Archive

Afghan President Says No to Obama's Surge

  • Glory Days
    tk421 wrote:
    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.
    yeah pretty much. thats the whole point, to be anywhere in the world at a moment's notice. you realize to operate those 10-15 foreign bases you suggest, they will have to increase in size per base. except for germany, japan, and south korea, none of the bases overseas match the size of the ones here in the states. that would change if they had to close all but 10-15.

    as of 2003, only 14 countries had more than 1,000 US troops.
    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2004/10/Global-US-Troop-Deployment-1950-2003
  • Writerbuckeye
    cbus4life wrote:
    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.
    How about we just use Sept. 11, 2001 as justification for being in Afghanistan?
  • I Wear Pants
    So are we to be in Afghanistan forever because of 9/11 then?
  • queencitybuckeye
    Writerbuckeye wrote: How about we just use Sept. 11, 2001 as justification for being in Afghanistan?
    I would agree that one would be hard pressed to argue that we were not justified here. Whether it made or makes sense as a practical matter can be debated.
  • tk421
    Glory Days wrote:
    tk421 wrote:
    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.
    yeah pretty much. thats the whole point, to be anywhere in the world at a moment's notice. you realize to operate those 10-15 foreign bases you suggest, they will have to increase in size per base. except for germany, japan, and south korea, none of the bases overseas match the size of the ones here in the states. that would change if they had to close all but 10-15.

    as of 2003, only 14 countries had more than 1,000 US troops.
    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2004/10/Global-US-Troop-Deployment-1950-2003
    Why do we have to be the world's rescuers? The idea that we need a massive empire of bases just to help other countries after natural disasters is stupid. We should pay 1 Trillion dollars a year just to be able to help out after an earthquake or some other such thing? It's ludicrous. We can not afford it, not to mention it's not our business. We do not have to help. We do because it's right, but to say that we need this massive empire just for that is ridiculous. We don't need the massive amount of people in the military that we have. The technology we have and upcoming technologies make it so that we can downsize the size of the military and the bases by more than half and still keep this country safe.
  • Footwedge
    Writerbuckeye wrote:
    cbus4life wrote:
    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.
    How about we just use Sept. 11, 2001 as justification for being in Afghanistan?
    There was plenty of justification in attacking the Taliban in 2001. You would be hard pressed to find even 1% of Americans that were against it then, or even looking back at it today.

    Eventually, one should come the realization that the benefits don't outweigh the risks.

    Our troops should have gotten out of there 7 or 8 years ago.
  • Footwedge
    Glory Days wrote:
    tk421 wrote:
    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.

    yeah pretty much. thats the whole point, to be anywhere in the world at a moment's notice. you realize to operate those 10-15 foreign bases you suggest, they will have to increase in size per base. except for germany, japan, and south korea, none of the bases overseas match the size of the ones here in the states. that would change if they had to close all but 10-15.

    as of 2003, only 14 countries had more than 1,000 US troops.
    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2004/10/Global-US-Troop-Deployment-1950-2003
    The US does not have military bases in 141 countries around the world in order to expedite help due to natural disasters.

    The US does this to flex it's military muscles in keeping eveyone else in line.

    BTW, how many countries have military bases stationed here in the states?
  • Glory Days
    tk421 wrote: Why do we have to be the world's rescuers? The idea that we need a massive empire of bases just to help other countries after natural disasters is stupid. We should pay 1 Trillion dollars a year just to be able to help out after an earthquake or some other such thing? It's ludicrous. We can not afford it, not to mention it's not our business. We do not have to help. We do because it's right, but to say that we need this massive empire just for that is ridiculous. We don't need the massive amount of people in the military that we have. The technology we have and upcoming technologies make it so that we can downsize the size of the military and the bases by more than half and still keep this country safe.
    there really is no need to explain anything else. we do it because it is the right thing to do.
    Footwedge wrote:
    The US does not have military bases in 141 countries around the world in order to expedite help due to natural disasters.

    The US does this to flex it's military muscles in keeping eveyone else in line.

    BTW, how many countries have military bases stationed here in the states?
    very very very few of those 141 military bases even have combat troops and if they are there, its just for local security. the bases are they for support and aid. we dont have foreign military bases here, but we do open our training to foreign militaries, supply them with planes, tanks, and other weapons.
  • I Wear Pants
    We should not be the world police. We can't afford it.
  • Footwedge
    Glory Days wrote:

    very very very few of those 141 military bases even have combat troops and if they are there, its just for local security. the bases are they for support and aid. we dont have foreign military bases here, but we do open our training to foreign militaries, supply them with planes, tanks, and other weapons.
    And these are just the MAJOR military bases.

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/sites.htm
  • ptown_trojans_1
    Footwedge wrote:
    And these are just the MAJOR military bases.

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/sites.htm
    A good half of those are here in the U.S. I forget which administration, maybe Clinton, tried to reduce them but Congress threw a fit and said no.

    Germany-NATO, the airbase and our tactical nuclear weapons are based there.
    Japan-little trickier, but pretty much essential against North Korea and China.
    South Korea-for North Korea
    Turkey-NATO ally, tactical nuclear weapons storage and regional presence
    Italy, tactical nuclear weapons, NATO ally, sea port.
  • LJ
    ptown_trojans_1 wrote:
    Footwedge wrote:
    And these are just the MAJOR military bases.

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/sites.htm
    A good half of those are here in the U.S. I forget which administration, maybe Clinton, tried to reduce them but Congress threw a fit and said no.

    Germany-NATO, the airbase and our tactical nuclear weapons are based there.
    Japan-little trickier, but pretty much essential against North Korea and China.
    South Korea-for North Korea
    Turkey-NATO ally, tactical nuclear weapons storage and regional presence
    Italy, tactical nuclear weapons, NATO ally, sea port.
    I am pretty sure a lot of those bases were built after WWII and the losers had their militarys dissolved.

    But I do know for the fact that BRAC did go through and shut down a lot of military bases and supply centers.
  • Glory Days
    Footwedge wrote:
    Glory Days wrote:

    very very very few of those 141 military bases even have combat troops and if they are there, its just for local security. the bases are they for support and aid. we dont have foreign military bases here, but we do open our training to foreign militaries, supply them with planes, tanks, and other weapons.
    And these are just the MAJOR military bases.

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/sites.htm
    how did they define major? one was NATO itself so i dont even know if you can count that. using that wesbite i found this as of 2006:
    About 217,000(13% of our military) spread out over these countries.
    66,418 Germany (EUCOM)
    53,360 Japan (PACOM)
    30,983 South Korea (PACOM)
    25,250 Kuwait-OIF (CENTCOM)
    11,841 Italy (EUCOM)
    10,346 United Kingdom (EUCOM)
    3,018 Guam (PACOM)
    1,942 Spain (EUCOM)
    1,801 Serbia (EUCOM)
    1,866 Iceland (NORTHCOM)
    1,763 Turkey (EUCOM)
    1,641 Bahrain (CENTCOM)
    1,366 Belgium (EUCOM)
    1,200 Djibouti (CENTCOM
    773 Diego Garcia (PACOM)
    701 Cuba (NORTHCOM)
    583 Netherlands (EUCOM)
    463 Qatar (CENTCOM)
    436 Honduras (SOUTHCOM)
    428 Greece (EUCOM)
    254 Thailand (PACOM)
    196 Australia (PACOM)
    179 Puerto Rico (USNORTHCOM)
    163 Singapore (PACOM)
    71 Norway (EUCOM)
    53 Pakistan-OEF (CENTCOM)
    45 UAE (CENTCOM)
    24 Oman (CENTCOM)
    4 Wake Island (PACOM)
    1 American Samoa (PACOM)
    1 Northern Marianas Islands(PACOM)
    1 US Virgin Islands(USNORTHCOM)

    and 731 military foreign personnel stationed in the US.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    Footwedge wrote: 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.
    Yes, it is does. The Status of Forces Agreement, go look it up.

    35,000 non combat troops. Major combat operations are already pretty much done in Iraq. Most of the fighting is done by the Iraqis.

    Yes, the situation still blows there, and democracy is messy (something the libertarians keep reminding us of), but I am sure that in 15 years, Iraq will be a functioning state. Which, by the way, is not a puppet regime, as the international order has deemed the last election fair and free.

    As for COIN, it takes time, much time, several years. Every general has said it will take many years. It is something that is stated up front. It is nitty gritty, counter intuitive warfare. It is highly adaptive, changes with the times and is constantly updating to the situations on the ground.

    Afghanistan is a tough nut to crack, but not impossible. Many thought Iraq was a lost case, but now, even against all your broad statement is a "democracy" that is starting to get their feet under themselves.

    The problem is it is a hard sell, and America is not used to a long haul war.
  • Footwedge
    ptown_trojans_1 wrote:
    Footwedge wrote: 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.
    Yes, it is does. The Status of Forces Agreement, go look it up.
    That is not the end game sold to the American people during 2003, 2004, or 2005. "When Iraq steps up, we will step down", ring a bell? We have heard the same rhetoric now coveering 3 administrations. Building a 700 million dollar embassy in the green zone of Baghdad hardly equates to having any consideration of "standing down".
    35,000 non combat troops. Major combat operations are already pretty much done in Iraq. Most of the fighting is done by the Iraqis.
    Exactly my point. We have 35,000 troops there. And they will stay there forever. That's what happens when you invade countries.
    Yes, the situation still blows there, and democracy is messy (something the libertarians keep reminding us of), but I am sure that in 15 years, Iraq will be a functioning state. Which, by the way, is not a puppet regime, as the international order has deemed the last election fair and free.
    2 million Iraqis (over 10% of their entire populkation) have left the country and live in tents across borders. The unemployment rates have gone through the roof. Their infrastructure has been blown to shriverenes. Most do not have clean water to drink. and you say the "situation blows"?

    Talk about understatements.
    s for COIN, it takes time, much time, several years. Every general has said it will take many years. It is something that is stated up front. It is nitty gritty, counter intuitive warfare. It is highly adaptive, changes with the times and is constantly updating to the situations on the ground.
    I've read about COIN, and this "new directive" is hardly any different than what has previously been employed. The only real difference is that the US will have 30,000 more troops on the ground a ta cost of 30 billion for this year alone.

    And then after 3 years, then what? And at what cost? And for what reason? Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq pose even the most remote of threats to our country. They have no military, no backing, and no weapons. And our troops continue to risk their lives over there.
    Afghanistan is a tough nut to crack, but not impossible. Many thought Iraq was a lost case, but now, even against all your broad statement is a "democracy" that is starting to get their feet under themselves.
    I really don't care whether or not they are a democracy. We have now accumulated over 42,000 casualties in "spreading democracy". We had every right in bombing the crap out of the Taliban. But this idea of governing "our way or else" is the primary reason that the international community views us as poorly as they do.

    You want to greatly reduce terrorism? Then get out of their homelands. 9-11 happened because of our everpresence in the middle east.
    The problem is it is a hard sell, and America is not used to a long haul war.
    It's a hard sell because it's a bullshit sell. Americans have had it on "war selling".
  • cbus4life
    Writerbuckeye wrote:
    cbus4life wrote:
    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.
    How about we just use Sept. 11, 2001 as justification for being in Afghanistan?
    Sure.