Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 75
  1. #46
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Amsterdam/Maryland
    Posts
    720
    vCash
    1500
    http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-epi...=synd_facebook

    Gen. McChrystal had some comments on this very subject in yesterday's Daily Show.

    Afghanistan is a bottomless pit that will swallow men and resources for ever. No foreign power has ever succeeded in imposing its will for more than a limited period. We should get out of there before we lose one more life. I'll predict that the Taliban will retake 'power' within at most two years after the last foreign troops leave that awful place.
    Last edited by AmsterNat; 01-09-2013 at 09:01 PM. Reason: typo

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    the Rapids
    Posts
    2,853
    vCash
    1500
    ^^ Except for the Arms race in the the 80's, this country hasn't "won" a war/conflict against foreign enemy since WW2---even that can be up to debate.
    Offseason To Do List:
    1. Make an offseason to do list.
    2. Get some tips on the ladies from Clark the Cub.
    3. P90X with Prince Fielder.
    4. Compile top ten list of top ten G.O.A.T. top ten lists.

    _______________________


    That Ain't No Bat. That A Kickstand!

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    16,350
    vCash
    1500

    White House Conference Call on Afghan President Karzai’s Upcoming Visit

    On a related note...

    Speakers: Major General Douglas E. Lute, and Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communication Ben Rhodes

    Excerpt from the transcript:

    QUESTION: A question with regard to the issue of what U.S. troops might remain in Afghanistan after 2014, there's been some talk in recent days in some circles about a so-called "zero option" -- that is no U.S. troops to remain on the ground based in Afghanistan after 2014. Is that an option you're considering? And could you also walk us through some of the other options you're considering?

    MR. RHODES: I'd just say a version of what I said before, which is that would be an option that we would consider, because the President does not view these negotiations as having a goal of keeping U.S. troops in Afghanistan. He views these negotiations as in service of the two missions, security missions identified post-2014 -- again, counterterrorism particularly focused on al Qaeda and its affiliates, and training and equipping of ANSF.

    So that's the objective. The U.S. does not have an inherent objective of X number of troops in Afghanistan. We have an objective of making sure there's no safe haven for al Qaeda within Afghanistan and making sure that the Afghan government has a security force that is sufficient to ensure the stability of the Afghan government and the denial of that safe haven. So that's what guides us and that's what causes us to look for different potential troop numbers or not having potential troops in the country.

    Now, with the Afghans we'll be discussing how to best achieve those missions consistent with I think Afghanistan's shared interest in a partnership with the United States. I think we both agree, both our countries agree that there is an interest in an enduring partnership between the United States and Afghanistan. Afghans need to know that as they stand up for their security, they won't stand alone. And so, therefore, they know, for instance, that there is going to be sufficient resources from the U.S. and international community for their security forces after 2014. They need to know that there's going to be continued equipping of their security forces, because there's simply no way that they could do that, for instance, on their own as soon as 2015.

    So we know that we have an interest in an enduring partnership. We also know we have an interest in Afghans having full sovereignty and full ownership over the affairs of their country. And so, how we balance and achieve those objectives -- Afghan sovereignty, Afghanistan is fully responsible for its security, denial of a safe haven to al Qaeda -- those are the guiding factors for the BSA negotiations. And, again, we'll look at a range of options for how we might achieve that. Some of those options would include different levels of U.S. troops.

    But, again, it is not an objective in and of itself to have a certain number of troops.

    GENERAL LUTE: The only thing I would add is that the key variables here in terms of where we will end up in post-2014 are the strength and resilience of al Qaeda, the development of Afghan capacity, and the authorities we were granted. So we're working on all of those.

    The campaign against al Qaeda continues. We have two years between now and the end of 2014. We've made a lot of progress against al Qaeda, but the job is not done. So that remains a variable.

    The Afghan National Security Forces are a work in progress. Again, we've made a lot of progress over the last three or four years, but they're not -- that's not a completed task. So how much more progress do we make in the next two years -- that will be a key variable in terms of where we end up in 2015.

    And then, finally, the authorities granted. As we know from our Iraq experience, if there are no authorities granted by the sovereign state, then there is not room for a follow on a U.S. military mission.

    So there are a lot of variables in play. We're working on all of them. And one of the key things we want to do is consult with our Afghan partners this week.


    I heard you were looking for me.

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    40,234
    vCash
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by flea View Post
    Goddamn them for starting a war 11 years ago when they knew perfectly well it was going to go horribly and last 15+ years despite attempts to cut bait.
    Not sure if serious or sarcastic. But a ton of people did call this Vietnam v 2 back when this all started because there was no clear military objective or means of accomplishing anything that would be considered decisive.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    19,669
    vCash
    1500
    So we're "ending the war" in 2014, yet are keeping troops there is some combat aspect in one form or the other for an undisclosed amount of time. You'd hope the majority of the American people would see something wrong with what they're being told...

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    16,350
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by The Schmooze View Post
    So we're "ending the war" in 2014, yet are keeping troops there is some combat aspect in one form or the other for an undisclosed amount of time.
    Not necessarily.


    I heard you were looking for me.

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    19,669
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Yagyu+ View Post
    Not necessarily.
    It's in the agreement we signed with the Afghani government. We will be involved in some form or another until 2024.

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    16,350
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by The Schmooze View Post
    It's in the agreement we signed with the Afghani government. We will be involved in some form or another until 2024.
    The size of that residual force will ultimately be pretty minute. We'll have personnel in country, be it special forces and/or support staff/trainers, etc., but the point is over the past two months the Pentagon's desired footprint of 20,000 U.S. combat troops has already been argued down dramatically, and the final agreed upon number shouldn't amount to much.


    I heard you were looking for me.

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    19,669
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Yagyu+ View Post
    The size of that residual force will ultimately be pretty minute. We'll have personnel in country, be it special forces and/or support staff/trainers, etc., but the point is over the past two months the Pentagon's desired footprint of 20,000 U.S. combat troops has already been argued down dramatically, and the final agreed upon number shouldn't amount to much.
    I agree, my point is just that even if it's a smal group of special forces, or ground troops in a limited role...aren't we still at "war"?

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ja-Blam
    Posts
    7,750
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Jester4k0 View Post
    ^^ Except for the Arms race in the the 80's, this country hasn't "won" a war/conflict against foreign enemy since WW2---even that can be up to debate.
    So much fail in that post.

    First: WW2 "up to debate"?

    Both Germany and Japan unconditionally surrendered. The tide turned against Germany after the joint US led invasion of France. The Supreme Allied Commander was an American. There is no debate.

    Second: Have you not heard about the Gulf War? We absolutely "won" the war against Iraq in the early 90s. I'd like to see any evidence to the contrary.
    Quote Originally Posted by AmsterNat View Post
    How unsurprising. Dude, give up trying to argue with valade. He cut you into little pieces, had you for breakfast, and shat you out.
    Quote Originally Posted by mariner4life View Post
    Valade you have totally owned this thread. Well done
    My fanbase is growing.

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ja-Blam
    Posts
    7,750
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by The Schmooze View Post
    I agree, my point is just that even if it's a smal group of special forces, or ground troops in a limited role...aren't we still at "war"?
    We'd primarily be in an advisory and training role, we've relinquished direct control of nearly all combat operations as it is.

    I don't think we'd still be at war anymore than we're "at war" with all the African countries where we've sent Special Forces in for NATO and other Peace keeping operations.
    Quote Originally Posted by AmsterNat View Post
    How unsurprising. Dude, give up trying to argue with valade. He cut you into little pieces, had you for breakfast, and shat you out.
    Quote Originally Posted by mariner4life View Post
    Valade you have totally owned this thread. Well done
    My fanbase is growing.

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    16,350
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by The Schmooze View Post
    I agree, my point is just that even if it's a smal group of special forces, or ground troops in a limited role...aren't we still at "war"?
    Not so much. We'll be funding/arming the Afghan National Security Forces, which is a mess in its own right, but post 2014 my guess is that the SIGAR quarterly reports concerning personnel numbers are going to mostly reflect embassy security in Kabul.


    I heard you were looking for me.

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    4,913
    vCash
    1500
    still spending on a non-declared war
    [

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    6,318
    vCash
    1500
    soooo,
    Obama announced a draw done in three months and a complete combat wothdral before 2014.

    He also has stated that without Immunity from Afghan prosecution, he would not allow any troops to remain...not one.

    Dont you guys so desperate to paint Obama as a failed leader get tired of Jumping the gun and being wrong?

    It happens every couple of weeks and the worst part is you ignore your epic fail and move on to the next thing on your list that you can B!&ch about.

    This is the right move(again) from a President that has had nothing but right moves from just about day 1.
    STORK WAS RIGHT!
    Mcfadden is useless

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    555
    vCash
    1500
    Looks like we have a lot of CO's, staff NCO's, 0369's, etc. here.

    Right?

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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