Re: Do you support sending more troops to Afghanis
By the way, this is a great blog for the no frills report of what is going on in Afghanistan. They cut out a lot of the spin that the media puts on things and actually give you eyewitness reports of what is going on there. The language can be crude, but the information is good.
Re: Do you support sending more troops to Afghanis
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeinAR
Those are all very good points. I completely agree on the big two you mentioned if we're going to go ahead with a mission, 1. overwhelm the enemy(in both Pakistan and Afghanistan), and 2.) building the infastructure that will hopefully cut back on the "dead-end" Islamic extremist ways of the people in that region.
I just hope that the mission is clearly defined with objectives that can be achieved and an availabe exit strategy. I also hope that we aren't entering into some open ended obligation.
Just remember all this money must be borrowed from the Chinese. Don't forget we need windmills. We also need to borrow from the chinese money for insurance premiums for future illnesses.
Re: Do you support sending more troops to Afghanis
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeinAR
Those are all very good points. I completely agree on the big two you mentioned if we're going to go ahead with a mission, 1. overwhelm the enemy(in both Pakistan and Afghanistan), and 2.) building the infastructure that will hopefully cut back on the "dead-end" Islamic extremist ways of the people in that region.
.
The head of the Saudi delegation Mohammad S. Al Sabban dismissed the IEA figures as “biased” and said OPEC's own calculations showed that Saudi Arabia would lose $19 billion a year starting in 2012 under a new climate pact. The region would lose much more, he said.
“We are among the economically vulnerable countries,” Al Sabban told The Associated Press on the sidelines of the talks ahead of negotiations in Copenhagen in December for a treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.
“This is very serious for us,” he continued. “We are in the process of diversifying our economy but this will take a long time. We don't have too many resources.”
Saudi Arabia, which sits atop the world's largest proven oil reserves, is seeing economic growth slide because of fallout from the global meltdown, but experts still expect the country, flush with cash from oil's earlier price spike last year, to be better able than other nations to cope with the current crisis
Re: Do you support sending more troops to Afghanis
U.S. military officials have told CBS News that Iran is sending money and weapons onto the Afghan battlefield. But U.S. commanders are not allowed to comment publicly and it’s unclear to them what the U.S. strategy is for dealing with Iran’s increasingly deadly involvement. The deadliest form of roadside bomb on the Iraqi battlefield - explosively formed penetrators (EFPs) - is now being found in Afghanistan.
Lethal armor piercing bombs that can slice through U.S. humvees are also an Iranian specialty.
More worrying still: U.S. intelligence believes Iran is supplying surface to air missiles to the Taliban - the very same weapon the U.S. supplied to the Afghan resistance to bring down the Russians. http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/0...n-afghanistan/
Re: Do you support sending more troops to Afghanis
This article would have been better titled - Shariah is our enemy, not Afghanistan.
Quote:
Losing Our Way to Victory
It is not, as our presidents vaguely invoke, a war against "terrorism," "radicalism," or "extremism"; and it is not, as the current hearts-and-minds-obsessed Afghanistan commander calls it, "a struggle to gain the support of the [Afghan] people."
It is something more specific than presidents describe, and it is something larger than the outlines of Iraq or Afghanistan. The war that has fallen to our generation is to halt the spread of Islamic law (Shariah) in the West, whether driven by the explosive belts of violent jihad, the morality-laundering of petro-dollars, or decisive demographic shifts.
This mission demands a new line of battle around the West itself, one supported by a multilevel strategy in which the purpose of military action is not to nation-build in the Islamic world, but to nation-save in the Western one. http://townhall.com/columnists/Diana...way_to_victory
Re: Do you support sending more troops to Afghanis
Quote:
Originally Posted by coadie
Most violent post I have read this year. Nuclear attack. Even Russia never did that. Pearle Harbor was a reason we did.
In war you have to bring the enemy to absolute surrender. More people died in 9/11 than Pearl Harbor... and they were civilians. I think it warrented a stronger response against the Taliban.
I don't think we can win the ground war. We cannot defeat the AQ with bullets... we have to completely demoralize them in the nations where they operate. The majority of our Arab allies were behind us immediately after 9/1. Had we nuked Afghanistan it would have brought a shudder through the Arab world that no such thing would be tolerated and that they would face absolute destruction if such an attack were perpetrated again. Arab nations would have begun rounding up AQ operatives with a fever never seen. Iran would think twice before challenging us. Our political enemies in Eastern Europe and Asia would have run to our side to secure their own necks.
I predict that we'll eventually have to pull out with a weak government in place and the Taliban will go political and secure power democratically like Hammas.
Re: Do you support sending more troops to Afghanis
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquila
Realistically... can we accomplish this mission? Personally, I think we should have nuked them.
That would have been a terrible choice. People hate Bush now for the wars ... think of the outcry had he nuked them.
I disagree that the Arab states would have been scared into submission. Likely it would have done for them what 9/11 did for us ... it would have caused a surge in homicide bombings. Also the international community would've condemned the attack, instead of standing with us - though only for a short time.
Re: Do you support sending more troops to Afghanis
Quote:
Originally Posted by coadie
Just remember all this money must be borrowed from the Chinese. Don't forget we need windmills. We also need to borrow from the chinese money for insurance premiums for future illnesses.
Hey, maybe the strategy is to borrow China into the poor house, if we owe them enough maybe they will become our greatest supporter and make sure no one messes with us. Otherwise, we will just not pay them? lol
__________________ For it is written, "As I live, says the Lord every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall give praise to God. (Romans 14:11- NASB)
Linear Mode
