Should Barack Obama Fill McChrystal's Request for 40,000 troops
Thought this should have it's own thread.
94- Misha
- 10900 posts
- Joined: 2 years ago
- Hubs: 18
- Fans: 1887
No, bringing ALL troops home is the most sensible option IMO.
95- rebekahELLE
- 1401 posts
- Joined: 3 months ago
- Hubs: 15
- Fans: 150
imo, no 40,000 troops.
91- Jonathan Janco
- 384 posts
- Joined: 3 months ago
- Hubs: 17
- Fans: 39
To do what, exactly? If we wanted to stop terrorism, why do we still borrow money and buy oil from the Saudis?
Jonathan Janco wrote:
To do what, exactly? If we wanted to stop terrorism, why do we still borrow money and buy oil from the Saudis?
So, the country is in a state of chaos. Are we to just leave it that way?
- 91
- Jonathan Janco
- 384 posts
- Joined: 3 months ago
- Hubs: 17
- Fans: 39
LiamBean wrote:
Jonathan Janco wrote:
To do what, exactly? If we wanted to stop terrorism, why do we still borrow money and buy oil from the Saudis?
So the country is in a state of chaos. Are we to just leave it that way?
It was in chaos before and we didn't seem to care much. That is, until the Soviets wanted to invade the country. That's when we created the jihadists we are fighting today. I'm just saying that we seem to create more chaos the more we try to control what foreign countries do.
Jonathan Janco wrote:
LiamBean wrote:
Jonathan Janco wrote:
To do what, exactly? If we wanted to stop terrorism, why do we still borrow money and buy oil from the Saudis?
So the country is in a state of chaos. Are we to just leave it that way?
It was in chaos before and we didn't seem to care much. That is, until the Soviets wanted to invade the country. That's when we created the jihadists we are fighting today. I'm just saying that we seem to create more chaos the more we try to control what foreign countries do.
That's very true, and that has been pointed out as well. The Soviets not only created a reason for jihadists to exist our CIA helped train them.
Still, Obama supported an increase in funding for both wars even though he stated that he would have voted against the initial funding to begin with. His stated reason? You don't abandon the troops once the war has started.
Is it wise to simply cut off funding and bring them all home right away?- 91
- Jonathan Janco
- 384 posts
- Joined: 3 months ago
- Hubs: 17
- Fans: 39
LiamBean wrote:
Jonathan Janco wrote:
LiamBean wrote:
So the country is in a state of chaos. Are we to just leave it that way?It was in chaos before and we didn't seem to care much. That is, until the Soviets wanted to invade the country. That's when we created the jihadists we are fighting today. I'm just saying that we seem to create more chaos the more we try to control what foreign countries do.
That's very true, and that has been pointed out as well. The Soviets not only created a reason for jihadists to exist our CIA helped train them.
Still, Obama supported an increase in funding for both wars even though he stated that he would have voted against the initial funding to begin with. His stated reason? You don't abandon the troops once the war has started.
Is it wise to simply cut off funding and bring them all home right away?My original question was 'put in another 40,000 troops to do what?' No one seems to have a concrete answer.
87- europewalker
- 438 posts
- Joined: 4 months ago
- Hubs: 4
- Fans: 11
No, enough already.
Jonathan Janco wrote:
LiamBean wrote:
Jonathan Janco wrote:
It was in chaos before and we didn't seem to care much. That is, until the Soviets wanted to invade the country. That's when we created the jihadists we are fighting today. I'm just saying that we seem to create more chaos the more we try to control what foreign countries do.That's very true, and that has been pointed out as well. The Soviets not only created a reason for jihadists to exist our CIA helped train them.
Still, Obama supported an increase in funding for both wars even though he stated that he would have voted against the initial funding to begin with. His stated reason? You don't abandon the troops once the war has started.
Is it wise to simply cut off funding and bring them all home right away?My original question was 'put in another 40,000 troops to do what?' No one seems to have a concrete answer.
McChrystal has stated that his aim is to bring stability and a stable national government to the country. Things which have never existed before in Afghanistan.
That is the stated goal.Here is an interesting time line that covers the history of Afghanistan.
http://www.afghan-web.com/history/- 91
- Jonathan Janco
- 384 posts
- Joined: 3 months ago
- Hubs: 17
- Fans: 39
LiamBean wrote:
Jonathan Janco wrote:
LiamBean wrote:
That's very true, and that has been pointed out as well. The Soviets not only created a reason for jihadists to exist our CIA helped train them.
Still, Obama supported an increase in funding for both wars even though he stated that he would have voted against the initial funding to begin with. His stated reason? You don't abandon the troops once the war has started.
Is it wise to simply cut off funding and bring them all home right away?My original question was 'put in another 40,000 troops to do what?' No one seems to have a concrete answer.
McChrystal has stated that his aim is to bring stability and a stable national government to the country. Things which have never existed before in Afghanistan.
That is the stated goal.Creating something in a foreign country that has never existed there before? Do you that is an attainable goal?
Jonathan Janco wrote:
LiamBean wrote:
Jonathan Janco wrote:
My original question was 'put in another 40,000 troops to do what?' No one seems to have a concrete answer.McChrystal has stated that his aim is to bring stability and a stable national government to the country. Things which have never existed before in Afghanistan.
That is the stated goal.Creating something in a foreign country that has never existed there before? Do you that is an attainable goal?
I have no idea. This was a discussion started in a thread about gay marriage. I started it here because a) I didn't want the other topic to get side-tracked and b) it really needs to be discussed.
So the question is "do we have the right to drag Afghanistan, kicking and screaming, into the twenty-first century? What if we don't?- 91
- Jonathan Janco
- 384 posts
- Joined: 3 months ago
- Hubs: 17
- Fans: 39
Well that depends. What century is Afghanistan in now?
96- earnestshub
- 7351 posts
- Joined: 15 months ago
- Hubs: 68
- Fans: 556
I believe Obama will look in to the election results first to see who will make up the new Afghanistan Government and how to deal with corruption.
It would seem useless to send troops to help a murdering pack of bent politicians who will do nothing but keep creating situations to protect their bribes.
The Afghan Government are as bad as the Taliban!Jonathan Janco wrote:
Well that depends. What century is Afghanistan in now?
Good question. Of course I don't know the answer.
earnestshub wrote:
I believe Obama will look in to the election results first to see who will make up the new Afghanistan Government and how to deal with corruption.
It would seem useless to send troops to help a murdering pack of bent politicians who will do nothing but keep creating situations to protect their bribes.
The Afghan Government are as bad as the Taliban!As bad or worse. At least the Taliban claims a religious reason.
ediggity wrote:
Here is an interesting time line that covers the history of Afghanistan.
http://www.afghan-web.com/history/Thanks ediggity.
LiamBean wrote:
earnestshub wrote:
I believe Obama will look in to the election results first to see who will make up the new Afghanistan Government and how to deal with corruption.
It would seem useless to send troops to help a murdering pack of bent politicians who will do nothing but keep creating situations to protect their bribes.
The Afghan Government are as bad as the Taliban!As bad or worse. At least the Taliban claims a religious reason.
We'll see. Karzai did okay marital rape which is more than bad enough, but between him and the folks who insist on executing women for being raped, throwing acid at schoolgirls, beating women to death because they find their burkas suffocating, or banning women from workplaces and then also punishing them when they try the only means left available to support their children, Karzai seems to me like the lesser of the two evils.
That being said, the lesser of two evils is still not good.Valerie F wrote:
LiamBean wrote:
earnestshub wrote:
I believe Obama will look in to the election results first to see who will make up the new Afghanistan Government and how to deal with corruption.
It would seem useless to send troops to help a murdering pack of bent politicians who will do nothing but keep creating situations to protect their bribes.
The Afghan Government are as bad as the Taliban!As bad or worse. At least the Taliban claims a religious reason.
We'll see. Karzai did okay marital rape which is more than bad enough, but between him and the folks who insist on executing women for being raped, throwing acid at schoolgirls, beating women to death because they find their burkas suffocating, or banning women from workplaces and then also punishing them when they try the only means left available to support their children, Karzai seems to me like the lesser of the two evils.
That being said, the lesser of two evils is still not good.It certainly is a mess. No doubt about it. But the question is do we leave a mess or put 40,000 more troops in to try to fix the mess?
