The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Gun Dog Broker
Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 87

Thread: A'stan: More Troops Needed

  1. #1
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,169

    Default A'stan: More Troops Needed

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/21/wo...html?th&emc=th

    I do admire Gen. McChrystal for telling it like it is about the corruption within the local government, as the recent elections would tend to indicate.

    Perhaps it's no wonder that it would take someone from the military to call attention to it. Our Congressmen/women are so filled with scandal/corruption they may no longer be able to tell.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Bruce MacPherson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Jewell, Ore
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    Let's just see what the President, who promised during the election to take the advice of his commanders, does now. If past actions are a future indicator, The Good War, will be just another thing that falls by the wayside.
    "The longer you let a dog go in the wrong direction the more they think they are going in the right direction" Don Remien.

  3. #3
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Interesting report (see http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-s...f?hpid=topnews)). McChrystal makes a few critical points:
    1. "Resources will not win this war, but under-resourcing could lose it."
    2. "Additional resources are required, but focusing on force or resource requirements misses the point entirely. The key take away from this assessment is the urgent need for a significant change to our strategy and the way we think and operate."
    3. "Pre-occupied with protection of our own forces, we have operated in a manner that distances us -- physically and psychologically -- from the people we seek to protect. In addition, we run the risk of strategic defeat by pursuing tactical wins that cause civilian casualties or unnecessary collateral damage."
    While he indicates that more troops are needed to achieve short-term success, he indicates that it is more important to implement short term changes in the manner that our forces operate. Surprisingly, he states that there does not seem to be a problem of the local population perceiving the coalition forces as an occupying force.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Goose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    McKinney, Texas
    Posts
    796

    Default

    Here's what the President needs to do...bring our soldiers home. Now.

    Look at what's happened to us since this war started. The politicians, central bankers and crooks on Wall Street have completely destroyed a great country. We're broke and getting broker thanks to them.

    And we send our brave men and women overseas to fight a war for this? What the hell do they have to come home to? A bankrupt country. If this war is so vital to our national interests then start up the draft again and let's all get some!

    Bring our soldiers home and let the middle east go back to being the middle east. It's going to happen anyway as soon as we leave. Who are we kidding?

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Eastern NC
    Posts
    2,755

    Default

    Great idea.

    NOT.

    As long as the middle east stayed in the middle east, I might agree. However, that is not the case. Pulling the troops out now would not bode well for the United States. We must finish the job or they may come to our soil and finish what they started.


    I wonder what condition the economy would be in without us being at war. I would be willing to guess that it creates more jobs and income than we spend on fighting it. If the war stopped today, how many industries and people that support the war in various capacities would come to a halt?
    ________
    Coach Handbags
    Last edited by ducknwork; 04-21-2011 at 05:42 PM.

  6. #6
    Senior Member dnf777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Western Pa
    Posts
    6,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ducknwork View Post
    Great idea.

    NOT.

    As long as the middle east stayed in the middle east, I might agree. However, that is not the case. Pulling the troops out now would not bode well for the United States. We must finish the job or they may come to our soil and finish what they started.


    I wonder what condition the economy would be in without us being at war. I would be willing to guess that it creates more jobs and income than we spend on fighting it. If the war stopped today, how many industries and people that support the war in various capacities would come to a halt?
    Ask the Russians how NOT pulling out boded for them! I'm not sure of what our mission in A-stan is anymore. It was to get bin Laden, but that seems so passe now, especially after we let him slip from our clutches in '04. As far as them coming to our soil...who exactly to you mean? I doubt the tribal Pastuns have any desire to come to America, most have never heard of us. I think you're referring to the Islamic extremists, such as bin Laden, who are Saudi. Bombing Afghanistan to rubble will not deter nor affect in any way the majority of muslim extremists who would harm the U.S.

    I thank God everyday that I wasn't born an Afghan....who probably wouldn't know squat about the world situation, but would probably be bombed or shot for it anyway.
    God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!

  7. #7
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,196

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    Interesting report (see http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-s...f?hpid=topnews)). McChrystal makes a few critical points:
    1. "Resources will not win this war, but under-resourcing could lose it."
    2. "Additional resources are required, but focusing on force or resource requirements misses the point entirely. The key take away from this assessment is the urgent need for a significant change to our strategy and the way we think and operate."
    3. "Pre-occupied with protection of our own forces, we have operated in a manner that distances us -- physically and psychologically -- from the people we seek to protect. In addition, we run the risk of strategic defeat by pursuing tactical wins that cause civilian casualties or unnecessary collateral damage."
    While he indicates that more troops are needed to achieve short-term success, he indicates that it is more important to implement short term changes in the manner that our forces operate. Surprisingly, he states that there does not seem to be a problem of the local population perceiving the coalition forces as an occupying force.

    Thank you, Yardley, for telling us what he was really saying!

    WE would never have understood otherwise.


    Fact is, Afgahnistan is a huge mistake, no value to it, no strategic value and it is unwinnable.
    Ask Russia.
    Stan b & Elvis

  8. #8
    Senior Member dnf777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Western Pa
    Posts
    6,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by road kill View Post
    Fact is, Afgahnistan is a huge mistake, no value to it, no strategic value and it is unwinnable.
    Ask Russia.
    I think I agree with the most part; so I ask, why are we there?
    God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!

  9. #9
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,196

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dnf777 View Post
    I think I agree with the most part; so I ask, why are we there?
    Show!

    It's one man's way of denigrating another man.
    I truly beleive that "the Obama" thinks Bin Laden is in Afgahnistan and if he gets him he will be a hero.

    Iran was chosen for a myriad of reasons.

    Strategic value (central location in the region)
    WMD's as reported by Israeli intelligence (maybe Israel was wrong, maybe not)
    The people's desire for freedom (vs. Afgahnistan's disire for lawlessness)

    But noone ever discusses that, because the secular progressives would have to give up part of their religion.....Bush hating!

    So, we are now escalating Afgahnistan, for what?
    Last edited by road kill; 09-21-2009 at 03:31 PM.
    Stan b & Elvis

  10. #10
    Senior Member dnf777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Western Pa
    Posts
    6,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by road kill View Post
    Show!

    It's one man's way of denigrating another man.
    I truly beleive that "the Obama" thinks Bin Laden is in Afgahnistan and if he gets him he will be a hero.

    Iran was chosen for a myriad of reasons.

    Strategic value (central location in the region)
    WMD's as reported by Israeli intelligence (maybe Israel was wrong, maybe not)
    The people's desire for freedom (vs. Afgahnistan's disire for lawlessness)

    But noone ever discusses that, because the secular progressives would have to give up part of their religion.....Bush hating!

    So, we are now escalating Afgahnistan, for what?
    I think lawlessness is the ultimate expression of freedom. I think it was Ben Franklin (?) that said every law is an assault on man's liberty.

    Anyway, who knows where BL is? A-Stan is as good as any other guess, but he might also run a leather shop in San Jose. BL's problem is that there's not many Arabs over 6 feet tall, but he's done a good job at ducking so far.

    I find it ironic that a religious fundamentalist orchestrated the WTC attack, and in return, another fundamentalist launched a war not against the first actor, but against a different country, which incited fundamentalists of many sects to recruit jihadists.....and you poke fun at secularists! Just remember, secularists have never killed anyone in the name of God! (Hitler is debatable, but I won't go there if you don't!)

    Anyway, I wasn't jabbing at Bush. I was honestly wondering what Mr. Obama's goals are for Afghanistan, because I'm not clear on that. Someone said this is Obama's "LBJ moment"....where he can be remembered for health care reform to help Americans...or choose to continue a war beyond it's useful conclusion. I think whenever a President commits young men and women, not to mention billions (nay, trillions) of dollars, he better damn well spell out very clearly why we're being asked to sacrafice. I haven't seen that from Obama or his predecessor.

    Like I said before, most Afghans are nomadic Pashtuns who probably don't give a FF about America. I don't think there's danger of Russia taking over and establishing missile bases anymore, so I say let's get the hell out. Osama is a mere symbol of the real problem we need to deal with. In 2001-2003 it would have been symbolic and nice to have a full shoulder mount of him above the oval office fireplace, but I think we need to move on to the real issues now.

    BTW, how was the road trip? If you can't talk about it, I assume it was good!
    God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!

Similar Threads

  1. Troops depressed.....no direction
    By TXduckdog in forum POTUS Place - For those who talk Politics in the Gallery!
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-09-2009, 09:40 AM
  2. Treats for Troops
    By Richard Halstead in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-07-2009, 03:52 PM
  3. Yo Vicky...Christmas Greetings for the Troops
    By Uncle Bill in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-12-2007, 03:39 PM
  4. One more for the troops this 4th.
    By Uncle Bill in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-03-2007, 09:51 PM
  5. YOU Can Help The Troops and their Families! (GDG)
    By AmiableLabs in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-06-2007, 09:40 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •