 100s of thousands who have been brutally murdered, the millions who are currently starving.

Try again. What is the US getting out of 100s billions of dollars in expenditures and thousands of US troops being killed?

#96 | Posted by ZOT at 2009

well some people might say that we already have.....or was that another un failed mission

anyway
wasnt going to post this but why not

hey hey obama J
how many people have you killed today.

naw...nevermind.....

besides that was LBJ..you know..one of the TWO democrats who lost the war in vietnam...

- As CinC, he could have halted the build up.

Not a "build up", the same 68K troops will be there.

Do you ever get anything right?

Not a "build up", the same 68K troops will be there.

Do you ever get anything right?

#102 | Posted by Corky at 2009-10-15 03:49 PM

Do you ever get anything right?

LOL!

68K planned before Obama ever took office... but you suggest he go in and fuck up the rotation logistics the military has had in in place over 13,000 planned support troops?

Anything to try to prove some idiotic ideological point, one presumes.

68K planned before Obama ever took office... but you suggest he go in and fuck up the rotation logistics the military has had in in place over 13,000 planned support troops?

#104 | Posted by Corky at 2009-10-15 04:03 PM

Another cut and runner.

Did you have any other countries you had in mind to invade, stay 8 years doing practically nothing, and then zipping out of there leaving those who we promised to support to the gentle attention of the Taliban?

How pathetic.

Another cut and runner.

Did you have any other countries you had in mind to invade, stay 8 years doing practically nothing, and then zipping out of there leaving those who we promised to support to the gentle attention of the Taliban?

How pathetic.

#106 | Posted by Corky at 2009-10-15 04:13 PM

So, how long should we stay?

And what do we gain by staying?

We gain a little integrity lost us by the last admin, and keep the TB, whose leadership now is in Pakistan with al Qaeda, from re-securing the ground they attacked us from last time.

3 years to make up for Bush's mistake of cutting and running would give us the time we need to allow the Afghan Army, the only respected institution in the country, to get strong enough to protect it's people while they sort out their corrupt government.

As someone who protested 'Nam and practically every war since, I have not lost the perspective of what an honorable withdrawal at the right time would look like.

But as you prefer continuing our reputation in the world as an ally that can't be trusted, that's your prerogative.

What intrigues me is ingenue type far lefties trying to our-antiwar each other like a bunch of schoolgirls in a hopscotch contest.

Another cut and runner.

Did you have any other countries you had in mind to invade, stay 8 years doing practically nothing, and then zipping out of there leaving those who we promised to support to the gentle attention of the Taliban?

How pathetic.

So NeoCork, when are you strapping on the boots chickenhawk? Since we're intent on being there another dozen years, might as well back up your rhetoric, eh?

I LOVE all these Democrats using the exact same rhetoric as Republicans a year later. Dead, poor, brown people is finally a bipartisan issue we can all agree on! With Obama or with the terrorists...cut and run... Hey NeoCork, why don't you drop a "smoke 'em out" for a Bush doctrine trifecta?

Why don't you wipe that stuff offa your face?

br />

our-antiwar = out-antiwar

#111 | Posted by Corky at 2009-10-15 04:29 PM | Reply | Flag: White Flag

#113 | Posted by IraqiBukkake at 2009-10-15 04:31 PM | Reply | Flag: Code Pink Flag

Everyone welcome Corky, the newest member of the 101st Flying Keyboardists! Git yer boots on Corky, you've got a wasteland to defend!

I'm not antiwar per se, but Bush left the situation hopeless. Not worth more death. Were just being drained.

1h typing on a blackberry sux so I'm out

The mission - Deny a safe harbor for the training and developement of terrorist forces. Deny those terror groups the legitimacy of a recognized government supporting and defending their cause.

If we stick to these goals, we have a chance of attaining what we require, security from well organized, trained and funded folks out to do us in. Any "country building" has to occur by the Afghans, with a little help from their friends. For that they need leaders with experience and integrity, both lacking in the Afghan gov't, police and military.

The job's done when there is an Afghan gov't in place that can and will prevent the establishment of these international terrorist cells within their borders. Cutting back on the heroin production wouldn't hurt either.

I'm not on board with Bukkake with respect to the ME, but I gotta admit--101st Flying Keyboardists was pretty clever.

The mission - fight them there instead of here.

funded - by America. Didn't someone complain about the money Americans spent in Iraq?

The job's done when there is an Afghan gov't.

Didn't Bush say something about an Iraqi gov't? Does this mean that Obama's goal for an Afghan gov't, supported by American money, is a honest goal?

Bush was right all along?

The war in Iraq and Afghanistan was to create nations and make those countries host to terrorist groups so we don't have to fight them at home?

The job's done when there is an Afghan gov't.

There is an Afghan Govt.

It is headed by the world's biggest drug-lord.

And you put him there. Twice.

In the recent elections, the UN guy who said there was massive cheating, was fired from his job because of American pressure.

Obama was elected on the idea that he was gonna bring Iraq to a close and take Afghanistan more seriously.

He also stated that just swatting at Taliban flies in Afghanistan while allowing their cross border bases to continually resupply them was pointless.

Now he's doing those things and the right are throwing a collective hissy fit.

Has America worn out its collective welcome in Afghanistan?

Undoubtedly.

America's inability to provide security or improved living conditions in that place over the last 8 years has increasingly turned once neutral Afghanis into supporters of the Taliban.

Karzai, who Tosser quite rightly calls a drug lord, ran one of the most obviously fixed elections of this century.

/A close second to Iran's recent faux election.

His legitimacy is therefore rightly questioned by people both inside and outside that country.

Way Spud sees it America has 1 maybe 2 more years tops to try and make headway into creating a stable non-extremist at least somewot democratic Afghanistan.

Leaving a Failed state in yer wake is not an option.

Not leaving soon is also, increasingly, not an option.

Obama is between Iraq and a hard place.

Be Well.

while allowing their cross border bases to continually resupply them was pointless.

The only bases across the border are in America's sick imagination.

Now he's doing those things

The only thing he is doing is... nothing.

Attacking empty buildings with drones (only two allowed, and with full supervision), few hundred yards inside Pakistan, will do nothing for him or for anyone else.

I mean, hey, I'm glad he's so stupid, but don't try and pretend he is doing anything right. LOL

Way Spud sees it America has 1 maybe 2 more years tops to try and make headway into creating a stable non-extremist at least somewot democratic Afghanistan.

Well, good luck to them.

I am sure they can't do it... but no harm in wishing them luck. LOL

am sure they can't do it... but no harm in wishing them luck. LOL

Spud is slightly more optimistic but just barely.

"Graveyard of Empires" is not a slogan the Afghani Tourism Council came up with last week, ya know.

Be Well.

With around 80% of Afghanistan under "taliban" control (at night) and over 50% under "taliban" control by day, they don't need to have "bases" in Pakistan.

They can go ahead and operate from their forward positions as and when they like.

The proof of this is that attacks on and around Kabul itself have increased ten-fold.

And if you don't believe in the incompetence and stupidity of American generals and soldiers, here is someone else you can blame... your European partners... who are just being European. LOL

Spud is slightly more optimistic but just barely.

I am zero "optimistic".

Why?

The Russians had Kabul and the areas it controlled, HUMMING.

They brought in more services than the Americans have done in 8 years.

Even though the Soviets were communists, the shops in Kabul were well stocked in their days, and people had jobs (with full freedom to women) and Afghans could go to Russia for higher education (Moscow university, one of the best in the world).

Water, power, phones... EVERYTHING worked. And they still got kicked out.

The Americans can't make anything work. They aren't even close to what the Russian achieved.

So what hope have they?

The only bases across the border are in America's sick imagination.

Tosser, please.

The origins of the Taleban (Brit spelling, btw) was in the FATA.

Many of the original founders and key player in the Taliban were War orphans (resulting from the Russian misadventure there) who made it across the border into the FATA where they were raised and schooled in Madrassas sponsored largely by whackjob Saudi Wahabbists.

Originally supported, trained and armed by the US in a (eventually sucessful) attempt to give the Ruskies "their own Vietnam".

Then abandoned after the Russians left.

The border between the FATA and that part of Afghanistan is largely imaginary and everybody knows it.

That AQ based themselves in that area after Bush let them flee Tora Bora is pretty much well established by now.

That the Taliban would raid into Afghanistan and return in to the FATA after sed raids is also a known known at this point.

No bases? You have no basis fer saying that.

Be Well.

Water, power, phones... EVERYTHING worked. And they still got kicked out.

The Americans can't make anything work. They aren't even close to what the Russian achieved.

So what hope have they?

Slim to none but that's no reason to not make one last real effort.

The American history of supporting unsupportable tyrants and dictators in order to achieve a patina of "stability" is no longer the viable option is was last century.

Even "democratically elected" tyrants like Karzai.

Karsick is merely an American pawn who plays them at their own game in order to achieve his own ends which are not exactly synonymous with his countries long term needs.

Leaving Afghanistan with the propped up "Mayor of Kabul" in charge is simply not an option from the west's perspective.

Walking away from the pipeline projects that were the largest impetus for the war in the first place is also not an option.

Canada's PM Steven Harper yesterday sed that Canada will keep troops in Afghanistan past the projected 2011 pull out date despite denying that he was gonna do so the day before.

In a "training capacity" way only we are assured.

This aint over yet.

Be Well.

That the Taliban would raid into Afghanistan and return in to the FATA after sed raids is also a known known at this point.

American lies, nothing more.

Yes, a few people do cross the border... but they are sure as hell not enough to fuck up Afghanistan.

In fact many many more Afghans came into Pakistan to make trouble (Swat, Waziristan, etc) than any Afgahns who went back into Afghanistan.

But, as far as I know, there are no "bases".

This aint over yet.

It's been over since two years ago. Just becoming obvious now.

That the Taliban would raid into Afghanistan and return in to the FATA after sed raids is also a known known at this point.

And like I said, they are not saying THAT anymore.

The taliban can easily operate from inside Afghanistan. They have the territory and they control the roads.

And they got choppers.

Did you know that?

The taliban have choppers. LOL

OR make all the congressmen marry the daughters of the warlords Alexander the great style ;)

Dammit Kliff, I came up with that idea ;-)

The technical idea is to have a marriage into every tribe and sub-tribe as well as the twenty warlords the country has.

The technical idea is to have a marriage into every tribe and sub-tribe as well as the twenty warlords the country has.

Our politicians aren't looking for marriage... too much commitment.

Usually, they're content with casually screwing taxpayers. Occasionally they dream big and shoot for coffee break suck-and-fucks, airport bathroom bro-mance, and whores that charge more per hour than their divorce lawyer.

I like the idea, though.

The taliban have choppers. LOL

No. Not "LOL"-worthy. That is "aww shit" territory.

Question to the DR's pakistani correspondents:

When and if the US leaves Afghanistan, what happens to the Taliban-types that have been operating in Pakistan? And by "operating in Pakistan" I mean killing lots of your citizens. Pakistani casualties since the US invasion of Afghanistan have got to be close to if not more than the number of casualties suffered by the US on 9/11. That's a lot of people dead in someone else's war (though it's become your war too). Do you want them dead, deprived of the ability to act, or just across the border and not bothering you?

I don't want our troops there, but they are there. Obama didn't invade/occupy that shithole, neocons did, then they cut and ran to find more lucrative war profits in iraqnam after claiming there was "no good targets" in Afghanistan....-Woke

Oh, really? That's funny. I could have sworn that the congress voted overwhelmingly to got to war in Afghanistan, and Iraq for that matter. Yet you say it was the neocons who sent us to war. What a fool you are, Woke. You do nothing but spout democrat talking points here all day long and tell lies like the one you just told in an attempt to deceive some readers.

Now he's doing those things and the right are throwing a collective hissy fit.

#122 | Posted by dethspud at 2009-10-16 03:57 AM

I personally think Bush already blew our load there and we should get the fuck out, but monitor the whole place heavily.

I wish our president and representatives would adopt Sarkozy's stance on troops in Afghanistan. Bring all Americans home from that torrid place...Afghannis do not want us there nor do they want any version of democracy. They desire to continue their tribal ways and utilize accessible elders to resolve issues based upon religious doctrine. Stop bin Laden at our border. We do not need to take the fight to them to be victorious; we can fight them here. We have no need/reason/right to be in that country. Let the UN handle Afghanistan's threat to the globe. It would appear France's president is truly looking out for his citizens' best interest.

When and if the US leaves Afghanistan, what happens to the Taliban-types that have been operating in Pakistan?

They will go to the same place they were at before the US came along. To oblivion.

I've said it before, I'll say it again, bad idea.
This will be the biggest mistake that Obama makes during his Presidency, when all is said and done.

#142 | Posted by earthmus

I've said it before, I'll say it again, bad idea.
This will be the biggest mistake that Obama makes during his Presidency, when all is said and done.

-------------------
earthmus you maybe right Obama has no easy choices when if comes to Afgan.