Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-12-2009, 02:49 PM
 
3,292 posts, read 4,473,891 times
Reputation: 822

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by nvxplorer View Post
Guess the Generals know more than the Ambassador, who was a commander in Afghanistan.

Eikenberry, who once commanded forces in Afghanistan, resigned his Army commission to take the job as U.S. ambassador in Kabul earlier this year, and his is an influential voice among those advising President Barack Obama on Afghanistan.

Eikenberry sent multiple classified cables to Washington over the past week that question the wisdom of adding forces when the Afghan political situation is unstable and uncertain, said an official familiar with the cables.
He's right, people seem to have a strange view on Afghanistan.

It has not been a nation-state for at least half a decade, even longer than that.

It's a failed state that has been under constant civil war between various factions. Adding more troops will not add more stability to the region.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-12-2009, 02:56 PM
 
35,016 posts, read 39,151,733 times
Reputation: 6195
Quote:
Originally Posted by USNRET04 View Post
Obama won't accept any of the war options before him without changes, as concerns soar over the ability of the Afghan government to secure its own country

Obama Calls for Revised Afghanistan War Options - FOXNews.com

Guess he knows better than his Generals.
Classic spin. "Obama Calls for Revised Afghanistan War Options" does not mean "Obama Rejects All War Options."

And oh look.
"....[Obama is] pushing instead for revisions to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government....

That stance comes in the midst of forceful reservations about a possible troop buildup from the U.S. ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry....

In strongly worded classified cables to Washington, Eikenberry said he had misgivings about sending in new troops while there are still so many questions about the leadership of Afghan President Hamid Karzai....

Eikenberry made the point that the administration should step cautiously in planning for any troop buildup while there are still so many questions surrounding Afghan President Hamid Karzai, the official said. Eikenberry is the front line U.S. official dealing with Karzai...."
You're out-fauxing Faux there, USNRet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2009, 02:59 PM
 
48,502 posts, read 96,848,488 times
Reputation: 18304
When I was hearing about his wanting to change the option he decided on in March this is what entered my mind,. Whenh the Bu8sh administrtion decided to do the surge in Iraq ;Obama and clinotn with most democrats said it would not work.then thqat it wasn't working but then we saw that it did work, Since he has drawn down the trops security is worse again. I think that was a political decision then and he might be making one now to appease the liberal wings of the party by doing a half measure. I'd rather get out than not give pour troops the number of boots they need on the ground to do the job.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2009, 03:19 PM
 
35,016 posts, read 39,151,733 times
Reputation: 6195
Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav View Post
When I was hearing about his wanting to change the option he decided on in March this is what entered my mind,. Whenh the Bu8sh administrtion decided to do the surge in Iraq ;Obama and clinotn with most democrats said it would not work.then thqat it wasn't working but then we saw that it did work, Since he has drawn down the trops security is worse again. I think that was a political decision then and he might be making one now to appease the liberal wings of the party by doing a half measure. I'd rather get out than not give pour troops the number of boots they need on the ground to do the job.
Or, maybe he's listening to and processing the information from people who are actually in Afghanistan and know what's going on, and making the best decision.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2009, 04:34 PM
 
Location: MI
1,933 posts, read 1,825,186 times
Reputation: 509
Default Prisoners

Has anyone thought of training some of our prisoners for duty in the wars? We spend tax dollars in the thousands each year for criminals. Couldn't we train them, the non-violent youthful ones, to fight for their freedom and their country?

Non-violent to me means non murderers. I really want us to avoid the draft.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2009, 04:36 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
37,963 posts, read 22,147,086 times
Reputation: 13799
Quote:
Originally Posted by USNRET04 View Post
Obama won't accept any of the war options before him without changes, as concerns soar over the ability of the Afghan government to secure its own country

Obama Calls for Revised Afghanistan War Options - FOXNews.com

Guess he knows better than his Generals.
He must be drawing on his deep well of experience in making executive decisions. 0bama does not trust his own judgment on important matters, you think he would trust those of the military? Looks like time for another summit meeting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2009, 04:38 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
37,963 posts, read 22,147,086 times
Reputation: 13799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freemore View Post
Has anyone thought of training some of our prisoners for duty in the wars? We spend tax dollars in the thousands each year for criminals. Couldn't we train them, the non-violent youthful ones, to fight for their freedom and their country?
No.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2009, 04:52 PM
 
3,292 posts, read 4,473,891 times
Reputation: 822
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freemore View Post
Has anyone thought of training some of our prisoners for duty in the wars? We spend tax dollars in the thousands each year for criminals. Couldn't we train them, the non-violent youthful ones, to fight for their freedom and their country?

Non-violent to me means non murderers. I really want us to avoid the draft.
Literally one of the worst ideas I've ever heard.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2009, 05:15 PM
 
Location: Arizona
13,778 posts, read 9,661,538 times
Reputation: 7485
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freemore View Post
Has anyone thought of training some of our prisoners for duty in the wars? We spend tax dollars in the thousands each year for criminals. Couldn't we train them, the non-violent youthful ones, to fight for their freedom and their country?

Non-violent to me means non murderers. I really want us to avoid the draft.
You do understand that the primary skills that the army teaches it's soldiers is how to destroy things and kill people? Because of the volatile nature of a soldier's job, convicted felons are purposely eliminated from serving.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2009, 01:06 AM
 
35,016 posts, read 39,151,733 times
Reputation: 6195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freemore View Post
Has anyone thought of training some of our prisoners for duty in the wars? We spend tax dollars in the thousands each year for criminals. Couldn't we train them, the non-violent youthful ones, to fight for their freedom and their country?

Non-violent to me means non murderers. I really want us to avoid the draft.
Like The Dirty Dozen?

They're all too valuable as cheap labor, anyway -- the owners of this country cant spare them. Terrific article here:

A New Kind of Wage Slave
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:23 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top