Sir Bandelot Posted September 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 21, 2009 Why? Because you see him as an anti-military, anti-violence, pacifist who agrees with you, and thus he's a greater loss than the previous soldiers? No, because I see him as a young kid who could have had a great future, and who did his duty and died, despite the fact he had personal objections to the mission. I would like to be able to say, "He had to give up his precious life, but it was for a good cause". But the mission objectives became too broad and vague, and we (Canada) got sucked in while others bailed or carefully avoided the scenario. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted September 22, 2009 Report Share Posted September 22, 2009 No, because I see him as a young kid who could have had a great future, and who did his duty and died, despite the fact he had personal objections to the mission.I would like to be able to say, "He had to give up his precious life, but it was for a good cause". But the mission objectives became too broad and vague, and we (Canada) got sucked in while others bailed or carefully avoided the scenario. Bullshit...Why is it Bullshit....Because this is a volunteer war, don't want to go just say so.....or come up with dozens of other reason not to go....nobody force him to go....anyone saying so is a liar.... Lets not forget his family is grieving thier son....thier loss, and may or may not be clearly thinking out exactly what they are saying....and the media is just waiting to suck it up....."finally as soldier that does agree with the mission" front page.... Well he must have agree with something.....first he is a soldier....you know close with and destroy the enemy....not with water ballons and flowers , but bombs and bullets....Secondly he volunteered to go .....that means stepping forward and saying yes i want to go.....And finally if he is married his Wife also has to sign off to agreeing with his going..... So i call bullshit....and this soldier was either lying or is being misrepresented by the media and now you sir.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted September 22, 2009 Report Share Posted September 22, 2009 If they did not hate us then - they hate us now! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted October 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 U.S. Afghan commander set to ask for 80,000 more troops By The Associated Press, cbc.ca, Updated: October 14, 2009 The top military commander in Afghanistan is asking for up to 80,000 more American troops, according to U.S. officials. A still-secret document by U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal that requests more troops is expected to be among the topics discussed Wednesday when President Barack Obama meets with his national security team to hash out a strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. Even with additional troops, McChrystal concluded that government corruption in Afghanistan could still let the country turn back into a haven for terrorists, according to officials at the Pentagon and White House. Big number. If this is true, then either - This commander can't make up his mind how many he really needs - The situation is far worse than we are led to believe, and is deteriorating rapidly - There is no way to win. We will join the long line of empires that got bogged down in Afghanistan. and if anything proves the old adage, that war is hell. That last line I quoted, about corrupt government should make everyone sit up and take notice. The election utterly failed, despite our best efforts and it wasn't even the Taliban who did it! Not only that, it undermines the democratic ideology that we are so proud of promoting, throughout the entire region. This is a quagmire, a bleepin quagmire... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 Army Guy I have always said the numbers in Afghanistan were low and will just drag out the war with no real progress in sight. We both agree that this is a problem. If we got nothing but good news out of Afghanistan we would be supporting the ware much more. But we are not getting a good outlook on the whole situation. If top Generals are concerned, we all should be. I think your getting your facts mixed up, every NATO commander thats commanded the Afghan mission has stated sreveral things over and over, they need more troops....(part of the effort) , they need more funding (part of the money) they need more equipment again part of both effort and money....so while we can say there is alot there needs to be alot more... If Afghanistan was given the right attention at the start, this would not have happened. I mean, the numbers that were thrown into Iraq could have been thrown into Afghanistan and this war would have been 'over' by now. First it was 40,000 troops now McChrystal even said that another 80,000 won't help because of the political corruption going on over there. I want our men and women home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 I want our men and women home. We all do. At the right time. So that others before them didn't die in vain. And so we're not handing over a country to terrorists, who will once again plan and plot destructive attacks, which will once again require us and others, going back in. You may want us to do this all over again, but I don't! :angry: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted October 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 We all do. At the right time. So that others before them didn't die in vain. And so we're not handing over a country to terrorists, who will once again plan and plot destructive attacks, which will once again require us and others, going back in.You may want us to do this all over again, but I don't! :angry: Yes, true but if that is in fact the actual objective, and this mission fails, then maybe a different approac to the problem is needed. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result. Exactly. That's why the low troop totals need to be adjusted up. The light footprint strategy hasn't worked for several years now. A surge and new strategy is needed, just like it was needed in Iraq. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 Exactly. That's why the low troop totals need to be adjusted up. The light footprint strategy hasn't worked for several years now. A surge and new strategy is needed, just like it was needed in Iraq. hardly a light footprint..about the same number of troops that the Soviets had vs all of the afghan tribes, NATO is really only taking on one tribe and yet they strike virtually when ever and where ever they like...the Taliban know they can't win any battles but they can continally bleed us until we leave and win the war... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 .....I would like to be able to say, "He had to give up his precious life, but it was for a good cause". But the mission objectives became too broad and vague, and we (Canada) got sucked in while others bailed or carefully avoided the scenario. So you really don't give a damn about his honor or sacrifice unless YOU approve of the mission? Sir, that dog don't hunt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 We all do. At the right time. So that others before them didn't die in vain. And so we're not handing over a country to terrorists, who will once again plan and plot destructive attacks, which will once again require us and others, going back in.You may want us to do this all over again, but I don't! :angry: Then it should have been done right at the start and not half assed like it has been. Because of that, we wont be leaving anytime soon, simply because progress can't be made with the current troop levels. If you don't want to come back to it, then we need to flood the place with NATO troops and be done with this whole 8 year fiasco. I recall the term 'shock and awe'... I think Afghanistan can use some of that right now, since that worked out so well in Iraq. Unfortunately one of the biggest members of NATO decided to start another war. This will happen again in the next 5 years which will just prolong the whole debacle leaving nothing resolved. If we all do not want to lose sight of this war, we need to clean up one place at a time for good instead of half assed doing it all over the place as it has been. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 Then it should have been done right at the start and not half assed like it has been. Because of that, we wont be leaving anytime soon, simply because progress can't be made with the current troop levels. If you don't want to come back to it, then we need to flood the place with NATO troops and be done with this whole 8 year fiasco. I recall the term 'shock and awe'... I think Afghanistan can use some of that right now, since that worked out so well in Iraq. Unfortunately one of the biggest members of NATO decided to start another war. This will happen again in the next 5 years which will just prolong the whole debacle leaving nothing resolved. If we all do not want to lose sight of this war, we need to clean up one place at a time for good instead of half assed doing it all over the place as it has been. Hindsight is 100/100 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 hardly a light footprint..about the same number of troops that the Soviets had vs all of the afghan tribes, NATO is really only taking on one tribe and yet they strike virtually when ever and where ever they like...the Taliban know they can't win any battles but they can continally bleed us until we leave and win the war... Which is why I think looking at Afghanistan in terms of victory is probably an error. We should be looking at it as an issue of containment. Yes, it means never beating the Taliban, but it also means we don't have to worry about Al Qaeda setting up shop there again. Our biggest problem is that Afghanistan is hogging the picture. We need to start looking at Somalia again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 Hindsight is 100/100 It's not a matter of hindsight. I'm sure there isn't a commander or strategist out there who didn't see this coming years ago (and we were all being warned of this long before now). The problem is political palatability. The electorates of most (if not all) NATO countries don't want their troops there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 .....Unfortunately one of the biggest members of NATO decided to start another war. This will happen again in the next 5 years which will just prolong the whole debacle leaving nothing resolved. If we all do not want to lose sight of this war, we need to clean up one place at a time for good instead of half assed doing it all over the place as it has been. That about sums things up....eh? NATO would be a fine organization as long as no member states were ever attacked and no bullshit "human rights" missions were ever invented? You want to "clean up" the place for good, but you are writing checks that you can't cash. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 Hindsight is 100/100 Yes, we told you that too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 Yes, we told you that too. Talk is cheap.....lead, follow, or get out of the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted October 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 So you really don't give a damn about his honor or sacrifice unless YOU approve of the mission?Sir, that dog don't hunt. You know thats not true, otherwise why would I even bother with these posts? They died, I give a damn. It would be easier to accept if their death was for something worthwhile. Maybe it will be worthwhile, we shall see. The dogs are not done uhnting yet. But chief doggy dog is making sounds like he wants to go home now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 Talk is cheap..... No, talk is less expensive. lead, follow, or get out of the way. Do you even know where you're going? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 hardly a light footprint..about the same number of troops that the Soviets had Not even close. The soviets had almost 120,000 troops in Afghanistan. American troop strength was just over 20,00 in 2006, and even lower than that in the first few years. If you add NATO forces, it's still not anywhere close. So yes, light footprint. It's only now starting to increase significantly, and rightly so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 Not even close. The soviets had almost 120,000 troops in Afghanistan. American troop strength was just over 20,00 in 2006, and even lower than that in the first few years. If you add NATO forces, it's still not anywhere close. So yes, light footprint. It's only now starting to increase significantly, and rightly so. One also has to remember that these troop totals are not all combat troops. The ratio is something like 1-6:1-10 in that range re: combat soldiers vs non-coms. Twenty thousand = perhaps 2,500 rifles on patrol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted October 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 Exactly. That's why the low troop totals need to be adjusted up. The light footprint strategy hasn't worked for several years now. A surge and new strategy is needed, just like it was needed in Iraq. I could believe that, if not for McCrystals own comments that even with the 80,000 it may not prevent the eventual outcome, Taliban and their supporters will be running the country. If this is what he actually said, it undermines the argument for the need for a surge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 You know thats not true, otherwise why would I even bother with these posts?They died, I give a damn. It would be easier to accept if their death was for something worthwhile. Then how can you casually parse his (or any soldiers) duty, honor, and purpose from the stated mission as defined by his political leadership? You must "accept" his death if he died in training or other non-combat scenario as well. Maybe it will be worthwhile, we shall see. The dogs are not done uhnting yet. But chief doggy dog is making sounds like he wants to go home now. You're just adding insult to injury.....Army Guy has carefully articulated the conscious choices made by deploying forces, and he has also confirmed the common decision to volunteer for multiple tours because of the experience. That deserves respect and honor no matter what the discomfort level back home in our Lazy Boy recliners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 I could believe that, if not for McCrystals own comments that even with the 80,000 it may not prevent the eventual outcome, Taliban and their supporters will be running the country. If this is what he actually said, it undermines the argument for the need for a surge. Like in Viet-Nam, this war won't be lost until US troops leave. The ANA is so ARVN-like that it's painful. Without US/Allied support, these turkeys will rout. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 No, talk is less expensive. No wonder you prefer it. Do you even know where you're going? Yes, and I also know where I've been. I would never ask you for directions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.