PDA

View Full Version : Obama to announce 30,000 Afghan troop increase next week


Fire Haley
11-24-2009, 07:31 PM
No blood for poppies!

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/learning_history/vietnam/back_lbj_vietnam_sm.jpg

White House sources indicated that Mr Obama is preparing to address Americans in a live prime-time broadcast next Monday followed by testimony before Congress by senior figures such as his Pentagon chief Bob Gates.

The same sources said Mr Obama was close to deciding on an increase of between 30,000 and 35,000 more American troops in addition to the 68,000 currently in Afghanistan.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/6640563/Barack-Obama-to-announce-30000-Afghan-troop-increase-next-week.html

--------------------------------------


Oh wait - there's more


Democratic Lawmakers Propose "War Tax"

There's talk of a "war tax" to pay for any troop surge in Afghanistan.

Wisconsin Democratic Congressman David Obey and Michigan Democratic Senator Carl Levin say if a troop influx is ordered in Afghanistan, it should be financed with a special "war tax."

Obey chairs the House Appropriations Committee, while Levin chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs sidestepped questions from reporters today about the White House position on a war tax

http://rochesterhomepage.net/content/fulltext/?cid=136791

-----------------------------

Discuss

fansince'76
11-24-2009, 07:36 PM
I'm glad he's doing this - it's desperately needed, IMO.

MACH1
11-24-2009, 07:41 PM
Its about time!

But shit, now their gonna tax us even more for it.

GoSlash27
11-24-2009, 08:04 PM
I'll wait for the announcement. Right now it looks like he's not gonna send any more troops at all.

TheWarDen86
11-24-2009, 08:06 PM
I'm glad he's doing this - it's desperately needed, IMO.

Its about time!



I agree. Get it done!

Godfather
11-24-2009, 08:23 PM
Its about time!

But shit, now their gonna tax us even more for it.

It's necessary and it has to be paid for somehow. They need to cut a lot of other crap out but that's a separate issue.

In fact, it would be nice if all wars were paid for by a special war tax. We have too many armchair patriots in this country. A war tax demands a broader sacrifice, and it doesn't stick future generations with the bill.

MACH1
11-24-2009, 08:36 PM
It's necessary and it has to be paid for somehow. They need to cut a lot of other crap out but that's a separate issue.

In fact, it would be nice if all wars were paid for by a special war tax. We have too many armchair patriots in this country. A war tax demands a broader sacrifice, and it doesn't stick future generations with the bill.

Thats fine if i went away after the war.

As far as screwing future generations that's already in the works.

revefsreleets
11-24-2009, 09:08 PM
I'll wait for the announcement. Right now it looks like he's not gonna send any more troops at all.


Why? Because you don't want him to?

He took a LONG time with this...deliberated...asked questions...I have to guess that the dude did his due diligence...and he decided to make the right decision.

I'm sorry it's not to your liking, but it IS the correct decision.

SCSTILLER
11-25-2009, 06:28 AM
Why? Because you don't want him to?

He took a LONG time with this...deliberated...asked questions...I have to guess that the dude did his due diligence...and he decided to make the right decision.

I'm sorry it's not to your liking, but it IS the correct decision.


Pay attention everyone, Rev's just gave Obama credit :wink02:

I kind of agree with you, he didn't rush to make a decision. The only thing that bothered me is that he said he would listen to his generals regarding the war, and then he almost dismissed what they were asking for.

Now, if he does "escalate" the war in Afghanistan, is the left going to jump all over him like they did when Bush approved the surge in Iraq?

revefsreleets
11-25-2009, 08:10 AM
Yes, contrary to the opinions of a select few, I HAVE given credit to Obama on the few rare occasions he's actually warranted it.

However, seems the British SecDef does not share my view:

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-eu-britain-obama-afghanistan,0,1976958.story?track=rss

UK defense minister: Obama's delay hurts Britain's ability to rally support on Afghanistan

LONDON (AP) — British defense secretary Bob Ainsworth says the United States' delay in deciding how many reinforcements to send to Afghanistan has harmed his country's ability to rally public support for the war.

Ainsworth told the House of Commons defense committee Tuesday that the "period of hiatus" President Barack Obama had taken on Afghanistan was one of the things that "have mitigated against our ability to show progress" there.

Public skepticism in Britain has hardened as increasing numbers of troops have been killed. Some 235 U.K. troops have died in Afghanistan since 2001.

Since mid-September, Obama has held 10 meetings of his Afghanistan strategy review. The White House says Obama will announce his decision within days.

Fire Haley
11-25-2009, 09:27 AM
Its about time!

But shit, now their gonna tax us even more for it.


Everyone is gonna pay is right..

Obama Shatters Spending Record for First-Year Presidents


President Obama has shattered the budget record for first-year presidents -- spending nearly double what his predecessor did when he came into office and far exceeding the first-year tabs for any other U.S. president in history.

In fiscal 2009 the federal government spent $3.52 trillion -- $2.8 trillion in 2000 dollars, which sets a benchmark for comparison. That fiscal year covered the last three-and-a-half months of George W. Bush's term and the first eight-and-a-half months of Obama's.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/24/obama-shatters-spending-record-year-presidents/

MACH1
11-25-2009, 10:39 AM
Everyone is gonna pay is right..

Obama Shatters Spending Record for First-Year Presidents


President Obama has shattered the budget record for first-year presidents -- spending nearly double what his predecessor did when he came into office and far exceeding the first-year tabs for any other U.S. president in history.

In fiscal 2009 the federal government spent $3.52 trillion -- $2.8 trillion in 2000 dollars, which sets a benchmark for comparison. That fiscal year covered the last three-and-a-half months of George W. Bush's term and the first eight-and-a-half months of Obama's.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/24/obama-shatters-spending-record-year-presidents/


3...2....1.....Bu...Bu....Bu....Bush

revefsreleets
11-30-2009, 03:41 PM
Announcement tomorrow...

Obama did some smart things here. He's announcing this at West Point. George Washington awaited the finalization of the British formalizing their surrender by waiting at West Point, and he had to hold his army together as a continued threat until the the British formally submitted...this sends a message of patience.

Obama also has had pictures taken with his financial guru at the forefront...he's sending the message that he'll try to be careful with how this money is spent.

The guy is a very crafty and sophisticated customer...I'll give him that much.

BrandonCarr39
12-01-2009, 12:15 AM
Obama's only continuing the globalists agenda in the ME that Bush Jr, Clinton, Bush Sr, and previous Presidents before them have followed.

Honestly - it doesn't matter who's in the White House - they're all puppets of the elite, and even McCain admitted in the election campaigns last year that the troops in Iraq could be there another 100 years.

MT83
12-01-2009, 12:19 AM
At least McCain was honest, and I thought even he was unelectable. Obama said what he needed to get votes, and he fooled a shit load of people.

MasterOfPuppets
12-01-2009, 12:29 AM
At least McCain was honest, and I thought even he was unelectable. Obama said what he needed to get votes, and he fooled a shit load of people. well duh...if any of them told thier true agenda... nobody would vote...:doh:

fansince'76
12-01-2009, 12:29 AM
Obama's only continuing the globalists agenda in the ME that Bush Jr, Clinton, Bush Sr, and previous Presidents before them have followed.

Honestly - it doesn't matter who's in the White House - they're all puppets of the elite, and even McCain admitted in the election campaigns last year that the troops in Iraq could be there another 100 years.

Quick! Look out yer window! Do ya see a black helicopter? :couch:

GoSlash27
12-01-2009, 06:20 AM
Why? Because you don't want him to?
What a stupid question.

I said that because he's been questioning the need for additional troops for the past month.
As far as I'm concerned there are only 2 acceptable answers: 40,000 (what McChrystal asked for) or zero. Anything in between those two figures is an attempt to kick the can down the road a little farther in exchange for our troops.

GBMelBlount
12-01-2009, 06:46 AM
I like Obama.

He really cares about us.

If he feels increasing troops is necessary it must be the right thing to do, because Obama, unlike Bush, cares about us.

So what if he spends like a trophy wife with an American Express card....... at least he cares about us. :chuckle:

revefsreleets
12-01-2009, 07:46 AM
What a stupid question.

I said that because he's been questioning the need for additional troops for the past month.
As far as I'm concerned there are only 2 acceptable answers: 40,000 (what McChrystal asked for) or zero. Anything in between those two figures is an attempt to kick the can down the road a little farther in exchange for our troops.

You said this would never happen, then later said, because it hadn't officially been announced, that it STILL wasn't happening.

Guess what? You're WRONG.

Again.

And there's nothing stupid about me calling you out on it...

Oh, and you're also wrong about the 40k, too....with NATO troop involvement, the numbers will come right up to about 40,000 troops.

Finally, and this is just for general purposes, does anyone remember Obama REPEATEDLY slamming Bush for the way he spent for the War, with special appropriations? Anyone remember him saying HE would NEVER spend money like that.

Anyone want to take a guess how he's footing the 75 bil a year bill this troop increase will cost?

Look, I'm not gonna knock him too hard...this is the right thing to do, and he's actually going against most of his party AND popular opinion to make this move, which is gutsy...but I'm not going to simply overlook the fact that he's breaking more campaign promises along the way while doing this....

Dino 6 Rings
12-01-2009, 11:37 AM
Wow it only took over a year for him to decide to go look for Bin Laden in the cave he's hiding in as he indicated he was going to do during the debate.

Great job. Luckily for us nothing had to be decided to quickly.


Obama breaks with Bush Afghan policy
Flanked by military and civilian members of his top foreign policy team, President Barack Obama unveiled his eagerly awaited policy towards Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The result of a two-month review conducted by former CIA officer Bruce Riedel, it signalled a clear break with the approach adopted by the Bush administration on several levels.

The tone differed significantly when discussing the threat from militants and the rationale behind continuing America's involvement in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

There was no "you're either with us or against us", no cowboy-like "we'll smoke them out of their holes", just a simple, stern message to al-Qaeda that "we will defeat you".

He signalled that Washington was in it together with Afghanistan and Pakistan, and that the extremists the US was fighting were as much a threat to America as they were to Pakistan and Afghanistan.

"We are in Afghanistan to confront a common enemy that threatens the US, our friends and our allies, and the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan who have suffered the most at the hands of violent extremists," said Mr Obama. "The safety of people around the world is at stake," he added.

New commitment

The hope is that by framing it in those terms, Washington will be appealing to the governments of the two countries and to ordinary people to stay on board in the fight against militancy. It could resonate beyond the region as well to Muslims elsewhere in the world.

While the broad lines of the pragmatic plan were not all new or surprising, the commitment to focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan is.

Under the Bush administration, the fight against al-Qaeda and the stabilisation of Afghanistan after the fall of the Taleban was neglected as Washington focused on the war in Iraq.

Mr Obama said Afghanistan had been denied the resources it needed for the last three years as he promised to commit more in terms of development projects and training for Afghan forces.

By approaching Afganistan and Pakistan with one strategy, while recognising that they are two different countries, the Obama administration also acknowledges that any success in Afghanistan would be undermined if violence spiralled in Pakistan and vice versa.

The Bush administration's approach to the two countries had been described as unco-ordinated, and sometimes even at odds.

Aid pledge

The US president did not set a time limit, signalling a long-term commitment towards both countries. While this open-ended commitment with no clear exit strategy will worry some, it might reassure the two countries in question.

Pakistan has in the past complained that the relationship with Washington was too transactional.

A senior US official, speaking before the strategy was announced, told the BBC that the message to people in both countries, and especially Afghanistan was "we will not abandon you again or let you fall prey to the radicals".

Central to that effort will be the vast amount of aid and development projects in both Pakistan and Afghanistan.

For five years, $1.5bn (1.05bn) a year will be provided to enhance and assist the civilian government in Islamabad and provide economic opportunities for the people.

Benchmarks

The US state department is also expected to considerably increase its presence in western and northern Afghanistan, and boost the size of its embassy by half to 900 personnel, according to US media reports.

Mr Obama said these investments in money and civilian manpower would eventually help relieve the burden on US troops.

He also made clear that while it was a long-term commitment, there would be clear benchmarks to measure the success of US efforts and also Pakistani and Afghan achievements. There was to be "no blank cheque" for either government.

But to achieve that, Mr Obama also made clear that allies would need to pitch in, as he talked again and again about a comprehensive and regional approach as well international efforts.

He sounded flexible when it came to what he would ask from allies at the Nato summit next week - each to his own ability, from training efforts to aid projects and support for the Afghan elections.

Reaching out

But there will also be requests for more troops.

His regional, international approach reaches out to foes as well, like Iran, in line with his administration's policy so far of attempting to focus on areas of mutual interest with difficult partners, like China, or indeed foes like Tehran.

Pakistan and Afghanistan have both welcomed the plan and praised the level of co-ordination and dialogue with Washington in the run-up to the announcement. A Pakistani diplomat in Washington described it as unprecedented.

Inevitably, there will be tensions - as US Predator strikes against Pakistan continue, or as some take issue with Mr Obama's description of Pakistan's border region as the "most dangerous place in the world".

But, for now, the American president seems to have infused new, positive momentum into the effort to turn the tide in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7969071.stm

That article if from MARCH!

beSteelmyheart
12-01-2009, 03:51 PM
well duh...if any of them told thier true agenda... nobody would vote...:doh:
Truer words have never been spoken.:thumbsup:

The Patriot
12-01-2009, 06:41 PM
Wow it only took over a year for him to decide to go look for Bin Laden in the cave he's hiding in as he indicated he was going to do during the debate.

Great job. Luckily for us nothing had to be decided to quickly.


Or maybe the military informed him that they lacked the manpower to devote soldiers to additional search parties and so, like a good president, he decided to hold off on a campaign promise until the circumstances changed.

GoSlash27
12-01-2009, 06:45 PM
You said this would never happen, then later said, because it hadn't officially been announced, that it STILL wasn't happening.
You are a liar.
And there's nothing stupid about me calling you out on it...
Change subject, obfuscate, well-poison, personal attack
/ this is why we can't have nice things :chuckle:

revefsreleets
12-02-2009, 07:57 AM
You are a liar.

Change subject, obfuscate, well-poison, personal attack
/ this is why we can't have nice things :chuckle:

You said this surge was wrong. You said you would be proven right when Obama would decide NOT to escalate. You compared this to all sorts of irrelevant past events in history that couldn't have LESS to do with Afghanistan. You claimed that you (and, ostensibly, ONLY you) had the answer and solution to the problems in that neck of the woods.

And now that you have been proven wrong, your answer is to call me a liar for pointing out your myriad errors?

It's always the same with you know-it-alls.....even when you are DEAD WRONG, you can't just concede, you have to spin and twist (and, ironically, claim that it is ME doing the very things you are attempting, poorly, to so) and try anything you can to deny the fact that you. Were. Wrong.

revefsreleets
12-02-2009, 08:05 AM
Alright, now that THAT nonsense is behind me....

I actually thought Obama's speech was quite good. He obviously agonized over this, because this move runs counter to what pretty much everything he said leading up to this. It is, simply put, the only viable option, and I'm pleased that he made the harder choice and did the right thing.

HometownGal
12-02-2009, 08:56 AM
Alright, now that THAT nonsense is behind me....

I actually thought Obama's speech was quite good. He obviously agonized over this, because this move runs counter to what pretty much everything he said leading up to this. It is, simply put, the only viable option, and I'm pleased that he made the harder choice and did the right thing.

Obaaaaaaama's speech last night was very good and it was the first time since he's been in office that I'm actually proud to be an American. Oops - wrong thread - sorry. :chuckle: :wink:

I actually agreed with most of what he had to say. :thumbsup: Actions speak louder than words, so I'm anxious to see what develops here.

TroysBadDawg
12-02-2009, 09:24 AM
With more troops over there now than when President Bush was in office I wonder where is Cindy Sheheen now or was hers just a major political photo op?

GoSlash27
12-02-2009, 10:35 AM
You said this surge was wrong.
That I did. Not "wrong", but counterproductive. I still maintain that.
You said you would be proven right when Obama would decide NOT to escalate.
That I did not. I know that avoiding strawman arguments isn't beneficial to your debating technique, but if you would be so kind as to cite my quotes in the future, you'll come off as a lot less trollish.

your answer is to call me a liar for pointing out your myriad errors?
No, I'm calling you a liar for claiming I said things that I didn't. :wave:

It's always the same with you know-it-alls.....:blah::troll:
Wake me up when you're ready to discuss the subject, troll.

Dino 6 Rings
12-02-2009, 11:03 AM
With more troops over there now than when President Bush was in office I wonder where is Cindy Sheheen now or was hers just a major political photo op?

Actually, she's still protesting the war in both places, Iraq and Afghanistan, and has called out the rest of the anti-war movement for being partisan hacks and questions how she was used by the Democrats for photo-ops when Bush was in power.

I actually earned a bit more respect for her when I heard her make some am talk radio shows. She's standing by the "all war is wrong" montra and isn't backing down, but the left wing media won't cover her because it goes agains the "Obama is Right about Everything he does, Bush was wrong about everything he does" agenda they seem to have.

Dino 6 Rings
12-02-2009, 11:04 AM
Or maybe the military informed him that they lacked the manpower to devote soldiers to additional search parties and so, like a good president, he decided to hold off on a campaign promise until the circumstances changed.

Really? What circumstance changed exactly since March that now allows him to send 30,000 more troops instead of sending them back when they were initially asked for?

The Patriot
12-02-2009, 11:12 AM
Really? What circumstance changed exactly since March that now allows him to send 30,000 more troops instead of sending them back when they were initially asked for?

I would assume he had to carefully consider all the complexities that factor into running a country and fighting a war. Why did we wait several months to declare war after 9/11?

Dino 6 Rings
12-02-2009, 11:16 AM
I would assume he had to carefully consider all the complexities that factor into running a country and fighting a war. Why did we wait several months to declare war after 9/11?

I call BulllShit. He Said in the Debate that he'd "Go Get Osama in the cave he was hiding in" and then, backed off his own statement and only after Generals on the ground begged for more troops did he start to listen and only after his own poll numbers started to PLUMMET did he take any action in Afghanistan knowing that Most Americans want us to kill those fckers and find that scum bag Bin Laden who planned the entire thing and declared war on us on 9/11.

He's been voting Present on the issue for 10 months and now, after all that time, and hundreds of more dead US Troops, only now does he do what we all knew was needed back in March. 30-40 thousand more troops in a SURGE like effort that is PROVEN to have worked in IRAQ.

Bulllshit I say.

Dino 6 Rings
12-02-2009, 11:16 AM
How much golf has he played while "running the country" How many Basket ball games? How many speeches has he given instead of actually MAKING DECISIONS!

BUUUUULLLLLLSHIIIIIIT is called on him.

Dino 6 Rings
12-02-2009, 11:18 AM
Oh and as to your other question...we still haven't officially Declared War on anyone. they are both considered Congress authorized Military Actions...but Congress never actually Declared War.

Dino 6 Rings
12-02-2009, 11:19 AM
And it was first authorized on 9/14 2001 for Afghanstan.

3 days.

fansince'76
12-02-2009, 11:30 AM
She's standing by the "all war is wrong" montra and isn't backing down....

If it were possible, I'd really like to transport Sheehan and others who feel so adamantly that war is wrong regardless of circumstance back to December 7, 1941, and see what they'd have to say about it then.

revefsreleets
12-02-2009, 12:29 PM
That I did. Not "wrong", but counterproductive. I still maintain that.

That I did not. I know that avoiding strawman arguments isn't beneficial to your debating technique, but if you would be so kind as to cite my quotes in the future, you'll come off as a lot less trollish.


No, I'm calling you a liar for claiming I said things that I didn't. :wave:


Wake me up when you're ready to discuss the subject, troll.

I have been talking about nothing BUT the subject....you're the one who was off on some pseudo-historical tirade trying to tie some millennium old completely unrelated apples-to-oranges conflict to this one, I guess so as to thrall as all with your magnificent book learnin'...

Fail.

You were wrong, so rather than sack up and eat a little humble pie, you bash me over the head with your own frustrated failure.

You're very annoying in that you create a huge distraction and then whine when I call attention to it....

MACH1
12-02-2009, 12:37 PM
In his speech he said he would hold the "corrupt Pakistan government accountable". He's holds them to higher standards than his own administration.

revefsreleets
12-02-2009, 12:44 PM
Some of your prior posts:



It is a sink-hole that absorbs the lives of our servicemen and our national resources. Nothing can be gained from "winning" there.
It is long past time to leave.
/ at the very least, let's have an official Congressional declaration of war so it's at least legal.


You aren't the only war vet on this forum, so spare me your jingoistic emotion-based argument. I would not sacrifice a single soldier's life just to puff up your ego or make you feel that the 8 years of waste up to this point was worth it.
Americans have been bleeding in those mountains for the last 8 years, and we haven't accomplished squat. Due to the geopolitics of that region, we're never going to, either. Ask your President what the mission is there. Even he doesn't know.

The last 8 years have put us farther away from defeating AQ, not closer. You really think that repeating the same action is somehow going to yield different results?
The troops that have sacrificed there have done so for no gain, and that saddens me, but what angers me is that so many want even more deaths in the future for the same result, as if that somehow honors the fallen.

we will never defeat Al Qaeda so long as we have boots on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq.

(Bold is yours)

There was also such an obnoxious air of superiority to your posts in these old threads that I had to hold my nose to dig through them. Telling people what they were thinking, placing words in their mouths, etc, etc...and I know it when I see it, because I'm accused of the same behavior constantly. The difference is I'm talking subjectively when I do it, arguing about facts that shouldn't and couldn't really be refuted, and you're doing the same with OBJECTIVE material, on subjects where there are an infinite number of possible solutions, but you consider ONLY your own valid and all others fatally flawed simply because people drew a different conclusion from all the same available data.

Get.
Over.
Yourself.

GoSlash27
12-02-2009, 01:02 PM
we will never defeat Al Qaeda so long as we have boots on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I stand by all of it. But none of that even remotely implies the claim that you put in my mouth; "Obama won't send additional troops". So you're a lying troll.

There was also such an obnoxious air of superiority to your posts...blah blah troll blah...
You might want to review your own posts, troll. "I'm accused of the same behavior constantly."? Gee, I wonder why. :chuckle:
If anything, you take it to an unholy new level of obnoxiousness; you actually revel in the superiority of your own ignorance; as if somehow not knowing what you're talking about makes your conclusions *more* valid than everybody else's; particularly those who actually studied "the available data".
The only reason people address you with a condescending tone is because you refuse to learn before gracing us with your uninformed opinions. You know... all that "magnificent book learnin'" you disdainfully refuse to engage in. You're willfully ignorant, and that doesn't justify your imagined superiority.


Get.
Over.
Yourself.
Yes. Please do, troll. :coffee:

revefsreleets
12-02-2009, 01:13 PM
Calling me names changes NOTHING.

If memory serves, the last two times we discussed this, you said something like "We'll see if he actually increases troop levels" CLEARLY implying that you didn't think it was happening (and agreeing with your own faulty prior assessment), and then later stated that "Well, it hasn't happened yet" even though it was all but already signed off on, ostensibly holding out hope that your startgy was goig to come into play, or, worse yet that the US would offer up some third way that would result in failure.

That just occurred to me....would you rather us fail simply to prove your own opinions correct?

The longstanding US military policy has BEEN (not an opinion, a stone cold, ironclad FACT) disruption and destabilization of opposing factions so as to remove the threat of those factions forming into larger, and TRULY dangerous blocs of power. This is nothing more than a continuation of that. Vietnam. Iraq 1. Iraq 2. Afghanistan. It is a successful policy and will not change, which is why this troop surge was both correct and inevitable.

Your OPINION of that may be interesting. And you are free to oppose that strategy all you like. But it has worked, will continue to work, and will not change, nor should it. And calling me names really has little to do with anything, since I refuse to be drawn into some emotional based argument...

GoSlash27
12-02-2009, 01:28 PM
If memory serves,
Obviously you've got issues with that. Please provide exact quotes. Your strawman tactic gets stale.
"We'll see if he actually increases troop levels"
Not exactly right, but close enough.
CLEARLY implying...
Your faulty conclusion. If I had intended that, I would've said it. My point was that we didn't know at the time *what* Obama was going to do, and it was unwise to assume. Reading comprehension and critical thinking.

would you rather us fail simply to prove your own opinions correct?
Another lame attempt at a strawman. No. I would rather win.

Vietnam. Iraq 1. Iraq 2. Afghanistan. It is a successful policy and will not change
Congratulations. You're officially the first guy I've ever seen compare Iraq & Afghanistan to Vietnam and claim Vietnam was a "success". :toofunny:

And calling me names really has little to do with anything
Me calling you a liar is in response to your lies. Me calling you a troll is in response to your trolling. Don't be a lying troll in the future and you won't have to deal with the admonitions, you lying troll. :hatsoff:

revefsreleets
12-02-2009, 01:33 PM
Vietnam was considered a failed war because we didn't "win" in the conventional sense.

But in the long haul, the bigger picture, we actually achieved all our earlier stated goals concerning that conflict. The US, due to it's unique geopolitical standing in all of history, virtually immune to being invaded, master of both the Atlantic and Pacific, can actually LOSE a war and still win in the long haul.

Do you dispute that?

It certainly runs contrary to conventional thinking, and probably is at great variance with what YOU thought you KNEW, but think about it for a moment.

Dino 6 Rings
12-02-2009, 04:01 PM
Technically, by the Rules of War, the US Doesn't actually win any war because we never actually Aquire or Conquer and Claim the land we are fighting on. We eventually try to help the people we were at war with to rebuild. (not counting the Native Americans of coarse, we all recognize that as an example of American Imperialism)

El Salvador, Haiti, Grenada, Panama, Vietnam, Korea, Japan, Germany, Italy, Bosnia, Kosovo,

We didn't actually Conquer and Take over these places or even really try to.

GoSlash27
12-02-2009, 04:23 PM
But in the long haul, the bigger picture, we actually achieved all our earlier stated goals concerning that conflict.
O Rly? Do tell. Exactly what were these "earlier stated goals"?

HometownGal
12-02-2009, 05:57 PM
Jesus Christ - why don't the two of you (you know who you are) go get a room or somethin'? :banging:

If the two of you can't rationally debate this topic without the infantile name-calling and puffing out your chests, maybe a vacation would do the both of you a world of good.

In other words . . . . knock it the hell off (please). :mad:

GoSlash27
12-03-2009, 12:39 AM
HTG,
Gladly. :wink02:

revefsreleets,
You have claimed as fact that the Vietnam war "achieved all our earlier stated goals". Please elaborate. What exactly were these goals?

Fire Haley
12-03-2009, 11:31 AM
Making the world safe for poppies

http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/afghan_04_01/a36_18453883.jpg

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2008/05/18/svPOPPIES_wideweb__470x319,0.jpg

http://i612.photobucket.com/albums/tt201/Pilikia_photos/US-soldier-poppyField.png

revefsreleets
12-04-2009, 09:18 AM
Jesus Christ - why don't the two of you (you know who you are) go get a room or somethin'? :banging:

If the two of you can't rationally debate this topic without the infantile name-calling and puffing out your chests, maybe a vacation would do the both of you a world of good.

In other words . . . . knock it the hell off (please). :mad:

I have eliminated any direct adversarial tones and reverted back to simply outlining my points....not sure why I'm being called out after CLEARLY taking the high road here, but....ok....

As for this, easy...

Please elaborate. What exactly were these goals?

Previous Communist Countries, i.e. countries that were communist before the current US destabilization/disruption doctrine went into effect:


Formerly part of the Soviet Union: Armenia (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0107292), Azerbaijan (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0107305), Belarus (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0107325), Estonia (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0107501), Georgia (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0107564), Kazakhstan (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0107674), Kyrgyzstan (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0107674), Latvia (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0107706), Lithuania (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0107730), Moldova (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0107787), Russia (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0107909), Tajikistan (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0108024), Turkmenistan (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0108058), Ukraine (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0108070), and Uzbekistan (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0108128).
Other Asian countries: Afghanistan (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0107264), Cambodia (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0107378), Mongolia (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0107796), and Yemen (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0108153).
Soviet-controlled Eastern bloc countries: Bulgaria (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0107365), Czech Republic (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0107456), Germany (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0107568) (East), Hungary (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0107620), Poland (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0107891), Romania (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0107905), Slovakia (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0107967).
The Balkans: Albania (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0107268), Bosnia and Herzegovina (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0107349), Bulgaria (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0107365), Croatia (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0107439), Rep. of Macedonia (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0107738), Montenegro (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0933809), Serbia (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0108157), and Slovenia (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0107971).
Africa: Angola (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0107280), Benin (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0107337), Dem Rep. of Congo (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0198161), Ethiopia (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0107505), Somalia (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0107979), Eritrea (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0107497), and Mozambique (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0107804).

Current communist countries AFTER US destabilization/disruption policy went into effect:

: China (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0107411), Cuba (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0107443), Laos (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0107702), North Korea (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0107686), and Vietnam (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0108144).

It could certainly be argued that China is no longer a true Communist state, only a totalitarian one.

The goal of Vietnam was to stop "The domino effect", which, while the term is largely scoffed at today, still was a very real threat at the time. Revisionist history has deemed that the threat was not real, but if you take into consideration that the War DID serve it's purpose, one could certainly make a valid argument that the US actions DID in fact accomplish the stated goal of STOPPING the domino effect before it could actually take root. The proof is in the numbers above. Even if the domino effect was NOT real, there are basically only a handful of communist countries in the entire world today, while just a few decades ago they were sprouting up like weeds.

Disruption and destabilization, keeping blocs of large powers forming up against the US...these goals have been well served over the years, and (I'm not trying to be controversial, simply pointing out facts) we have maintained this policy at relatively small expense of lives and resources. Since we have never been invaded, we have never had to spend the trillions that war devastated countries have had to rebuilding their infrastructure, etc. This, coupled with our mastery of BOTH the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, is the key to the US ultimately becoming the Worlds only hyper-power.

As far as war casualties, we suffered about 1,080,000 wounded and dead in WWII. SINCE then, in all our other war efforts combined, we have suffered a TOTAL of about 390,000 casualties of war. Total dead in WWII was around 400,000. All the War's combined since have resulted in about 102,000 dead. This includes Korea, Vietnam, and both Iraq's and Afghanistan.

Long story short, we disrupted and shattered communist USSR by this policy. We are in the process of eradicating Communism from this planet. We will continue to employ this successful policy, effectively keeping any powerful Islamic blocs which could truly do us devastating harm from forming.

GoSlash27
12-04-2009, 11:17 AM
The goal of Vietnam was to stop "The domino effect", which, while the term is largely scoffed at today, still was a very real threat at the time.
You seriously believe that the "domino effect" was stopped by the Vietnam war?? :toofunny:

So sorry, but no. The domino effect was stopped by the collapse of the Soviet Union, which was a direct result of Reagan's arms race and, in small part, their war in Afghanistan.
The war in Vietnam did not hamper or deter the Soviets or the Chinese whatsoever in spreading communism. It didn't stop them from taking over that entire region, and it didn't keep them from spreading communism to Benin, Ethiopia, Guinea-Bissau, Madagascar, Cape Verde, Mozambique, Angola, Afghanistan, Grenada, or Nicaragua.

Truth is, Vietnam didn't do anything whatsoever to help us. 58,000 Americans dead. 350,000 Americans wounded. $140 Billion dollars (translates to $740 Billion adjusted for inflation), and an entire decade lost for our military's recruitment and modernization efforts. All wasted, and you pretend that it was a success??

Talk about revisionism... :coffee:

revefsreleets
12-04-2009, 01:04 PM
First off, what WAS the domino effect? It was a theory that once one country went communist, many would follow.

Well, that happened! How many communist nations were there in 1912? How many in 1945? How many in 1965? And how many now?

The USSR collapse was a DIRECT RESULT of the US policy of disruption and destabilization. Reagan's arms build-up was very much a piece of the overall puzzle.

MANY communist countries fell or converted along the way. Look at Central America, At one point there was REAL fear that the entire region would topple over to communism. The CIA bumbled it's way through but did just enough to keep things off-balance down there to ensure that one nation was wary enough of another so that there was never any real concerted effort to join up together and form a powerful bloc of Communist nations.

I'm in no way suggesting that Vietnam was a particularly well-run war. My point is that it needn't be...the difference between us "winning" there and "losing" there isn't, ultimately, going to be that significant over the long haul. The goal was achieved, more or less, but it was messy.

We are employing that strategy in the Middle East. It's working. Al Quada will fold because their goal (as is the goal of ALL radical Islamists) is a new Islamic Caliphate. Well, where is THAT going to take hold? Yemen?

Please.


We'll continue with the strategy as long as it works. That's EXACTLY why Obama went along with this plan in Afghanistan. You being on-board with it or not is completely irrelevant and immaterial...it's like denying that the sun rises in the East and sets in the West. It will whether you believe it or not....

GoSlash27
12-04-2009, 01:33 PM
I'm in no way suggesting that Vietnam was a particularly well-run war. My point is that it needn't be...the difference between us "winning" there and "losing" there isn't, ultimately, going to be that significant over the long haul. The goal was achieved, more or less, but it was messy.
You claimed as a point of fact that the Vietnam war "achieved our goals". You referenced stopping the Domino effect as the goal, and defined it as "stopping the spread of communism".

There are no two ways about it. Vietnam neither stopped nor even slowed the domino effect. So I ask again: How on earth do you call that war "successful"?
Point in fact, the Soviet Union would have collapsed regardless of whether we had participated in Vietnam or not.

And in that context (after all, you're the one that invoked it in defense of the current strategy against AQ in Iraq and Afghanistan), would you contend that in this case "losing these wars in the conventional sense" will somehow bring victory against Al Qaeda? I'm just not seeing it.

SteelCityMom
12-04-2009, 02:48 PM
I have mixed feeling about the Domino Theory and whether it worked or not. Some think that US involvement was the biggest factor in the breakup of communism, others think it was the split between Russia and China. Both probably did play a big role in the long run in the downfall of communism.

Personally, I think the economic climate of Russia and other Eastern Bloc countries contributed more to the downfall of communism than involvement in the Vietnam war did. People in those countries were already uneasy with their economic situation when the US really took hold in Vietnam, but it wasn't until a a younger generation of Soviet apparatchiks, led by Gorbachev, began advocating fundamental reform in order to reverse years of Brezhnev stagnation. The Soviet Union was facing a period of severe economic decline and needed Western technology and credits to make up for its increasing backwardness. The costs of maintaining its so-called "empire"....the military, KGB, subsidies to foreign client states....further strained the Soviet economy.

revefsreleets
12-04-2009, 03:00 PM
You claimed as a point of fact that the Vietnam war "achieved our goals". You referenced stopping the Domino effect as the goal, and defined it as "stopping the spread of communism".

There are no two ways about it. Vietnam neither stopped nor even slowed the domino effect. So I ask again: How on earth do you call that war "successful"?
Point in fact, the Soviet Union would have collapsed regardless of whether we had participated in Vietnam or not.

And in that context (after all, you're the one that invoked it in defense of the current strategy against AQ in Iraq and Afghanistan), would you contend that in this case "losing these wars in the conventional sense" will somehow bring victory against Al Qaeda? I'm just not seeing it.


Urch! Thanks for playing!

Fail.

Vietnam was HUGELY important to the downfall of the Soviet Union. Do you know ANYTHING about that region at all? Do you know that China invaded Vietnam in 1979? Do you know why? The Chinese are historically non-aggressive, yet they lunched a preemptive attack on a Soviet backed Vietnam, and, when the Soviets failed to actually BACK Vietnam, they withdrew. The Chinese were cleaning the Vietnamese collective clocks, but they backed down as SOON as they realized that Russia was a paper tiger and didn't have the stomach to actually stand toe-to-toe with them. Immediately after the "war" China broke the 1950 Sino-Soviet agreement. It also assured that the Chinese would not have to fight a two-front war with the USSR.

Western thought has always been that the Chinese failed utterly and completely, but did they really? The Chinese were actually following US doctrine of winning wars while appearing to lose.

Sigh...there's a TON more to this, including how this dovetails with USSR's involvement in Afghanistan, but...

This is hugely complex situation, and the way you try to deal with things you aren't familiar with is to shave the debate into the tiniest slivers possible in order to save a little face. It doesn't wash.

True, the USSR would have eventually collapsed without Vietnam. But when? 100 years from now? Without the US policy and doctrine in place of destabilization we'd probably STILL be in Cold War #1, and not, as we actually are, beginning to enter Cold War #2 with Russia.

Dude, we can go on like this FORVER! The FACT is this is something new to you, you decided already that you knew everything before you actually did, and you're furiously simultaneously backpeddling and dissecting arguments into smaller bites just to keep up....

Isn't it possible that I may just be RIGHT and you may be wrong?

If not, that's fine...like I said, I'm not going anywhere, and will be happy to keep citing facts and figures and historical events ad infinitum if you want to keep being contrarian and stubborn...

GoSlash27
12-04-2009, 03:55 PM
A lot of noise there, but no discernible signal.
I have been very pleased with the level of discourse over the last few posts, but it's starting to slip again. Please refrain from the ad hominem attacks and stick to the subject.
The Vietnam war contributed to the downfall of the Soviet Union... how? Please establish cause and effect and cite your sources.
Are you asserting that the Sino-Soviet rift was a direct result of the Vietnam war?

revefsreleets
12-04-2009, 04:04 PM
A lot of noise there, but no discernible signal.
I have been very pleased with the level of discourse over the last few posts, but it's starting to slip again. Please refrain from the ad hominem attacks and stick to the subject.
The Vietnam war contributed to the downfall of the Soviet Union... how? Please establish cause and effect and cite your sources.

Huh?

AH attacks where? By stating that you failed?

Are you yet another product of the new generation who were never ever told they were wrong so, when they actually ARE, they can't recognize it?

I see no other rational or reasonable explanation as to why as my expositions get longer, your dismissive and stubborn "answers" get shorter and farther and farther from any kind of actual retort to the heart of the subject matter.

I'm not the one who doesn't know what's going on here, so unless you step it up, maybe do some research and form some real retorts, I'm going to let this thread go for a bit.

There's a wealth of information you clearly aren't aware of that's available. I encourage you to familiarize yourself with it if you want to continue this discourse...

GoSlash27
12-04-2009, 04:32 PM
Please try again. I am asking for a specific argument.
The Vietnam war contributed to the downfall of the Soviet Union... how? Please establish cause and effect and cite your sources.
Are you asserting that the Sino-Soviet rift was a direct result of the Vietnam war?

If you're all finished, I will pose my argument in the meantime.

#1: Since the Vietnam war neither slowed the domino effect nor contributed in any way to the downfall of the Soviet Union, the only rational conclusion is that the war was a colossal waste of resources (both human and material) and therefore was every bit as much a strategic failure as it was a "conventional military" one.
#2 (and more importantly): The domino effect does not apply to the current problem with radical Islamic terrorism because the act of militarily confronting Communists did not create more communists as a direct result.

revefsreleets
12-04-2009, 04:47 PM
No. You're going to have to do some more research before I converse with you again. You are trotting out the same ole garbage in/garbage out conventional "wisdom" and I'm WAY past that...

Study up. Expand your argument, don't contract it. Get back to me when you're ready to argue on level ground.