By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Obama Approves Small Troop Increase in Afghanistan

akuma587 on 18 February 2009
Jackson50 said:
akuma587 said:
Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but I think the terrorist groups are pretty transitory and aren't stationed in many urban areas. A lot of the warfare goes on in outlying areas.

I'm not really as familiar with where the terrorists hide out in Pakistan, although I do know that there is a lot of cross traffic between the Afghanistan and Pakistan border.

 

The Taliban is mostly located in the Eastern and Southern provinces of Afghanistan which are predominately Pashtun. They are also located, along with Al-Qaeda operatives, in the NWFP and the FATA of Pakistan. They are also increasingly growing in strength in Northern Balochistan. There are also significant Pashtun populations in these areas. This is why Kabul is becoming increasingly targeted: it is perilously close to Pashtun areas that are the Taliban's strongholds.

Color me impressed!  You have done your homework!

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Around the Network
Jackson50 on 18 February 2009
akuma587 said:
Jackson50 said:
akuma587 said:
Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but I think the terrorist groups are pretty transitory and aren't stationed in many urban areas. A lot of the warfare goes on in outlying areas.

I'm not really as familiar with where the terrorists hide out in Pakistan, although I do know that there is a lot of cross traffic between the Afghanistan and Pakistan border.

 

The Taliban is mostly located in the Eastern and Southern provinces of Afghanistan which are predominately Pashtun. They are also located, along with Al-Qaeda operatives, in the NWFP and the FATA of Pakistan. They are also increasingly growing in strength in Northern Balochistan. There are also significant Pashtun populations in these areas. This is why Kabul is becoming increasingly targeted: it is perilously close to Pashtun areas that are the Taliban's strongholds.

Color me impressed!  You have done your homework!

Actually, my homework involves affairs in Africa. I study Asia for fun... or .

 



Kasz216 on 18 February 2009
SamuelRSmith said:
Out of interest, has anyone here ever seen "Ross Kemp in Afghanistan"? It's a series in which Ross Kemp goes out an accompanies the BAS in military operations in Afghanistan.

During the last series, the company he accompanied only had a handle of losses (I think it was about 4 or 5), and yet they had over 1,000 confirmed kills.

It makes me wonder just how many troops the enemy has.

That's how basically all American conflicts go.

As for how many troops the enemy has?

Tons.

 



SlorgNet on 18 February 2009

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Afghanistan is where Empires go to die. The British lost several armies trying to control it, the invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 bankrupted the Soviet Union, and now we're following the same suicidal flight-path.

We should get out. Not now, yesterday. We're doing no good there, and much harm.

We have ZERO reason to be there. Al-qaeda is the enemy, and they're on the run. The Afghans are having twenty-nine different internal civil wars of their own, which have nothing to do with us, and all that expensive NATO hardware is just blowing up villagers and pissing off the locals.

One of the Soviet veterans of the Afghan debacle summed it up in an interview: "Those people simply will not be ruled by foreigners."



rocketpig on 20 February 2009
SlorgNet said:
Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Afghanistan is where Empires go to die. The British lost several armies trying to control it, the invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 bankrupted the Soviet Union, and now we're following the same suicidal flight-path.

We should get out. Not now, yesterday. We're doing no good there, and much harm.

We have ZERO reason to be there. Al-qaeda is the enemy, and they're on the run. The Afghans are having twenty-nine different internal civil wars of their own, which have nothing to do with us, and all that expensive NATO hardware is just blowing up villagers and pissing off the locals.

One of the Soviet veterans of the Afghan debacle summed it up in an interview: "Those people simply will not be ruled by foreigners."

Yes, because leaving those poor bastards hang out to dry worked so well last time.

Oh, wait... That's why we're in this mess. If Reagan didn't fuck the Afghanis so damned bad the first time around, it would probably be one of the more "acceptable" (by Western standards) nations in the Middle East today.

They have no oil, they have very little going for them. Longterm occupation is the wrong answer but some tenant of stability MUST be found in that country. Before the Soviets, they were a pretty benign people if left to their own devices.

 




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

Around the Network
halogamer1989 on 20 February 2009

It seems not enough to me. Side note: I would have our RQ-1s equipped w/ MOABs but that is just me.

To all Obama supporters pay attn to your Messiah when he stated on the campaign he "would draw down troops from Iraq and put them in Afghanistan." Eventually most or all troops will be redeployed to Afghanistan. Fire bases along the Hindu Kush are esp vital here.



That Guy on 20 February 2009

well your boy bush didn't put enough guys in there to begin with ^_^



akuma587 on 20 February 2009

Hey, don't go around throwing facts at halogamer. He doesn't need your facts!



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

TheRealMafoo on 20 February 2009
That Guy said:
TheRealMafoo said:
I am glad the 8 year run where we increased or deficit and increased the number of troops over seas has ended.

Obama has brought real change to Washington.

so not sending troops to Afganistan = failing campaign promise and not caring about national defense

OR sending troops to Afganistan = increasing number of troops overseas

 

No matter what he does you have a cause for complaint. 

 

A crafty one you are ^_^

 

So if Bush had done this 6 months ago, Akuma would be praising him for it? I think not.

I have no problems with the troops being send there, but Obama's campaign promise was to reduce the troops in Iraq, and send them to Afghanistan. He has shown no signs of reducing troops in Iraq.

Also, as far as campaign promises. He said he wants to give congress 5 days on every bill, so they could properly read it. The biggest spending package in US history come up, and people are given 12 hours.

Trillion of dollars are pouring out of government, and they are broke. Trillions more are going to. How come I am the only one who sees this as a bad thing?

Oh, and just for fun, here is a good way to visualize a trillion dollars. If you took a trillion 1 dollar bills, and stacked them up. The would reach a third of the way to the moon. Before it's over, Obama will give away (yes, just give away) enough to reach the moon.

The government doesn't make money. The only way the can give money, is to take it from someone. If Obama really wanted to simulate the economy, he would not have to give me $20,000. Just stop taking it away from me to give $20,000 to someone else.

I have my own mortgage to pay. Looks like I am going to have other peoples to pay as well.



Jackson50 on 20 February 2009
rocketpig said:
SlorgNet said:
Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Afghanistan is where Empires go to die. The British lost several armies trying to control it, the invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 bankrupted the Soviet Union, and now we're following the same suicidal flight-path.

We should get out. Not now, yesterday. We're doing no good there, and much harm.

We have ZERO reason to be there. Al-qaeda is the enemy, and they're on the run. The Afghans are having twenty-nine different internal civil wars of their own, which have nothing to do with us, and all that expensive NATO hardware is just blowing up villagers and pissing off the locals.

One of the Soviet veterans of the Afghan debacle summed it up in an interview: "Those people simply will not be ruled by foreigners."

Yes, because leaving those poor bastards hang out to dry worked so well last time.

Oh, wait... That's why we're in this mess. If Reagan didn't fuck the Afghanis so damned bad the first time around, it would probably be one of the more "acceptable" (by Western standards) nations in the Middle East today.

They have no oil, they have very little going for them. Longterm occupation is the wrong answer but some tenant of stability MUST be found in that country. Before the Soviets, they were a pretty benign people if left to their own devices.

He fails to consider two important factors: 1) the overwhelming majority of Afghans, regardless of ethnicity, still think democracy is the best course of action for their nation; 2) the Afghan Army is the most respected institution in the nation. Now, the one possible problem is that some view Karzai, who is likely to be reelected in a few months, as corrupt. If the US and others can continue to train and bolster the highly respected Army, then Afghanistan could attain a modicum of stability. It is the Afghan Army that will have to achieve security, not the US and other foreign fighters.