Obama's surge includes a new influx of another 10.000 to the battlefront and the Afghan president is snubbing his nose at this. he claims that his people are not happy with this.

President Karzai even claims that he's about ready to switch allegiances and join the Taliban.

We are fighting terrorism over there...yet US officials have said that Al Quada forces are estimated to be less than 100.

140,000 troops fighting less than a hundred?

Just like in Iraq, the occupation continues without an end game or how a victory can be attained. The Russians found out in the 80's, fighting in Afghanistan is a losing proposition.

It's time to bring our troops home from both countries, and let these people deal with their own problems.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7094217.ece

Footwedge wrote: It's time to bring our troops home from both countries, and let these people deal with their own problems.

Agreed.

Footwedge wrote: We are fighting terrorism over there...yet US officials have said that Al Quada forces are estimated to be less than 100.

140,000 troops fighting less than a hundred?

so would you suggest we send 101 troops to fight their 100? you also realize that not all of those are combat troops? the best way to bring our troops home, is to finish off those last 100 terrorists.

gotta love the "let someone else do it" attitude. i'd rather we finish afghanistan now instead coming home now, so our kids can go back in a few years.

Footwedge wrote: We are fighting terrorism over there...yet US officials have said that Al Quada forces are estimated to be less than 100.

since when do you trust US officials?

You realize that it's impossible to kill those "last 100 terrorists". They'll still be there and there will always be more of them.

Glory Days wrote:

so would you suggest we send 101 troops to fight their 100? you also realize that not all of those are combat troops? the best way to bring our troops home, is to finish off those last 100 terrorists.

At an annual cost of 140 billion. There will be a lot more than 100 US troops killed before we find the rest of Al Quada..

And after that...then what?

gotta love the "let someone else do it" attitude. i'd rather we finish afghanistan now instead coming home now, so our kids can go back in a few years

Don't kid yourself. The US will remain in both Afghanistan and Iraq for decades. Apparently you're ok with our kids dying over there....without a definition of victory.

Footwedge wrote: We are fighting terrorism over there...yet US officials have said that Al Quada forces are estimated to be less than 100.

since when do you trust US officials?

Given the fact that our combined intelligence agencies have exaggerated the threats of terrorists time and again in the past, I find some credence whenever the head of the intel agency makes this claim.

140,000 troops at 1 billion per troop per annum.

Still buying into the "fight em over there as opposed to over here". Well, statistics show that international terrorism numbers have increased since our invasions...and attempts of terorrism continue to hit our own airlines.

Does it bother you that Karzai is considering allying with the Taliban? Just like Iraqi over the years...the home land leaders are telling the occupiers to get the fuck out of their respective country.

1. Iraq had an endgame, 2011. Combat operations and combat troops will stop then. SOFA.

2. Karzai is a massive problem, but he does have to battle hardliners in his government. The speech to parliament should be seen in the context that he was trying to appeal to the hardliners in the country. One thing to keep in mind when speaking about "middle east" politics is double talk, as leaders will say one thing to one crowd and another thing to another. It is hard to really parse the truth.

3. We need to stay in Afghanistan. The threat of terrorism is overblown, granted, but it is still a threat. If the U.S. pulls out, it allows a base for al Qaeda to reset and we are back to the 1990s where al Qaeda can roam. Yes, the U.S. has drones that do kill leaders, but we need the on the ground presence to squeeze the al Qaeda out in the open for the drones.

4. COIN works, but takes time, and is very, very shaky at times. It took a while for results in Iraq and Afghanistan is far worse, so I don't see results for another year.

Iraq does not have an end game in 2011. We have built multiple military bases, landing ports, supply ports etcetera. Even Obama has conceded that 35.000 Americans will have to stay indefinitely.

Staying in Afghanistan makes no sense at all. The COIN operation does not change anything long term. Afghanistan is a barren land with tribal people. It is much like Iraq...an endless occupation.

2011...2012...2013....we will hear the same story...over and over again.

Iraq+Afghanistan to me is the same thing as the "drug war" but on a more massive scale.

It's about principles (stop the terrorists and stop the drugs respectively) but even the people involved say it isn't really effective and it could be argued that both actually cause some of the problems they seek to solve (occupation drives people to insurgency and illegality of drugs causes only shady people to deal with them and shady people are prone to stupid violence). Neither one has a realistic way of being "won" or even a definition of what victory would be. Both cost us an absolutely insane amount of money.

Who really has a problem if 35,000 troops stay in Iraq if they aren't in fighting situations? If the Iraqi government is okay with it, it's not occupying. Iraq has come a long way after nearly everyone said it could not be won. It is being won though, remarkably.

Personally, I don't think it's really about Iraq or Afghanistan anymore so much as it is about letting Ahmadinejad know we've got a sizable force ready to pounce on his ass.

Footwedge wrote: Don't kid yourself. The US will remain in both Afghanistan and Iraq for decades. Apparently you're ok with our kids dying over there....without a definition of victory.

the taliban was removed from power-victory
al qaeda is nowhere near the force it used to be and cannot mount any real attack-victory

Footwedge wrote: Given the fact that our combined intelligence agencies have exaggerated the threats of terrorists time and again in the past, I find some credence whenever the head of the intel agency makes this claim.

didnt the head of an intel agency say there were WMD in Iraq? he could say 100 just to make it look like everything is going well over there.

Footwedge wrote: Still buying into the "fight em over there as opposed to over here". Well, statistics show that international terrorism numbers have increased since our invasions...and attempts of terorrism continue to hit our own airlines.

funny how you say they have increased since our invasions and not since 9/11. and it only shows they know they cant hurt us like they did before. they would rather hit softer targets in other countries that dont have the resolve to fight like we do. the only airline attacks originate outside of the U.S. by a bunch of unorganized "terrorists".

Footwedge wrote:Does it bother you that Karzai is considering allying with the Taliban? Just like Iraqi over the years...the home land leaders are telling the occupiers to get the fuck out of their respective country.

no, because Karzai wouldnt actually do it.

sjmvsfscs08 wrote: Who really has a problem if 35,000 troops stay in Iraq if they aren't in fighting situations? If the Iraqi government is okay with it, it's not occupying. Iraq has come a long way after nearly everyone said it could not be won. It is being won though, remarkably.

Don't you remember- that surge failed and there's going to be a civil war in Iraq?

Iraq and Afghanistan are two entirely different situations.

jhay78 wrote:

sjmvsfscs08 wrote: Who really has a problem if 35,000 troops stay in Iraq if they aren't in fighting situations? If the Iraqi government is okay with it, it's not occupying. Iraq has come a long way after nearly everyone said it could not be won. It is being won though, remarkably.

Don't you remember- that surge failed and there's going to be a civil war in Iraq?

Iraq and Afghanistan are two entirely different situations.

Which is why people shouldn't use Iraq to justify being in Afghanistan.

sjmvsfscs08 wrote: Who really has a problem if 35,000 troops stay in Iraq if they aren't in fighting situations? If the Iraqi government is okay with it, it's not occupying. Iraq has come a long way after nearly everyone said it could not be won. It is being won though, remarkably.

There are no true victors in any wars. Just remnants from death and destruction. Iraq is no different.

Iraqis have seen their country destroyed. 2 million people have crossed borders and live like nomads in neighboring countries. The unemployment rates have skyrocketed. Their living conditions are horrible and most don't even have clean water to drink.

Their infrastructure is still in ruins, and the number of children that are now orphans is staggering.

Their future is horrible, and now the US runs their country by proxy.

Personally, I don't think it's really about Iraq or Afghanistan anymore so much as it is about letting Ahmadinejad know we've got a sizable force ready to pounce on his ass.

The US has spent about 700 billion dollars in the total annihilation of Iran's biggest foe. Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs laugh their collective asses off at how stupid we were.

sjmvsfscs08 wrote: Who really has a problem if 35,000 troops stay in Iraq if they aren't in fighting situations? If the Iraqi government is okay with it, it's not occupying. Iraq has come a long way after nearly everyone said it could not be won. It is being won though, remarkably.

Personally, I don't think it's really about Iraq or Afghanistan anymore so much as it is about letting Ahmadinejad know we've got a sizable force ready to pounce on his ass.

I do.

jhay78 wrote:
Don't you remember- that surge failed and there's going to be a civil war in Iraq?

This is why the US will never leave Iraq. Because if we do, a civil war will in fact break out.

The same holds true in Afghanistan.

That's the price you pay when you invade an occupy other countries.

What is the difference between soldiers being stationed there and soldiers being stationed in Germany, Korea,.... Don't we have soldiers in like over 100 countries?

I've had family in the Air Force who have lived in Germany for like 10-15 years. We really don't hear a lot about wanting to bring them back do we?

A soldier over seas is a soldier over seas.

I'm probably going to get some flack for this, but are we turning into the new Soviet Union?
Invade a country, make them a democracy, stay there to make sure they stay a democracy. Who are to say what type of government a country should have?
If the citizens want to coup, then yes you could help them with it, but as far as going over there and imposing our will/views is no different.

bigkahuna wrote: We really don't hear a lot about wanting to bring them back do we?

haha you will now that you brought it up.

bigkahuna wrote: What is the difference between soldiers being stationed there and soldiers being stationed in Germany, Korea,.... Don't we have soldiers in like over 100 countries?

I've had family in the Air Force who have lived in Germany for like 10-15 years. We really don't hear a lot about wanting to bring them back do we?

A soldier over seas is a soldier over seas.

I'm probably going to get some flack for this, but are we turning into the new Soviet Union?
Invade a country, make them a democracy, stay there to make sure they stay a democracy. Who are to say what type of government a country should have?
If the citizens want to coup, then yes you could help them with it, but as far as going over there and imposing our will/views is no different.

Yes you do, or at least should.

Us having 56,000 troops in Germany and having 33,000 in Japan is absolutely insane. Weird how the same people that claim to be fiscal conservatives support spending that much money for what is essentially nothing. It's stupid and they shouldn't be there.

Glory Days wrote:

bigkahuna wrote: We really don't hear a lot about wanting to bring them back do we?

haha you will now that you brought it up.

And it only took one psot.

I'm not a fan of having troops all over the world but nobody mentions those troops. Until now lol.

bigkahuna wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

bigkahuna wrote: We really don't hear a lot about wanting to bring them back do we?

haha you will now that you brought it up.

And it only took one psot.

I'm not a fan of having troops all over the world but nobody mentions those troops. Until now lol.

Except we've mentioned them several times before. Look at any of the number of posts in various threads about us having 800 some military bases and how ridiculous that is. But yeah, you read into this whatever you want. This isn't even close to the first time on this forum that it's been said that we shouldn't have as large of a military presence in the world and particularly in Japan and Germany.

I'm not talking about on here, I'm simply talking period. I'm guessing because the others aren't in "active" duty.

I'll admit, I haven't read antything on these threads, but I just recently decided to post on the Politics forum.

http://www.dmzhawaii.org/?p=1226

There are plenty of people that want us out of Germany and Japan. Particularly Japan because Germany at least serves a purpose as a decent hospital.

hope they dont want our support the next time a tsunami comes their way then. but then again, you can find people here in the states who dont want a military base near them.

Glory Days wrote: hope they dont want our support the next time a tsunami comes their way then. but then again, you can find people here in the states who dont want a military base near them.

What does that mean? We need to keep all of our military bases just in case of natural disasters? We can not afford to have military in over 100 countries, nor is it needed. We have the ability to be anywhere in the world from less than 10-15 foreign bases.

Glory Days wrote: hope they dont want our support the next time a tsunami comes their way then. but then again, you can find people here in the states who dont want a military base near them.

I don't even know what you're trying to say.