Should Barack Obama Fill McChrystal's Request for 40,000 troops

1. 80

   LiamBeanposted 14 years ago

   Thought this should have it's own thread.

   replyreport
2. 63

   Mishaposted 14 years ago

   No, bringing ALL troops home is the most sensible option IMO.

   replyreport
3. 85

   rebekahELLEposted 14 years ago

   imo, no 40,000 troops.

   replyreport
4. 60

   Jonathan Jancoposted 14 years ago

   To do what, exactly? If we wanted to stop terrorism, why do we still borrow money and buy oil from the Saudis?

   replyreport
   1. 80

      LiamBeanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      So, the country is in a state of chaos. Are we to just leave it that way?

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Jonathan Jancoposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         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.

         replyreport
         1. 80

            LiamBeanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            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?

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Jonathan Jancoposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               My original question was 'put in another 40,000 troops to do what?' No one seems to have a concrete answer.

               replyreport
               1. 80

                  LiamBeanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Jonathan Jancoposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     Creating something in a foreign country that has never existed there before? Do you that is an attainable goal?

                     replyreport
                     1. 80

                        LiamBeanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        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?

                        replyreport
5. 80

   europewalkerposted 14 years ago

   No, enough already.

   replyreport
6. 60

   ediggityposted 14 years ago

   Here is an interesting time line that covers the history of Afghanistan.
   
   http://www.afghan-web.com/history/

   replyreport
   1. 80

      LiamBeanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks ediggity.

      replyreport
7. 60

   Jonathan Jancoposted 14 years ago

   Well that depends. What century is Afghanistan in now?

   replyreport
   1. 80

      LiamBeanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Good question. Of course I don't know the answer.

      replyreport
8. 80

   earnestshubposted 14 years ago

   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!

   replyreport
   1. 80

      LiamBeanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      As bad or worse. At least the Taliban claims a religious reason.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Valerie Fposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         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.

         replyreport
         1. 80

            LiamBeanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            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?

            replyreport
         2. 60

            Jonathan Jancoposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            They did stuff like that in Rwanda as well. But we didn't do anything about it because Rwanda isn't near the Caspian Sea, which has been the main U.S. military acquisition target since the Soviets folded.

            replyreport
            1. 80

               LiamBeanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Very good point.

               replyreport
            2. 61

               Valerie Fposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               And if we did intervene in the Rwandan conflict, we would have been derided for trying to play the role of world police.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Jonathan Jancoposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  Just like we constantly are, anyway?!

                  replyreport
9. 58

   C.J. Wrightposted 14 years ago

   No he should not. He ran on a platform for ending these wars. Further you are fighting an unconventional force. Traditional combat theory does not apply here. Numbers don't matter. Large occupation forces simply provide large easy targets in guerella warfare scenarios.  Reduce, rethink and redistribute. Go to countries that seem to be doing a good job at rooting out terrorist. Israel and Germany come to mind here.

   replyreport
10. 79

    jiberishposted 14 years ago

    Obama is having a hard time making this decision because 22 Congressmen/woman signed a bill not to fund any more troops.  In my opinion we are waisting our time and money.

    replyreport
    1. 80

       LiamBeanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Obama has declared that he will make no decision regarding an increase in troop strength until Afghanistan has a stable government.
       
       Karzi has been presented with evidence that 1.2 million votes were invalid. This would put him below the 50% of votes required for a clear win. It also gives Abdullah Abdullah a slightly better advantage, but he too is below the 50% threshold.
       
       This means there SHOULD be a runoff election, but Karzi is resisting this notion by attempting to offer Abdullah some token government office instead.
       
       Add to this that the NATO commander agrees that troop strength should remain as it is until there's a stable government.

       replyreport
11. 60

    Jonathan Jancoposted 14 years ago

    If he stops funding the wars and stops nursefeeding the Fortune 100, we can pay for health care, education, infrastructure, you know, all those things that make a first world country, uhm, first.

    replyreport
12. 61

    atilposted 14 years ago

    Its too bad Obama is a clueless puppet.

    replyreport
13. 60

    K Partinposted 14 years ago

    I would rather he did not send any more troops....enough is enough.
    Why do we always have to be the world police?? Bring the boys home NOW! Put them to work protecting our boarders.

    replyreport
14. 80

    manlypoetrymanposted 14 years ago

    Good one...K Partin...Weren't we over there originally to take out Osama Bin Ladin...What happened to that objective...No one answers that. He has either passed-on, taken the first Space Shuttle out of here...or could be living next door to anyone on here?

    replyreport
    1. 61

       Valerie Fposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       We were there to take out not just Bin Laden, but Al Qaeda and everyone responsible for supporting them which includes the Taliban.

       replyreport
15. 80

    LiamBeanposted 14 years ago

    Karzi has now accepted the terms of a run-off election.

    replyreport