Tonight is it

[NickD 203]

He wants congress to give him 30 billion bucks to send an additional 30 thousand troops, that's a cost to us of a million bucks per troop. My two buddies, Dave Obey and Russ Feingold are against this.

What he didn't mention is that the majority of wars today is small arms production and one country capable of producing mass quantity of weapons is China, and that Iran is buying these weapons and supplying them to Al Qaeda. Says at our present troop level, Al Qaeda is growing like crazy. Never mentioned the fact that because we are there, they don't like us, Iran is buying weapons from China.

Says that Afghanistan is not like Viet Nam, do not agree with this as the Soviets and even China were supplying weapons to North Viet Nam, and nothing was done to stop that. If he said we are going to send additional troops and boycott China, then I could believe him. Here we go again, trying to clean up the bottom of the barrel when the problem is coming from the top. Sending more troops will just escalate more weapons being shipped to Al Qaeda causing even a greater war.

Says we are doing this for our own defense and because of 9/11, I still believe someone here in power really pissed off these Al Qaeda people, most logical reason I heard was because of our constant support to Israel, but who knows, the truth never came out on this. Just know it wasn't me, too busy trying to raise my kids and support my family, but sure ended up paying the price for this.

Says we will only be there for 18 to establish a strong Afghanistan government with a good security force to deal with these terrorist, that didn't happen in the last two thousand years! Afghanistan never had a central government, but thousands of warlords, each running a very small part of that country. Heard experts on Afghanistan say this effort will take more like 200 years. And to do this, we would have to build an infrastructure and build many schools to start off with the young kids to give them the education and logic of forming equal rights and a democratic government. This makes far more sense to me.

Our basic human rights such as food, clothing, and shelter, where for the first two were sales tax free, we are now paying tax on these key items as our governor says we are not getting our federal dollars back and our property taxes are hitting the roof with even more talk about increasing the state income tax. Bottom line is we are losing our freedom or what we had left of it and becoming slaves to the state. And with our doubled police force, afraid to drive much over 15 mph in town from fear of getting a ticket.

Feel I rather shoot a terrorist than go through all this.

Found it ironic that Obama decided to give this speech to kids in West Point that really don't know any better, certainly expected him to address congress on this key interest. Looking at Obama now, still very eloquent, but just another dumb kid.

If he did manage to get a strong centralized government in Afghanistan, how long would that last? Would give that a week after we left. And Afghanistan is not our problem, our problem is with China, Iran, and Russia.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

He wants congress to give him 30 billion bucks to send an additional 30 thousand troops, that's a cost to us of a million bucks per troop. My two buddies, Dave Obey and Russ Feingold are against this.

What he didn't mention is that the majority of wars today is small arms production and one country capable of producing mass quantity of weapons is China, and that Iran is buying these weapons and supplying them to Al Qaeda. Says at our present troop level, Al Qaeda is growing like crazy. Never mentioned the fact that because we are there, they don't like us, Iran is buying weapons from China.

Says that Afghanistan is not like Viet Nam, do not agree with this as the Soviets and even China were supplying weapons to North Viet Nam, and nothing was done to stop that. If he said we are going to send additional troops and boycott China, then I could believe him. Here we go again, trying to clean up the bottom of the barrel when the problem is coming from the top. Sending more troops will just escalate more weapons being shipped to Al Qaeda causing even a greater war.

Says we are doing this for our own defense and because of 9/11, I still believe someone here in power really pissed off these Al Qaeda people, most logical reason I heard was because of our constant support to Israel, but who knows, the truth never came out on this. Just know it wasn't me, too busy trying to raise my kids and support my family, but sure ended up paying the price for this.

Says we will only be there for 18 to establish a strong Afghanistan government with a good security force to deal with these terrorist, that didn't happen in the last two thousand years! Afghanistan never had a central government, but thousands of warlords, each running a very small part of that country. Heard experts on Afghanistan say this effort will take more like 200 years. And to do this, we would have to build an infrastructure and build many schools to start off with the young kids to give them the education and logic of forming equal rights and a democratic government. This makes far more sense to me.

Our basic human rights such as food, clothing, and shelter, where for the first two were sales tax free, we are now paying tax on these key items as our governor says we are not getting our federal dollars back and our property taxes are hitting the roof with even more talk about increasing the state income tax. Bottom line is we are losing our freedom or what we had left of it and becoming slaves to the state. And with our doubled police force, afraid to drive much over 15 mph in town from fear of getting a ticket.

Feel I rather shoot a terrorist than go through all this.

Found it ironic that Obama decided to give this speech to kids in West Point that really don't know any better, certainly expected him to address congress on this key interest. Looking at Obama now, still very eloquent, but just another dumb kid.

If he did manage to get a strong centralized government in Afghanistan, how long would that last? Would give that a week after we left. And Afghanistan is not our problem, our problem is with China, Iran, and Russia.

We should use the 30 billion to take all our troops home and then buy ALL the opium grown in Afghanistan for 3 times what Al Queada is willing to pay. Afghanistan wil have no need for the Taliban anymore, we will be their best buddies and no one gets killed. We sink 95% of the opium in the Mariana Trench and sell the rest at 3 times the current market rate to governments wil universal healthcare for medicinal use and strangle the supply to heroin dealers at the same time.

WIN< WIN< WIN situation.

[NickD 203]

He wants congress to give him 30 billion bucks to send an additional 30 thousand troops, that's a cost to us of a million bucks per troop. My two buddies, Dave Obey and Russ Feingold are against this.

What he didn't mention is that the majority of wars today is small arms production and one country capable of producing mass quantity of weapons is China, and that Iran is buying these weapons and supplying them to Al Qaeda. Says at our present troop level, Al Qaeda is growing like crazy. Never mentioned the fact that because we are there, they don't like us, Iran is buying weapons from China.

Says that Afghanistan is not like Viet Nam, do not agree with this as the Soviets and even China were supplying weapons to North Viet Nam, and nothing was done to stop that. If he said we are going to send additional troops and boycott China, then I could believe him. Here we go again, trying to clean up the bottom of the barrel when the problem is coming from the top. Sending more troops will just escalate more weapons being shipped to Al Qaeda causing even a greater war.

Says we are doing this for our own defense and because of 9/11, I still believe someone here in power really pissed off these Al Qaeda people, most logical reason I heard was because of our constant support to Israel, but who knows, the truth never came out on this. Just know it wasn't me, too busy trying to raise my kids and support my family, but sure ended up paying the price for this.

Says we will only be there for 18 to establish a strong Afghanistan government with a good security force to deal with these terrorist, that didn't happen in the last two thousand years! Afghanistan never had a central government, but thousands of warlords, each running a very small part of that country. Heard experts on Afghanistan say this effort will take more like 200 years. And to do this, we would have to build an infrastructure and build many schools to start off with the young kids to give them the education and logic of forming equal rights and a democratic government. This makes far more sense to me.

Our basic human rights such as food, clothing, and shelter, where for the first two were sales tax free, we are now paying tax on these key items as our governor says we are not getting our federal dollars back and our property taxes are hitting the roof with even more talk about increasing the state income tax. Bottom line is we are losing our freedom or what we had left of it and becoming slaves to the state. And with our doubled police force, afraid to drive much over 15 mph in town from fear of getting a ticket.

Feel I rather shoot a terrorist than go through all this.

Found it ironic that Obama decided to give this speech to kids in West Point that really don't know any better, certainly expected him to address congress on this key interest. Looking at Obama now, still very eloquent, but just another dumb kid.

If he did manage to get a strong centralized government in Afghanistan, how long would that last? Would give that a week after we left. And Afghanistan is not our problem, our problem is with China, Iran, and Russia.

We should use the 30 billion to take all our troops home and then buy ALL the opium grown in Afghanistan for 3 times what Al Queada is willing to pay. Afghanistan wil have no need for the Taliban anymore, we will be their best buddies and no one gets killed. We sink 95% of the opium in the Mariana Trench and sell the rest at 3 times the current market rate to governments wil universal healthcare for medicinal use and strangle the supply to heroin dealers at the same time.

WIN< WIN< WIN situation.

[Nagishkaw 510]

Says that Afghanistan is not like Viet Nam, do not agree with this as the Soviets and even China were supplying weapons to North Viet Nam, and nothing was done to stop that.

He knows nothing about the Viet Nam war.

Says we are doing this for our own defense and because of 9/11, I still believe someone here in power really pissed off these Al Qaeda people, most logical reason I heard was because of our constant support to Israel, but who knows, the truth never came out on this.

Very logical, indeed.

Found it ironic that Obama decided to give this speech to kids in West Point that really don't know any better, certainly expected him to address congress on this key interest.

Young minds can easily be swayed.

Bottom line is we are losing our freedom or what we had left of it and becoming slaves to the state.

I believe it will only get worse.

[NickD 203]

We should use the 30 billion to take all our troops home and then buy ALL the opium grown in Afghanistan for 3 times what Al Queada is willing to pay. Afghanistan wil have no need for the Taliban anymore, we will be their best buddies and no one gets killed. We sink 95% of the opium in the Mariana Trench and sell the rest at 3 times the current market rate to governments wil universal healthcare for medicinal use and strangle the supply to heroin dealers at the same time.

In this sense, very nebulous about the Taliban as to whether they are the good or bad guys. Heard some experts state they are the good guys, intelligent people trying to bring law and order to their screwed up country.

They were strongly against opium production and even beheaded farmers for growing opium, a very easy crop for them to grow in there country. But they were overthrown by us after 9/11 and after that, opium production has skyrocketed. Obama claimed last night the Taliban is the cause of Al Qaeda, but heard just the opposite from other experts of that country;

Just don't know whom to believe on this subject. Am also hampered by the strong market for products that blow your brain and make you stupid and why there is such a strong demand for it. I fail to comprehend this.

[Scott and Mhay 57]

yeah there is a drawdown in germany, but we are still there non the less. Right now they are making Osan a standard tour for volunteers (at least for the time being) so there will be more families there...that's a 3 year tour if people want to do it. Normally it is just a 1 year remote. I'm probably going to do that since it also pays more ... there is an incentive pay to take a standard tour there. Hopefully they still have it when it is my time to go there again.

Who cares about a pullout in 2012...isnt the world supposed to end in 2012?

yes, of course. AlGore said. By then global warming will reduce the earth to a cinder hurtling toward the sun and only cockroaches will survive. The cockroaches in the middle east will be killing each other

Yeah talk to us up in alaska and ask how "global warming" is. Last winter we had 3 weeks of -30F or colder. I think it reached -56F near fairbanks.

[Nizzy 1]

oh if only Ahmad Shah Masood wasn't assassinated...

[NickD 203]

Still would like to see the budget why it's going to cost us 30 billion dollars to send an additional 30 thousand troops to Afghanistan. Somehow I get the feeling, our troops will only get an extremely small fraction of that amount that leads me to wonder, exactly who is getting it.

[Scott and Mhay 57]

They got to pay for new planes....normally when they ask for so much money it is because there is some black program they are paying for. Yeah we see a very small portion of that. I only get about 4-500 extra a month because of tax free and hostile fire pay. Starting Jan 1st we will get a prorated amount ... Right now if we spend at least one hour of one month in a combat zone we get the whole month tax free and hostile fire pay. I can see that saving money, but with the military we are basically paying ourselves since we are paid by tax dollars anyway. My bet is we will either be in afghanistan for the next 50 years or we will leave it like we did vietnam...either way it will still cost a lot to the US.

[NickD 203]

Seems like the leaders can't agree on this subject either according to this article. History has constantly shown that settling a dispute with a war, leaves everyone unhappy when it's over, loss of both human and material resources on both sides. Has to be a better way.

"

Gates, Mullen & Clinton argue for new Afghan plan

By ANNE FLAHERTY and ANNE GEARAN Associated Press Writers The Associated Press

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 9:45 AM EST

WASHINGTON (AP) — Failure in Afghanistan would mean a Taliban takeover of the country and "have severe consequences for the United States and the world," Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday as the Obama administration set out to sell its new strategy on Capitol Hill.

Lawmakers questioned the exit strategy, a day after Obama announced he was sending an additional 30,000 American troops to the Afghan war and would commence troop withdrawals by the summer of 2011.

"Failure in Afghanistan would mean a Taliban takeover of much, if not most, of the country and likely a renewed civil war," Defense Secretary Robert Gates told the Senate Armed Services Committee. "Taliban-ruled areas could in short order become, once again, a sanctuary for al-Qaida as well as a staging area for resurgent militant groups on the offensive in Pakistan."

The insurgency already has gained "dominant influence" in 11 of Afghanistan's 34 provinces, said Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, who appeared with Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton before the committee.

Committee chairman Sen. Carl Levin expressed serious misgivings about the troop escalation when the Afghan security force remains small and weak.

"It seems to me that the large influx of U.S. combat troops will put more U.S. Marines on street corners in Afghan villages, with too few Afghan partners alongside them," he said in his opening remarks of the hearing.

Despite the war's waning popularity among voters, there were few protesters on hand as Gates, Mullen and Clinton testified in a cavernous hearing room. Unlike 2007, when the Bush administration's troop build up in Iraq prompted angry chants by protesters, there were only three visible members of the famed "Code Pink" anti-war group. They held up signs denouncing the troop buildup and calling the war hopeless.

Vice President Joe Biden said earlier Wednesday that the new surge-and-exit troop strategy in Afghanistan is aimed more at wringing reforms from President Hamid Karzai than mollifying a war-weary American public. He said the principal aim of the new policy is to protect the United States from further terrorist attack while also keeping the Taliban from overrunning the country.

Democrats complained about Obama's escalation of the 8-year-old war after his prime-time speech Tuesday night at West Point, N.Y. Republicans are unhappy with his promise to withdraw troops in 18 months, but Congress appears willing, nevertheless, to approve the buildup's $30 billion price tag.

Sen. John McCain, who lost to Obama in last year's presidential election, reiterated Wednesday that while he supports the president's build up, he believes it's a mistake to signal in advance when a troop withdrawal might begin. Obama said in his prime-time West Point speech Tuesday that it could commence as early as July 2011.

The Arizona Republican said: "We don't want to sound an uncertain trumpet to our friends in the region."

McCain asked Gates if the U.S. would withdraw troops based on "an arbitrary date."

Gates replied "I think it's the judgment of all of us ... that we would be in a position particularly in uncontested areas where we would be able to begin that transition."

But he said the July 2011 date was chosen because it was two years after the Marines went into Helmand province in a new push last summer. The secretary said he thought the United States would be in a position by December 2010 to determine whether it could begin a withdrawal by July 2011.

Gates called the region the "epicenter of extremist jihadism," reminding lawmakers that local and foreign Muslims had joined before — in defeating the former Soviet Union. "For them to be seen to defeat the sole remaining superpower in the same place would have severe consequences for the United States and the world," Gates said.

Congress was using the high-profile hearings to express its misgivings. Obama's escalation strategy won quick backing from NATO allies. Afghan leaders praised the speech, but also had questions about the 18-month timetable for withdrawal.

And a Taliban spokesman said Wednesday that Obama's plan was "no solution" to Afghanistan's troubles.

Obama pledged Tuesday night to an audience of Army cadets at the U.S. Military Academy that the shift from surge to exit strategy would depend on the military situation in Afghanistan.

"We will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground," Obama said, declaring that the nation's security was at stake and that the additional troops were needed to "bring this war to a successful conclusion."

The planned infusion of 30,000 U.S. troops would raise the total American military presence in Afghanistan to about 100,000.

Many Democrats said they weren't convinced that sending more troops would hasten an end to the war. They also question whether the money used for troop deployments will drain resources from other domestic priorities, like health care and job creation.

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., called the plan "an expensive gamble to undertake armed nation-building on behalf of a corrupt government of questionable legitimacy."

After meeting Wednesday with Karzai, U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal called Karzai's reaction to the new U.S. strategy "really positive. The president was very upbeat, very resolute this morning."

McChrystal, Obama's field commander in Afghanistan, said U.S. and NATO forces would hand over responsibility for the fight against the Taliban to Afghan security forces "as rapidly as conditions allow."

Afghan Interior Minister Hanif Atmar, who also met with McChrystal, sought more details about how the Afghan security forces would be trained and expanded in the next 18 months — a time frame that he said was too short for a complete handoff from international forces.

"That kind of time frame will give us momentum," Atmar said. "We are hoping that there will be clarity in terms of long-term growth needs of the Afghan national security forces and what can be achieved in 18 months."

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said he expected the allies to bolster the American buildup with more than 5,000 additional troops. He said the best way to overcome widespread public opposition in Europe is by demonstrating progress, starting by transferring control of parts of the country to the Afghan government.

Gates said the adminstration would seek 5,000 to 7,000 allied forces and "expect them to share more of the burden in training, equipping, and funding" the Afghan forces. He said the allies would remain focused on the less volatile north and west of Afghanistan to "prevent the insurgency from establishing new footholds," while Americans focus on the south and east.

"Albania will respond positively to such a commitment and for sure that we will send additional troops again," Albanian Foreign Minister Ilir Meta said, without specifying how many extra troops his country might send. Albania currently has 250 troops in Afghanistan.

At a meeting of foreign ministers in Athens, Greece, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg said: "Some countries are ready now to make commitments to provide additional troops or additional funds, some are now just examining it. We understand that they need a little bit of time to digest exactly what the president's proposed."

French President Nicolas Sarkozy hailed Obama's speech as "courageous, determined and lucid" but stopped short of pledging additional French troops.

———

Associated Press writers Slobodan Lekic in Brussels, Heidi Vogt in Kabul and Pauline Jelinek in Washington contributed to this report.

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed."

[Captain Oates 911]

Seems like the leaders can't agree on this subject either according to this article. History has constantly shown that settling a dispute with a war, leaves everyone unhappy when it's over, loss of both human and material resources on both sides. Has to be a better way.

If I wanted to set up a world wide headquarters for a terrorist organisation, I wouldn't choose Afghanistan.

Land locked and remote with poor roads and communication

The attacks in London and Madrid and Bali etc were not organised from Afghanistan

Even 9-11 was executed from Germany/USA etc - yes the idea came from Afghanistan but an idea can be thought up anywhere

The London bombings were executed by natural born British Citizens who were born 10 miles from where I was born in Yorkshire. The Fort Hood terrorism was carried out by a natural born American and an Officer in the US army.

If all Afghanistan was nuked, and the sand was turned into glass, it would increase world terrorism and not reduce it.

It's an irrelevancy and of little use to terrorists who are in every western country plus yemen, somalia etc to romp around in. The drug trade is supported by the West who could easily napalm the poppy fields - they don't though because then they would then have to feed the whole population - 23,897,000 people. A blitzed and subdued Afghanistan, even were it possible, would achieve nothing.

Where I lived in England, there were 150,000 people of Pakistani origin within 6 miles of my house. Many of them travelled back and forth to Pakistan all the time.

The real challenge is how to get at the terrorists while they are living in the countries of our allies. Illegal kidnappings and assasinations are the hallmark of Israel, but will the US be forced to follow ? The drone attacks inside Pakistan are a toe in the water.

There are though to be less than 8 dozen Al Queda in Afghanistan so I reckon we are fishing in the wrong bit of the river and need to be less Rambo and more James Bond