1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Dateline Afghanistan ... Send in the Marines

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by 2muchcoffeeman, Jul 1, 2009.

  1. 2muchcoffeeman

    2muchcoffeeman Active Member

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090702/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan_11

    And from our damnation with faint praise file, we have this statement which stands on its own regarding the past administration's "war on terror" and the "hunt for Bin Laden" ...<blockquote>The Pentagon is deploying 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan in time for the elections and expects the total number of U.S. forces there to reach 68,000 by year's end. That is double the number of troops in Afghanistan in 2008, but still half of much as are now in Iraq.</blockquote>Now that our troops are actually going to be where the terrorists are, maybe they can find the sumbitch.
     
  2. three_bags_full

    three_bags_full Well-Known Member

    Add another 10,000 to that number in early '10, inside sources say. ;)
     
  3. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    Can you say Khe Sahn
     
  4. JackReacher

    JackReacher Well-Known Member

    Wonderful.
     
  5. zagoshe

    zagoshe Well-Known Member

    TREMENDOUS -- LET'S SPEND BILLIONS AND TRILLIONS MORE AND PUT MORE SOLDIERS IN HARMS WAY IN COUNTRY WHERE

    (a) THEY ARE NO THREAT TO ATTACK US
    (b) EVEN IF THE PEOPLE ATTACKED US IN 2001, WASN"T THE TIME TO STRIKE IN 2001? (c) THERE IS NO WAY TO DEFINE A VICTORY
    (d) THE LOCAL YOCALS DON'T WANT US THERE BECAUSE, WELL, OUR MISSION DOES NOTHING FOR THEM EXCEPT CREATE MORE CHAOS and
    (e) THEY'VE ALREADY KICKED ONE MAJOR POWER'S ASS WHEN THEY WERE INVADED....


    YES, YES -- I"M SO GLAD WE HAVE A DEMOCRAT IN THE OFFICE NOW, HE'S CHANGED OUR FOREIGN POLICY AND HAS NOT GOTTEN US INVOLVED IN SILLY PISSING CONTESTS AROUND THE WORLD LIKE THOSE EVIL HAWKISH REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS....... ::)
     
  6. kingcreole

    kingcreole Active Member

    Your Caps Lock is on.
     
  7. JackReacher

    JackReacher Well-Known Member

    I don't normally get involved in political pissing matches, but Zag is right.
     
  8. No, he's not.

    The danger in Afghanistan is that the Taliban will somehow wrestle back control of the country, or at least a significant portion of it. And we know what happened the last time - they provided safe and free harbor for Bin Laden and company to plan their attacks.

    Now obviously Bin Laden, his deputy, Mohammed Omar and company are still free, but they're on the run at least. And there's still a chance you can catch them.

    I was ambivalent about Iraq, but not Afghanistan. We need to finish the deal there.
     
  9. alleyallen

    alleyallen Guest

    Is this opposite day? Now suddenly we shouldn't finish the job in Afghanistan when THAT was the place we should have been all along?
     
  10. zagoshe

    zagoshe Well-Known Member

    They have been on the run for eight years now - and guess what, we have no chance of accomplishing anything we set out to do because we're not even sure who the hell the enemy is at this point.

    It is no different than the disasters we crafted together (under presidents of both parties, by the way) in just about every one of these pissing matches -- under the guise of spreading democracy and keeping our world safe -- we've gotten into over the past 60 years.

    And if the Taliban and Bin Laden want to take over Afghanistan, who gives a fuck -- they are no more or less of a threat to us than they are now.

    And maybe, just maybe if we kept our fucking noses out of all these little pissing contests, wacknuts from these groups would have less of a desire to drive their airplanes into our buildings.......

    But that will never happen because the war machine and the rhetoric used by politicians while waving flags and declaring some sort of operation designed to "keep freedom and democracy alive and well in the world" is worth far too much money and far too many votes and is a helluva lot more statesmanlike than for a politician to say "if two groups of people want to bomb the hell out of each other, that is their business and as long as they remain in Kazakistan we don't give a fuck......"
     
  11. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    Much of that is true.

    I know killing terrorists and dismantling terrorist camps on the surface is fine and dandy, but when you get down to it 9/11 does not happen if . . .

    --- You don't let them into our country
    --- You don't teach them how to fly planes when they are not concerned about landing them.
    --- You don't let them board planes with sharp objects.

    The Law of Unintended Consequences bites us in the butt almost without fail when we stick our noses into other parts of the world.
     
  12. Brooklyn Bridge

    Brooklyn Bridge Active Member


    I would posit that the good people of South Korea were glad we got involved in their little "pissing match" some years ago. (Look at their alternative) Now does that mean this country put our noses into some incrediblly stupid places with no value? Of course, but there iis some good to come of it as well.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page