The Conservative Cave

Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: Wretched Excess on February 17, 2009, 03:47:48 PM

Title: Obama approves troop increase in Afghanistan (17K)
Post by: Wretched Excess on February 17, 2009, 03:47:48 PM
(http://obamarama.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/obama-wants-you-to-sign-up-for-obamarama.jpg)
Defense and congressional officials say Barack Obama has approved an increase in US forces for the flagging war in Afghanistan.

The Obama administration is expected to announce today or tomorrow that it will send one additional army brigade and an unknown number of marines to Afghanistan this spring. One official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the total is about 17,000 troops.

That would be the first installment on a larger influx of US forces that have been widely expected this year. It would get a few thousand troops in place in time for the increase in fighting that usually comes with warmer weather and ahead of national elections this summer.

Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/17/obama-troop-increase-afghanistan)
Title: Re: Obama approves troop increase in Afghanistan (17K)
Post by: debk on February 17, 2009, 03:50:09 PM
Fox announced about 15 minutes ago, that more than half will be Marines....and they are going as quickly as possible.

Another 15,000 have been requested, and Obama is going to "analyze the situation, before okaying it".....


I missed the part of his resume that mentions his years at West Point.....
Title: Re: Obama approves troop increase in Afghanistan (17K)
Post by: Eupher on February 17, 2009, 03:57:19 PM

I missed the part of his resume that mentions his years at West Point.....

West Point - nope, none there
U.S. Naval Academy - nope, none there
U.S. Air Force Academy - nope, none there
The Citadel - nope, none there

come to think of it, there's a reason he wants to shake the hand of the Marine standing guard at the door of Marine One:

He never learned how to salute, much less learn how and when to don a uniform.
Title: Re: Obama approves troop increase in Afghanistan (17K)
Post by: JohnnyReb on February 17, 2009, 04:03:59 PM
What's the new hippie-dippie anti-war slogan gonna be now?

NO BLOOD FOR DOPE

NO BLOOD FOR ROCKS

KILL'EM ALL, LET OBAMA SORT'EM OUT
Title: Re: Obama approves troop increase in Afghanistan (17K)
Post by: JohnnyReb on February 17, 2009, 04:34:26 PM
(http://obamarama.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/obama-wants-you-to-sign-up-for-obamarama.jpg)

PULL MY FINGER, AMERICA.
Title: Re: Obama approves troop increase in Afghanistan (17K)
Post by: Wineslob on February 17, 2009, 04:48:22 PM
The DUmps reaction:

[youtube=425,350]<object width="480" height="295"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5UR594f25pQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5UR594f25pQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="295"></embed></object>[/youtube]
Title: Re: Obama approves troop increase in Afghanistan (17K)
Post by: franksolich on February 17, 2009, 04:53:34 PM
You know, speaking as a professional civilian, I don't know what I'm talking about here, but this disturbs me a lot.  This disturbs me a Hell of a lot.

Our military heroes who suffered injury and death during the George Bush administration did so with the confidence that the president was acting upon principle (".....let tyrants fear.....") and heartfeltly and sincerely and lovingly appreciated their sacrifices.

But 0bama, being a Democrat, one isn't so sure.

I think these guys are just cannon fodder for 0bama's ego.

This bothers me a Hell of a lot.
Title: Re: Obama approves troop increase in Afghanistan (17K)
Post by: Hawkgirl on February 17, 2009, 04:59:29 PM
I thought ObamaLiar was running his campaign on troop withdrawal.....Sucks to be a DUMMY today. :-)
Title: Re: Obama approves troop increase in Afghanistan (17K)
Post by: debk on February 17, 2009, 05:02:26 PM
I thought ObamaLiar was running his campaign on troop withdrawal.....Sucks to be a DUMMY today. :-)


That's exactly what I was thinking when I heard it earlier.

Someone please explain to me the exact difference between fighting a war in Iraq and one in Afghanistan....and don't tell me they are two different countries.

That part I know.

Isn't the enemy still essentially the same.....hothead, irrational, Islamofacists?
Title: Re: Obama approves troop increase in Afghanistan (17K)
Post by: Hawkgirl on February 17, 2009, 05:05:15 PM

That's exactly what I was thinking when I heard it earlier.

Someone please explain to me the exact difference between fighting a war in Iraq and one in Afghanistan....and don't tell me they are two different countries.

That part I know.

Isn't the enemy still essentially the same.....hothead, irrational, Islamofacists?

No no no....the terrorists are in Afghanistan not Iraq. Also, we shouldn't have deposed Sadam, but  the Taliban was ok because they were meaner  [dummy mode off]
Title: Re: Obama approves troop increase in Afghanistan (17K)
Post by: Chris_ on February 17, 2009, 05:06:31 PM
I thought ObamaLiar was running his campaign on troop withdrawal.....Sucks to be a DUMMY today. :-)
He said he'd get them out of Iraq...never said where they would go next.

Besides, now this is Oooooobama's War.
Title: Re: Obama approves troop increase in Afghanistan (17K)
Post by: Hawkgirl on February 17, 2009, 05:10:53 PM
He said he'd get them out of Iraq...never said where they would go next.

Besides, now this is Oooooobama's War.


My point was he was running an anti-War campaign. How does moving them to Afghanistan stop casualities, which was his stance.
Title: Re: Obama approves troop increase in Afghanistan (17K)
Post by: Willow on February 17, 2009, 05:11:12 PM
Has anyone heard anything thing from any war protestor since Nov. 4, 2008?
Title: Re: Obama approves troop increase in Afghanistan (17K)
Post by: Hawkgirl on February 17, 2009, 05:11:55 PM
Has anyone heard anything thing from any war protestor since Nov. 4, 2008?

Not a word.  Where is Cindy Sheehan?  Has she reacted to this breaking story yet?
Title: Re: Obama approves troop increase in Afghanistan (17K)
Post by: franksolich on February 17, 2009, 05:12:34 PM
Has anyone heard anything thing from any war protestor since Nov. 4, 2008?

No, but how much do you want to bet they're coming?  Sooner or later?

And be a black eye for 0bama.
Title: Re: Obama approves troop increase in Afghanistan (17K)
Post by: Chris_ on February 17, 2009, 05:14:06 PM
My point was he was running an anti-War campaign. How does moving them to Afghanistan stop casualities, which was his stance.
It doesn't.  Then again, are there any promises that he HAS kept?
Title: Re: Obama approves troop increase in Afghanistan (17K)
Post by: Mike220 on February 17, 2009, 05:14:43 PM
Wonder if we'll see any "Obama is Hitler" posters.
Title: Re: Obama approves troop increase in Afghanistan (17K)
Post by: Hawkgirl on February 17, 2009, 05:17:47 PM
And what about the whole liberal Petraeus Betrayed Us mantra on the front page of the NY SLimes?  Now Obama is listening to him? 
Have any Obama voters regretted their decisions yet? 
Title: Re: Obama approves troop increase in Afghanistan (17K)
Post by: Chris_ on February 17, 2009, 05:18:44 PM
Wonder if we'll see any "Obama is Hitler" posters.

Such posters have not been approved by Teh Ministry of Troof, nor sponsored by Moron.org.

I'd put that in the "No" column.
Title: Re: Obama approves troop increase in Afghanistan (17K)
Post by: Mike220 on February 17, 2009, 05:22:41 PM
Such posters have not been approved by Teh Ministry of Troof, nor sponsored by Moron.org.

I'd put that in the "No" column.

I've been meaning to ask, who's playing the role of Goebbels in this admin?

Rahmbo? Or that talking head that always does his interviews? Or someone else?
Title: Re: Obama approves troop increase in Afghanistan (17K)
Post by: Chris_ on February 17, 2009, 05:24:52 PM
Not a word.  Where is Cindy Sheehan?  Has she reacted to this breaking story yet?
The Ditch Witch is no longer useful.  Haven't heard about her going to camp outside Oooooobama's house until he agrees to bring all the troops home.
Title: Re: Obama approves troop increase in Afghanistan (17K)
Post by: Hawkgirl on February 17, 2009, 05:33:29 PM
The Ditch Witch is no longer useful.  Haven't heard about her going to camp outside Oooooobama's house until he agrees to bring all the troops home.

Pelosi must have threaghtened her freedom.  :whatever:
Title: Re: Obama approves troop increase in Afghanistan (17K)
Post by: formerlurker on February 17, 2009, 06:28:34 PM
Stop loss will commence in 5...4....3...2.....
Title: Re: Obama approves troop increase in Afghanistan (17K)
Post by: Miss Mia on February 17, 2009, 06:31:23 PM
Obama spoke out against the troop surge in Iraq, but was saying for a while that there needed to be more troops in Afghanistan. 

This move doesn't surprise me in the least.  Then I don't expect this 18-month pull out of Iraq to truly happen either.  I think a lot of Obama's supporters are going to be pissed about the extra troops in Afghanistan though. 
Title: Re: Obama approves troop increase in Afghanistan (17K)
Post by: Chris_ on February 17, 2009, 06:41:09 PM
Stop loss will commence in 5...4....3...2.....


Leftist whining about the "inhumanity" of an ObamaReich stop loss will begin in.....


[ crickets chirping ]
Title: Re: Obama approves troop increase in Afghanistan (17K)
Post by: Crazy Horse on February 17, 2009, 06:55:14 PM
He also said the US Military needs to go into PAKISTAN to find Bin Laden.
This is probably the invasion force.

Well we already have Pedators flying from bases in pakistan.............DiFi said so
Title: Re: Obama approves troop increase in Afghanistan (17K)
Post by: Wretched Excess on February 17, 2009, 08:27:05 PM
his position for a "surge" in afghanistan was a cynical campaign tactic.  he couldn't be against the iraq war and the afghanistan war (and yes, I realize that they are actually battlefields of the same larger GWOT), so he oppounistically came out in favor of a surge in afghanistan so he didn't look like a pacifist, and now he's stuck with it.

I don't think a surge will work in afghanistan.  it strikes me that was the lesson that the soviets learned in the 80s.  not that the US millitary wouldn't do it differently, but given the terrain, the culture, and the abject lack of any central authority in the history of that forsaken country, I don't see how a surge could work.  not to mention that fact that it's a pile of rocks.




 
Title: Re: Obama approves troop increase in Afghanistan (17K)
Post by: Chris_ on February 17, 2009, 08:38:17 PM
his position for a "surge" in afghanistan was a cynical campaign tactic.  he couldn't be against the iraq war and the afghanistan war (and yes, I realize that they are actually battlefields of the same larger GWOT), so he oppounistically came out in favor of a surge in afghanistan so he didn't look like a pacifist, and now he's stuck with it.

I don't think a surge will work in afghanistan.  it strikes me that was the lesson that the soviets learned in the 80s.  not that the US millitary wouldn't do it differently, but given the terrain, the culture, and the abject lack of any central authority in the history of that forsaken country, I don't see how a surge could work.  not to mention that fact that it's a pile of rocks THEIR pile of rocks.




 

What are the odds that a surge of 17,000 battlefield engineering troops engaged in building a wall around the perimeter of that Godforsaken rock pile might be more effective than 17,000 more combat troops in-country might?
Title: Re: Obama approves troop increase in Afghanistan (17K)
Post by: Eupher on February 17, 2009, 09:17:27 PM
Not a word.  Where is Cindy Sheehan?  Has she reacted to this breaking story yet?

Damn. Just damn. You could've gone all WEEK and not said that skank's name.  :censored:
Title: Re: Obama approves troop increase in Afghanistan (17K)
Post by: Crazy Horse on February 17, 2009, 09:55:53 PM
his position for a "surge" in afghanistan was a cynical campaign tactic.  he couldn't be against the iraq war and the afghanistan war (and yes, I realize that they are actually battlefields of the same larger GWOT), so he oppounistically came out in favor of a surge in afghanistan so he didn't look like a pacifist, and now he's stuck with it.

I don't think a surge will work in afghanistan.  it strikes me that was the lesson that the soviets learned in the 80s.  not that the US millitary wouldn't do it differently, but given the terrain, the culture, and the abject lack of any central authority in the history of that forsaken country, I don't see how a surge could work.  not to mention that fact that it's a pile of rocks.

The difference is in the soilder...............when the Soviets had the Spetsnaz in Afghanistan they where kicking ass...............when te Army rolled in they were mostly conscripts.....................ie failure times 10.

The US has all volunteers and a much more superior game plan..............I just hope the messiah doesn't **** that up
Title: Re: Obama approves troop increase in Afghanistan (17K)
Post by: rich_t on February 17, 2009, 10:31:16 PM
The difference is in the soilder...............when the Soviets had the Spetsnaz in Afghanistan they where kicking ass...............when te Army rolled in they were mostly conscripts.....................ie failure times 10.

The US has all volunteers and a much more superior game plan..............I just hope the messiah doesn't **** that up

One other point is that showing initiative was highly discouraged in the Soviet Army.  It is highly encouraged in the US military.

That makes a world of difference.
Title: Re: Obama approves troop increase in Afghanistan (17K)
Post by: Wretched Excess on February 17, 2009, 10:44:19 PM
What are the odds that a surge of 17,000 battlefield engineering troops engaged in building a wall around the perimeter of that Godforsaken rock pile might be more effective than 17,000 more combat troops in-country might?

I think the place is lawless and ungovernable.  and I think there is a possibility that the best we can hope for is to keep them disorganized and and on the run for several years to come.

and that is probably good enough.  you can't very well plot another 9/11 when you are dodging predator strikes.
 
Title: Re: Obama approves troop increase in Afghanistan (17K)
Post by: Chris_ on February 18, 2009, 06:06:30 AM
I think the place is lawless and ungovernable.  and I think there is a possibility that the best we can hope for is to keep them disorganized and and on the run for several years to come.

and that is probably good enough.  you can't very well plot another 9/11 when you are dodging predator strikes.
 
They could turn a couple of those piles of rocks into glow-in-the-dark glass too, but Uncle Zero would pee himself before giving that order.
Title: Re: Obama approves troop increase in Afghanistan (17K)
Post by: Chris_ on February 18, 2009, 06:30:13 AM
How interesting...my Liberal Rag paper had this widdle story
on page A7. Two tiny paragraphs. I'm shocked they didn't put
it in the Help Wanted Section.  :whatever:
Title: Re: Obama approves troop increase in Afghanistan (17K)
Post by: franksolich on February 18, 2009, 06:37:14 AM
How interesting...my Liberal Rag paper had this widdle story
on page A7. Two tiny paragraphs. I'm shocked they didn't put it in the Help Wanted Section.  :whatever:

Speaking of.....just out of curiosity, how many daily newspapers does St. Louis have any more?

I'm really concerned about this--I fully expect Time magazine to go under this year.  And even the Omaha World-Herald, once the pearl of the Great Plains (but not lately), has been hurting really badly.

And Seattle soon to be with no dailies at all.

It's all their own fault, but one dislikes seeing it happen.
Title: Re: Obama approves troop increase in Afghanistan (17K)
Post by: Chris_ on February 18, 2009, 07:28:10 AM
Speaking of.....just out of curiosity, how many daily newspapers does St. Louis have any more?

I'm really concerned about this--I fully expect Time magazine to go under this year.  And even the Omaha World-Herald, once the pearl of the Great Plains (but not lately), has been hurting really badly.

And Seattle soon to be with no dailies at all.

It's all their own fault, but one dislikes seeing it happen.
The tv news interviewed the "leadership" of our local newsrag a few days ago.  He blamed a serious drop in advertising on the economy even though their advertising sales have been dropping for about 5-6 years.  He blamed a drop in subscriptions on the innerwebz.  Of course the fact that it's a liberl rag couldn't be a problem.   ::)