Obama Quietly Ups Troops in Afghanistan

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Obama Quietly Ups Troops in Afghanistan

Postby Heisenberg » Tue Oct 13, 2009 6:58 pm UTC

Washington Post wrote:President Obama announced in March that he would be sending 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. But in an unannounced move, the White House has also authorized -- and the Pentagon is deploying -- at least 13,000 troops beyond that number, according to defense officials.

Remember that guy with the Peace Prize? Well, he's sending 13,000 more dudes to the war. But it's cool, they're mostly support troops, so when they die it won't be quite so bad.

I understand not telling the public. It would be kind of awkward after you get off the phone with those Swedish guys.

The Reaper
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Contact:

Re: Obama Quietly Ups Troops in Afghanistan

Postby The Reaper » Tue Oct 13, 2009 7:04 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:
Washington Post wrote:President Obama announced in March that he would be sending 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. But in an unannounced move, the White House has also authorized -- and the Pentagon is deploying -- at least 13,000 troops beyond that number, according to defense officials.

Remember that guy with the Peace Prize? Well, he's sending 13,000 more dudes to the war. But it's cool, they're mostly support troops, so when they die it won't be quite so bad.

I understand not telling the public. It would be kind of awkward after you get off the phone with those Swedish guys.

So they're sending 21k soldiers and 13k fodder to the war? Thats good. Maybe sending 21k infantry guys they can actually do thorough sweeps.

Heres an idea that sorta worked in kosovo. take away all their guns. Can't we try that?

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Obama Quietly Ups Troops in Afghanistan

Postby Philwelch » Tue Oct 13, 2009 7:11 pm UTC

This is good news at least--he's not letting the Nobel Peace Prize get to his head.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

Walter.Horvath
Posts: 933
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 11:33 pm UTC
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Obama Quietly Ups Troops in Afghanistan

Postby Walter.Horvath » Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:01 pm UTC

I'm glad, the lack of troops in Afghanistan makes it increasingly dangerous to be stationed there. Having extra support will help until such a time that they no longer need us. The Nobel Peace Prize has no bearing on the situation whatsoever.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Obama Quietly Ups Troops in Afghanistan

Postby Heisenberg » Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:06 pm UTC

Walter.Horvath wrote:The Nobel Peace Prize has no bearing on any situation whatsoever.

The only way that statement makes sense. If true, that's sad.

User avatar
Endless Mike
Posts: 3204
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:04 pm UTC

Re: Obama Quietly Ups Troops in Afghanistan

Postby Endless Mike » Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:12 pm UTC

But he took troops out of Iraq!

User avatar
Woxor
Posts: 506
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 11:28 pm UTC

Re: Obama Quietly Ups Troops in Afghanistan

Postby Woxor » Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:22 pm UTC

Walter.Horvath wrote:The Nobel Peace Prize has no bearing on the situation whatsoever.

Except for the fact that this knocks down those "the Nobel prize will threaten our security by preventing Obama from sending more troops" arguments.

Walter.Horvath
Posts: 933
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 11:33 pm UTC
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Obama Quietly Ups Troops in Afghanistan

Postby Walter.Horvath » Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:23 pm UTC

Endless Mike wrote:But he took troops out of Iraq!

Not fully, they're still there, just no longer present in cities. In any case, the Iraqi govt. passed a 'bill' (?) requiring all US troops to be gone by 2012 in any case; Whoever was president would have complied.

Ohh, the non-existent citations.

Heisenberg wrote:
Walter.Horvath wrote:The Nobel Peace Prize has no bearing on any situation whatsoever.

The only way that statement makes sense. If true, that's sad.

It shouldn't change a person's thought process at all. If they feel that they need to change to become 'worthy' of the prize, then they did not deserve it in the first place.

User avatar
Briareos
Posts: 1940
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 12:40 pm UTC
Location: Town of the Big House

Re: Obama Quietly Ups Troops in Afghanistan

Postby Briareos » Tue Oct 13, 2009 10:26 pm UTC

Walter.Horvath wrote:
Heisenberg wrote:
Walter.Horvath wrote:The Nobel Peace Prize has no bearing on any situation whatsoever.

The only way that statement makes sense. If true, that's sad.

It shouldn't change a person's thought process at all. If they feel that they need to change to become 'worthy' of the prize, then they did not deserve it in the first place.
This may be symptomatic of a problem with the timing of the prize in this case.
Sandry wrote:Bless you, Briareos.

Blriaraisghaasghoasufdpt.
Oregonaut wrote:Briareos is my new bestest friend.

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Obama Quietly Ups Troops in Afghanistan

Postby Philwelch » Wed Oct 14, 2009 1:47 am UTC

Woxor wrote:
Walter.Horvath wrote:The Nobel Peace Prize has no bearing on the situation whatsoever.

Except for the fact that this knocks down those "the Nobel prize will threaten our security by preventing Obama from sending more troops" arguments.


It also knocks down the "the Nobel prize will encourage Obama to act peacefully" argument as well. Actually, this only goes to show how useless it was to award the prize to Obama--not only has Obama done nothing in the past to merit the prize, it is now obvious that his current and future decisions will be unaffected by the prize as well.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

Walter.Horvath
Posts: 933
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 11:33 pm UTC
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Obama Quietly Ups Troops in Afghanistan

Postby Walter.Horvath » Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:18 am UTC

Philwelch wrote:It also knocks down the "the Nobel prize will encourage Obama to act peacefully" argument as well. Actually, this only goes to show how useless it was to award the prize to Obama--not only has Obama done nothing in the past to merit the prize, it is now obvious that his current and future decisions will be unaffected by the prize as well.

I was hoping that the argument wouldn't go here. Helping Afghanistan and their peoples is an important venture that must be pursued to assure future stability in the region (and also possibly on the home front). People fail to realize that America has some politicans, sometimes, that realize the duty it has to help others in the world who would otherwise not stand a chance and surely die or at least be displaced. Charlie Wilson did the same exact thing in the 1980s, was unpopular for it, but saved countless lives.
It can also be seen that increasing troop numbers in occupied lands will not only decrease the percentage of fatalities (as logic would dictate), but also a decrease in the overall number of fatalities. This is one aspect of the Republicans' agenda that Americans can not understand most of the time, chiefly due to fear tactics employed by Democrats from 2003-2008.
As Obama has graduated to executive power, he no doubt realizes the only possible courses of action for the future of our country.

The humanitarian effort in foreign countries has historically plagued the minds of our greatest politicians. Jimmy Carter has said that his greatest regret was not being more involved in Rwanda (a result of the fear mongering on the result of the conflict in Somalia, and specifically Black Hawk Down). President Reagan succumed to the foriegn pressure in Afghanistan and approved the shipping of Stinger missiles to Afghanistan, which ended the stalemate between the Mujahideen and the Soviet Union.
If anything should be taken from history, we should realize that we have been wrong in the past, will continue to make the same mistakes in the future, and it will take too long to regret any of it for a difference to be made.
Last edited by Walter.Horvath on Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:20 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Woxor
Posts: 506
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 11:28 pm UTC

Re: Obama Quietly Ups Troops in Afghanistan

Postby Woxor » Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:19 am UTC

Philwelch wrote:It also knocks down the "the Nobel prize will encourage Obama to act peacefully" argument as well. Actually, this only goes to show how useless it was to award the prize to Obama--not only has Obama done nothing in the past to merit the prize, it is now obvious that his current and future decisions will be unaffected by the prize as well.

It's not the Nobel Pacifism Prize. Obama did not invade Afghanistan. His objective need not be stopping the war immediately in order to "act peacefully," particularly "in the future."

User avatar
Brooklynxman
Because I'm Awesome
Posts: 609
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:27 pm UTC
Location: Here
Contact:

Re: Obama Quietly Ups Troops in Afghanistan

Postby Brooklynxman » Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:37 am UTC

This is one of the reasons I am upset he got the Nobel Peace Prize. But that aside, HELL YES!

I am very happy he is doing this.
We figure out what all this means, then do something large and violent

The thing about changing the world...once you do it the world's all different.

I'm Angel. I beat the bad guys.

Spoiler:
Image

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Obama Quietly Ups Troops in Afghanistan

Postby Philwelch » Wed Oct 14, 2009 3:22 am UTC

Walter.Horvath wrote:
Philwelch wrote:It also knocks down the "the Nobel prize will encourage Obama to act peacefully" argument as well. Actually, this only goes to show how useless it was to award the prize to Obama--not only has Obama done nothing in the past to merit the prize, it is now obvious that his current and future decisions will be unaffected by the prize as well.

I was hoping that the argument wouldn't go here. Helping Afghanistan and their peoples is an important venture that must be pursued to assure future stability in the region (and also possibly on the home front). People fail to realize that America has some politicans, sometimes, that realize the duty it has to help others in the world who would otherwise not stand a chance and surely die or at least be displaced.


While you're right and I agree it's a worthwhile mission, it's still somewhat against the ideals and mentalities one would normally associate with the Nobel Peace Prize.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Obama Quietly Ups Troops in Afghanistan

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Oct 14, 2009 3:37 am UTC

Philwelch wrote:While you're right and I agree it's a worthwhile mission, it's still somewhat against the ideals and mentalities one would normally associate with the Nobel Peace Prize.
While I agree that giving Obama the Nobel Peace Prize was a rather silly move - and while I'm not a very big fan of Obama myself - are you suggesting that the President of the United States can make good decisions on an international stage that don't involve the use of force?

People in positions of power often must make decisions that involve the use of violence. We might as well disqualify anyone in any position where they'll ever have to authorize the use of violence (see: All world leaders, ever).

User avatar
Jahoclave
sourmilk's moderator
Posts: 4790
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:34 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Obama Quietly Ups Troops in Afghanistan

Postby Jahoclave » Wed Oct 14, 2009 3:51 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
Philwelch wrote:While you're right and I agree it's a worthwhile mission, it's still somewhat against the ideals and mentalities one would normally associate with the Nobel Peace Prize.
While I agree that giving Obama the Nobel Peace Prize was a rather silly move - and while I'm not a very big fan of Obama myself - are you suggesting that the President of the United States can make good decisions on an international stage that don't involve the use of force?

People in positions of power often must make decisions that involve the use of violence. We might as well disqualify anyone in any position where they'll ever have to authorize the use of violence (see: All world leaders, ever).

And it's not like he wasn't handed shit on a platter. He does nothing, Afghanistan turns into a a sweltering shithole of sectarian violence and a breeding ground for terrorism throughout the world. Or, he can try to actually build a semi-respectable nation with some security. In terms of world peace, the later actually seems like a better option.

Oh, by the way, we're speeding up production of a 15 ton bomb that'll be the largest non-nuclear weapon in our arsenal. Was even Fox New's top story for awhile.

Besides, we bombed the Moon hours after he got the award. BOMBED THE MOON! I'll have you know how awesome and important that is.

Duban
Posts: 352
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 1:22 pm UTC

Re: Obama Quietly Ups Troops in Afghanistan

Postby Duban » Wed Oct 14, 2009 3:57 am UTC

Obama said he planned on moving troops out of Iraq and to Afghanistan from the beginning. A lot of people saw the"out of iraq" but completely ignored the "into Afghanistan" part, but it was there.
It is not the gods I fear. No, It is those who claim to speak for them that concern me.

Walter.Horvath
Posts: 933
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 11:33 pm UTC
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Obama Quietly Ups Troops in Afghanistan

Postby Walter.Horvath » Wed Oct 14, 2009 4:02 am UTC

Philwelch wrote:While you're right and I agree it's a worthwhile mission, it's still somewhat against the ideals and mentalities one would normally associate with the Nobel Peace Prize.

There is no other way to do it than 'violence'.

What you call violence is simply a response to attacks most of the time; We aren't openly looking for a fight.

The violence that does occur, however, is overwhelmingly negated by the good that it does for the world, I'd say.

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: Obama Quietly Ups Troops in Afghanistan

Postby netcrusher88 » Wed Oct 14, 2009 4:35 am UTC

A commitment of 13,000 troops is far less than the 40,000 that some people were expecting or arguing for. You can't present the 21k commitment as currently relevant, that was a decision made more than six months ago well before the current push for more troops. The fact that the new 13k commitment is largely support is interesting to me, though I can't quite articulate why.

Also, referring to support (or any military personnel) as "[cannon] fodder" and saying "when they die it won't be quite so bad" in contrast with infantry? Not cool. Tell you what, go fight a battle without communications, intelligence, supply, medical, or long-range transportation and then we'll talk about the utility of support personnel.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

User avatar
Pez Dispens3r
is not a stick figure.
Posts: 2079
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 3:08 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Obama Quietly Ups Troops in Afghanistan

Postby Pez Dispens3r » Wed Oct 14, 2009 4:55 am UTC

The Reaper wrote:So they're sending 21k soldiers and 13k fodder to the war?

21k infantry are next to useless without support. It's one of those things soldiers tend to notice most if it becomes non-existent.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:I feel like you're probably an ocelot, and I feel like I want to eat you. Feeling is fun!
this isn't my cow

Jennym
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 12:44 am UTC

Re: Obama Quietly Ups Troops in Afghanistan

Postby Jennym » Wed Oct 14, 2009 6:51 am UTC

I agree with Heinsberg and Hippo: this really isn't a good sign at all. More troops in Afghanistan has done nothing and has only increased the taliban's popularity, we need to somehow enact a diplomatic solution and get the fuck out of there, Iraq too. And I too, don't understand why he got the Nobel. It should've gone to Chomsky or someone actually worthy.

Walter.Horvath
Posts: 933
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 11:33 pm UTC
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Obama Quietly Ups Troops in Afghanistan

Postby Walter.Horvath » Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:32 am UTC

Jennym wrote:I agree with Heinsberg and Hippo: this really isn't a good sign at all. More troops in Afghanistan has done nothing and has only increased the taliban's popularity, we need to somehow enact a diplomatic solution and get the fuck out of there, Iraq too. And I too, don't understand why he got the Nobel. It should've gone to Chomsky or someone actually worthy.

The Taliban's popularity? I have no idea what you're trying to say by that. The popularity of the Taliban in the eyes of Afghanis? Americans?

Because I don't have enough time to explain why that makes no sense...

User avatar
defaultusername
Posts: 329
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2008 9:15 pm UTC
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Re: Obama Quietly Ups Troops in Afghanistan

Postby defaultusername » Wed Oct 14, 2009 12:01 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:It would be kind of awkward after you get off the phone with those Swedish guys.
They're Norwegians I tell you! Norwegians!
Because phlogiston.

User avatar
TheKrikkitWars
Posts: 2205
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:08 pm UTC
Location: Bangor, Gwynedd, Gogledd Cymru
Contact:

Re: Obama Quietly Ups Troops in Afghanistan

Postby TheKrikkitWars » Wed Oct 14, 2009 12:13 pm UTC

Firstly can i just draw you to this interesting tautology: Persuing Peace != Pacifism && Pacifism == Persuing Peace

That aside, the war(s) in afganastan are something I've studied in some detail and based on both the expereince and assessments of the GRU and Frunze Academy in the Soviet-Afgan war, and the information coming from sources such as Gen. Stanley McChrystal and our own news media I'd tend to agree with the assessment of Gen. Sir David Richards who talking about british forces in Helmand said
    "The Army’s role will evolve, but the whole process might take as long as 30 to 40 years.
Going on to clarify with
    [There is] absolutely no chance [of NATO pulling out]. I believe that the UK will be committed to Afghanistan in some manner — development, governance, security sector reform — for the next 30 to 40 years,
I'm glad it appears that american politicians seem to be growing some balls and staying the fight!
Last edited by TheKrikkitWars on Wed Oct 14, 2009 6:10 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
Great things are done when Men & Mountains meet,
This is not Done by Jostling in the Street.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Obama Quietly Ups Troops in Afghanistan

Postby Heisenberg » Wed Oct 14, 2009 1:27 pm UTC

Walter.Horvath wrote:There is no other way to do it than 'violence'.
You see, this line of thinking is in direct opposition to the ideals of the Nobel Peace Prize. That's not to say I have a better solution, but then again, my mantle is prize-less.
netcrusher88 wrote:Also, referring to support (or any military personnel) as "[cannon] fodder" and saying "when they die it won't be quite so bad" in contrast with infantry? Not cool. Tell you what, go fight a battle without communications, intelligence, supply, medical, or long-range transportation and then we'll talk about the utility of support personnel.
I meant my comment to be sarcastic. As in "Obama chose not to mention these 13,000 soldiers because he thought they were less important." Obviously they are important, which is why they deserve mention. I'd find it funny if his choice not to mention them was related to the Prize.
defaultusername wrote:
Heisenberg wrote:It would be kind of awkward after you get off the phone with those Swedish guys.
They're Norwegians I tell you! Norwegians!
Apologies. Norwegians.

Jennym
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 12:44 am UTC

Re: Obama Quietly Ups Troops in Afghanistan

Postby Jennym » Wed Oct 14, 2009 4:33 pm UTC

Walter.Horvath wrote:
Jennym wrote:I agree with Heinsberg and Hippo: this really isn't a good sign at all. More troops in Afghanistan has done nothing and has only increased the taliban's popularity, we need to somehow enact a diplomatic solution and get the fuck out of there, Iraq too. And I too, don't understand why he got the Nobel. It should've gone to Chomsky or someone actually worthy.

The Taliban's popularity? I have no idea what you're trying to say by that. The popularity of the Taliban in the eyes of Afghanis? Americans?

Because I don't have enough time to explain why that makes no sense...


Sorry, I meant the taliban's popularity in Afghanistan.

Walter.Horvath
Posts: 933
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 11:33 pm UTC
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Obama Quietly Ups Troops in Afghanistan

Postby Walter.Horvath » Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:29 pm UTC

Jennym wrote:
Walter.Horvath wrote:
Jennym wrote:I agree with Heinsberg and Hippo: this really isn't a good sign at all. More troops in Afghanistan has done nothing and has only increased the taliban's popularity, we need to somehow enact a diplomatic solution and get the fuck out of there, Iraq too. And I too, don't understand why he got the Nobel. It should've gone to Chomsky or someone actually worthy.

The Taliban's popularity? I have no idea what you're trying to say by that. The popularity of the Taliban in the eyes of Afghanis? Americans?

Because I don't have enough time to explain why that makes no sense...


Sorry, I meant the taliban's popularity in Afghanistan.

Fortunately that doesn't happen (usually) anymore. The recent goodwill missions (especially to tribal peoples) has greatly increased the trust of the United States. In general, public opinion seems to be swaying to distrust of the Taliban, to a point where I would find it hard to imagine that media coverage would make any difference in the Taliban's power.

User avatar
Hated
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 8:30 am UTC

Re: Obama Quietly Ups Troops in Afghanistan

Postby Hated » Thu Oct 15, 2009 7:14 am UTC



Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests