If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AFP)   One of the reasons Obama may be "indecisive" about McChrystal's request for more troops is because he already secretly approved an additional 13,000 troops for Afghanistan-in addition to the 20,000 he sent in March   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 256
    More: Followup, General Stanley McChrystal, Afghanistan, Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, General Ray Odierno, military police, The Post, commanders  
•       •       •

5526 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Oct 2009 at 12:26 PM   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



256 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-10-13 10:47:28 AM
So, if you were in favor of more troops, shouldn't you be congratulating our President?
 
2009-10-13 10:56:26 AM
Religion of peace, my ass.
 
2009-10-13 11:10:09 AM
I am really confused about this troop deployment. What number does this go towards?

I mean, I have read various reports that keep this separate from the requests of McChrystal. So, are we going to see another report in 2 weeks that says 40,000 are going to Afghanistan (which means 53,000 or 73,000) or what?

If he agrees to send 25,000 for McChrystal, does that mean it was really 38,000 or will McChrystal feel that he hasn't sent enough?
 
2009-10-13 11:32:14 AM
This is surely the most heinous act in the history of the world, until Obama does something again.
 
2009-10-13 11:48:48 AM
How do we know that Obama didn't want to send 80,000 and he was pissed of that the General only wanted 40,000?
 
2009-10-13 12:15:24 PM
As long as they come from the lower classes, it doesn't matter, does it, War Pig? Hide yourself away.
 
2009-10-13 12:17:24 PM
filth:
So, if you were in favor of more troops, shouldn't you be congratulating our President?

Sorry, it's quagmire now.
 
2009-10-13 12:23:59 PM
filth: So, if you were in favor of more troops, shouldn't you be congratulating our President?

You should know better than that.

What we will see is the usual mouthbreather crew come in here wharrgarbl something like "LOL you libtards thought you were getting change," get a ton of responses, and threadshiat until they decide to log into one of their other alts to repeat the cycle
 
2009-10-13 12:24:10 PM
Blackbird: filth:
So, if you were in favor of more troops, shouldn't you be congratulating our President?

Sorry, it's quagmire now.


Giggity.
 
2009-10-13 12:24:50 PM
Aarontology: What we will see is the usual mouthbreather crew come in here wharrgarbl something like "LOL you libtards thought you were getting change," get a ton of responses, and threadshiat until they decide to log into one of their other alts to repeat the cycle

SPOILER ALERT
 
2009-10-13 12:28:22 PM
MOAR!!!!
 
2009-10-13 12:28:34 PM
Knucklebreathers against Obama mobilize!
 
2009-10-13 12:29:43 PM
While I happily support the increase in troop levels, no matter how it is brought about, I for one feel this is nothing but another splash of deception in a well of deceit by the Obama Regime.
 
2009-10-13 12:30:34 PM
The 40k troops requested were on top of this and the 20k sent in March. And these 13k troops were already on the table as support troops for those 20k.

And, as the article says, these are support troops. In other words most of them are Fobbits to support those there, not the COIN "out in the weeds" guys needed to actually take and hold ground from the Taliban to allow support medical/engineers to work.
 
2009-10-13 12:32:15 PM
Gentlemen, this thread ended at 2.
 
2009-10-13 12:32:46 PM
HAHAHAHA silly liebruhl idiots! And you thought you were getting CHANGE?! Give me a break. I suppose he got that "peace prize" because his elitist buddies wanted him to prolong the war.

/Just stealing the fire from the shiatoberfest to come.
//Feel free to respond to this comment, the real ones are on their way.
 
2009-10-13 12:33:06 PM
Peace at any price.
 
2009-10-13 12:33:50 PM
Trollaholic: While I happily support the increase in troop levels, no matter how it is brought about, I for one feel this is nothing but another splash of deception in a well of deceit by the Obama Regime.

You are aptly named.
 
2009-10-13 12:34:05 PM
lhclubs: Gentlemen, this thread ended at 2.

*bows*
 
2009-10-13 12:34:57 PM
Spade: The 40k troops requested were on top of this and the 20k sent in March. And these 13k troops were already on the table as support troops for those 20k.

And, as the article says, these are support troops. In other words most of them are Fobbits to support those there, not the COIN "out in the weeds" guys needed to actually take and hold ground from the Taliban to allow support medical/engineers to work.


"Fobbits"? We have recruting stations in Middle Earth now?
 
2009-10-13 12:35:30 PM
TFA: ...an unnamed defense official familiar told the paper.

Yahoo is reporting that a paper printed info gathered from somebody who knows an unnamed defense official? Wow.
 
2009-10-13 12:35:42 PM
Trollaholic: While I happily support the increase in troop levels, no matter how it is brought about, I for one feel this is nothing but another splash of deception in a well of deceit by the Obama Regime.

Good. Solid. Needs a personal anecdote and perhaps an out of context bar graph with an unshown or spurious data range.
 
2009-10-13 12:36:41 PM
how peaceful.
 
2009-10-13 12:36:50 PM
Boobiesontheside: Good. Solid. Needs a personal anecdote and perhaps an out of context bar graph with an unshown or spurious data range.

A Cox & Farkum (sp?) political cartoon might help as well.
 
2009-10-13 12:36:52 PM
good thing he won that prize thingie for being different from bush.
 
2009-10-13 12:37:43 PM
What I find troubling is that we have troops in harm's way and the President appears to be dithering. He didn't hesitate to sign the stimulus bill, even though there was a lot of dissenting opinion that it would do any good. He didn't hesitate to fire the CEO of GM. He is trying to get Congress to ram health care reform through, even though over 50% of the country doesn't want it. Now he has a clear, decisive request and it's been about a month and he's still talking to advisors and trying to decide what to do. Meanwhile, the enemy in Afghanistan is growing stronger, killing more people. If ever there was a time for bold, decisive action, now is the time, this is the issue.

I'm not going to lie and say I ever had a lot of respect for Obama but such as I had is evaporating.
 
2009-10-13 12:37:58 PM
So are we going to build and defend the roads, communications networks and other infrastructure needed not only to hold and stabilize the country, but to drag almost all of of Afghanistan out of the 13th century?

Or are we going to dick around there endlessly for another 8 years, getting good people killed for no good reason?

I think I know the answer.

But I'm not telling.
 
2009-10-13 12:39:05 PM
Agree with Obama or not, we're there already. Let's finish the job.

It would have been worse if Obama had pulled all troops home too soon.

/Conservative
/Without either party's blinders on
 
2009-10-13 12:39:29 PM
Boobiesontheside: Good. Solid. Needs a personal anecdote and perhaps an out of context bar graph with an unshown or spurious data range.

Blasphemy. Abridged trolls only need a personal anecdote, at the most. Longer, more drawn-out replies such as the likes of Bevets require an unrelated graph. And even then you only bring that out after about 50 or so comments or else you lose trolling maximization potential by a growing factor.

Damn kids these days.
 
2009-10-13 12:39:33 PM
A couple days after winning the Nobel Peace Prize he is sending more troops to war.

/War is Peace
//at least according to the Nobel Peace Price Committee
 
2009-10-13 12:39:52 PM
make me some tea: SPOILER ALERT

Damn. I knew I forgot something.
 
2009-10-13 12:40:37 PM
What I don't get is that we think we can win a guerrilla war in Afganistan with more troops. Even if you triple the troop levels you can't win a war with the terrain of that country- oh and the fact that a sizable chunk of the population there will always support the Taliban.
 
2009-10-13 12:40:43 PM
President of Peace
 
2009-10-13 12:41:43 PM
This "increase" won't raise the troop levels above the originally planned 68,000. What McChrystal is asking for is an increase in the troop level.
 
2009-10-13 12:42:05 PM
Arnold T Pants: A couple days after winning the Nobel Peace Prize he is sending more troops to war.

The earlier, similar comment MAY be counted, but I can quote this one and easily say I called it. Where's my free beer?
 
2009-10-13 12:43:16 PM
Magorn: Spade: The 40k troops requested were on top of this and the 20k sent in March. And these 13k troops were already on the table as support troops for those 20k.

And, as the article says, these are support troops. In other words most of them are Fobbits to support those there, not the COIN "out in the weeds" guys needed to actually take and hold ground from the Taliban to allow support medical/engineers to work.

"Fobbits"? We have recruting stations in Middle Earth now?


Fobbits are people who spend all their time behind the wire at a Forward Operating Base, or FOB. In another time and place those were the people "in the rear with the gear".
 
2009-10-13 12:43:57 PM
Obama was nominated for the Peace Prize no later than his 11th day in office (nomination deadline).

Mohandas Gandhi was nominated 5 times. Never won.


What the hell kind of world are we living in?
 
2009-10-13 12:44:53 PM
Mr. Right: Meanwhile, the enemy in Afghanistan is growing stronger, killing more people. If ever there was a time for bold, decisive action, now is the time, this is the issue.

Right.

Unlike the last eight years when we just had to divert all our resources to Iraq for some reason, leaving about 8,000 guys behind with the charge to hold together a crumbling nation the size of Texas but with no infrastructure.

No, now all of a sudden it's important. Afghanistan was a shining city on a hill that literally fell apart in the last 9 months.
 
2009-10-13 12:44:54 PM
So I guess no one was listening when he said he was going to remove troops from Iraq and send them to Afghanistan where they could work toward the removal of terrorist organizations rather than pissing off the local angry war mongers?

Seems like a logical step to me. Let's peak at he non-image timeline

2001: Terrorist attack sparks invasion of Afghanistan to remove terrorist control.

2003: Invasion of Iraq begins because of apparent speculation of WMDs, aka get Saddam and make friends with oil people.

2003-2009: Ridiculous amounts of money is spent fighting two wars with no clear resolution.

2009: Obama thinks it's probably bad fighting two wars, decides to fight one and get it over with.

Today: Everyone panics because the most logical course of action is taking place and change is scary.
 
2009-10-13 12:45:17 PM
Is this one of those threads where everybody speculates about what the trolls are going to do, but they don't actually ever do that?
 
2009-10-13 12:46:00 PM
Damn, I already found 4 wharrgarblers who brought up the Nobel peace prize. Let's just say I'm damn happy I'm playing an imaginary drinking game with this.
 
2009-10-13 12:46:11 PM
Clearly Embden.Meyerhof: Obama was nominated for the Peace Prize no later than his 11th day in office (nomination deadline).

Mohandas Gandhi was nominated 5 times. Never won.


What the hell kind of world are we living in?


Yes, of all the issues in the world, that is truly the one that keeps me up at night. And I know all my conservative acquaintances have been loudly proclaiming for years that the Nobel Peace Prize needs to be overhauled to avoid such injustices.
 
2009-10-13 12:46:56 PM
It's Tommy this an Tommy that ----
 
2009-10-13 12:48:00 PM
Bleck: oh and the fact that a sizable chunk of the population there will always support the Taliban.

The only reasons that "sizable chunk" supported the Taliban are because A) the Taliban forced them to and B) because they offered some kind of stability. The majority of Afghans don't agree with the anti culture movement of the Taliban and just want some form of peace.
 
2009-10-13 12:48:32 PM
UltimaCS: Arnold T Pants: A couple days after winning the Nobel Peace Prize he is sending more troops to war.

The earlier, similar comment MAY be counted, but I can quote this one and easily say I called it. Where's my free beer?


Why would you get anything for calling that someone will point out the elephant in the room? Why are you afraid to point it out yourself, instead of call that someone will point it out? Do you think that makes it go away?
 
2009-10-13 12:48:44 PM
Boer War part II game plan?
 
2009-10-13 12:49:01 PM
Embden.Meyerhof: Mohandas Gandhi was nominated 5 times. Never won.

Bah. Ghandi was a pacifist. You're not going to win a peace prize if you're not willing to fight for it.
 
2009-10-13 12:49:10 PM
What ever happened to not reporting troop deployments to the news outlets to which your enemy has the same access as your citizens?
 
2009-10-13 12:49:14 PM
jafiwam: Is this one of those threads where everybody speculates about what the trolls are going to do, but they don't actually ever do that?

If by everybody, you mean two of us.
 
2009-10-13 12:49:56 PM
Embden.Meyerhof: Obama was nominated for the Peace Prize no later than his 11th day in office (nomination deadline).

Mohandas Gandhi was nominated 5 times. Never won.


What the hell kind of world are we living in?


The kind where the purpose of things like say, a "Nobel Peace Price" changes over time. The year nobody won (1948) is said to be "his" slot.

There's all sorts of info on their web site that is actually pretty interesting. Not that you are going to bother to learn anything, or anything else in the next week....
 
Displayed 50 of 256 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report