fieldgeneral 10 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 Obama and Crew decide to send 30,000 plus to Afghanistan....thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance 228 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 dont think its enough to get the job done unless other countries send at least that many as well...other than that I think that is where we should have been the past 8 years instead of Iraq anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pirate1 10 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 Honestly, I think it depends on what the mission is. If the mission is to hunt down and kill Taliban and Al Qaeda, then the 30k may be enough. But if we're going to continue to try to "secure" Afghanistan or continue to try to nation build.....well, I'm not sure we can put enough troops in the field to do that effectively. I honestly don't know that the powers that be, either now or in the Bush years(especially the last of the Bush years) really understand what they got us into in Afghanistan when they decided to for lack of a better term "own" the place. We really don't understand the culture there, and I think that has hurt us(and I don't mean that in a wishy-washy "can't we just get along" way, I mean it more in a know your enemy kind of way) If this surge is for military purposes only, just to hunt down and kill bad guys, then I see nothing wrong with it. If it's to do more nation building, then honestly I fear we're wasting lives for nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BEAVERTAIL Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 Honestly, I think it depends on what the mission is. If the mission is to hunt down and kill Taliban and Al Qaeda, then the 30k may be enough. But if we're going to continue to try to "secure" Afghanistan or continue to try to nation build.....well, I'm not sure we can put enough troops in the field to do that effectively. I honestly don't know that the powers that be, either now or in the Bush years(especially the last of the Bush years) really understand what they got us into in Afghanistan when they decided to for lack of a better term "own" the place. We really don't understand the culture there, and I think that has hurt us(and I don't mean that in a wishy-washy "can't we just get along" way, I mean it more in a know your enemy kind of way) If this surge is for military purposes only, just to hunt down and kill bad guys, then I see nothing wrong with it. If it's to do more nation building, then honestly I fear we're wasting lives for nothing. You are right. The nation of Afghanistan is so far back in time that they can not effectively come close to running a democracy. I spoke of this before, that many do not know the current ruler, and have never been outside of their town. I know it is sad, but I dont think we have a chance to fix the country. As for the terrorists. May every bullet our troops fire strike them dead. Screw Guantanamo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fieldgeneral 10 Author Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 dont think its enough to get the job done unless other countries send at least that many as well...other than that I think that is where we should have been the past 8 years instead of Iraq anyway. I agree that we should have concentrated our efforts in Afghanistan to begin with back in 2001. It's a shame that we've let it get to this point. The War on terror would have been plenty different in my opinion had we done that. According to the General in Afghanistan, 40,000 will do the job and after contributions from UN and others, it will be met. Let's hope for a strong surge and good things from this. I think Obama and crew did the right thing here, however I'd like to see our men and women home soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buzzsawBeaver 12 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 Thoughts, those in command on the ground requested 60 to 40,000 more troops, this administration doesn't seem to mind slighting the military and putting more lives at risk by not approving the levels of troops required. They requested these troops in august.. ...... The mission shouldn't have anything to do with building afghanastan as a country, what does that have to do with the problem of islamic extremists in the region that are completely independent of any country. Announcing a withdraw in 3 years, absolute incompetence. They've just told the enemy they all they have to do is lay low for 3 years. They've just told American troops to put their lives on the line for 3 years for nothing, all efforts will be wasted when they pull out with a lot of unfinished business and the job undone. It's political, another campaign tool, 3 years, i.e. in time for the 2012 elections. They've just told the troops they don't mind risking their lives, forcing them to lose a war, all to further the democrat election machine. They just showed the world the u.s. doesn't have the will to finish a fight, if they fully intend to do things as the American people were told they would be done... Complete incompetence in every way. Not to mention msnbc's chris mathews actually stated that westpoint was "enemy territory". On the air after last night's speech, MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews questioned the venue for President Obama's speech on Afghanistan, calling the U.S. Military Academy an "enemy camp" where officials in the Bush administration went to drum up support for "democratizing the world." http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/12/02/video-chris-matthews-calls-west-point-enemy-camp/ Could the liberals be any more of a disgrace to this country and all that it has stood for? They're the enemy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucfan64 309 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 This war is officially OVER! By putting an 18 month deadline on troop withdraw the president, just made the Taliban's day! Why put American soldiers in harms way for the next 18 months, if you aren't going to send enough to get the job done? The General that he appointed requests 60,000 or a minimum of 40,000 to get the job done, what does the President do? He sends 30,000 and then says we will be pulling out in 18 months, he is trying to satisfy both groups and he simply cannot do that..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buzzsawBeaver 12 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 This war is officially OVER! By putting an 18 month deadline on troop withdraw the president, just made the Taliban's day! Why put American soldiers in harms way for the next 18 months, if you aren't going to send enough to get the job done? The General that he appointed requests 60,000 or a minimum of 40,000 to get the job done, what does the President do? He sends 30,000 and then says we will be pulling out in 18 months, he is trying to satisfy both groups and he simply cannot do that..... Unfortunately I agree, I'm all for the u.s. fighting the war aggressively as long as they have to, but if they truly are intending to pull troops out in that time frame really what's the reason to get a lot more troops k.i.a. in the meantime? I'd just assume they surrender now and not make them risk their lives needlessly and let the u.s. learn another hard lesson about what it takes to win a war. Unfortunately the u.s. probably will have to learn that lesson (as they should have already) when terrorists seize some u.s. elementary school, like in Belsin, and kill hundreds or school children, or worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crimsontide 50 10 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 once the 18 months are done and they leave iraq. they will just go to a neighboring country and stay there for another 6 to 7 years. obama is not solving the problem just making things worse. and on top of it he has no war experience Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hacker 82 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 once the 18 months are done and they leave iraq. they will just go to a neighboring country and stay there for another 6 to 7 years. obama is not solving the problem just making things worse. and on top of it he has no war experience As if GW, or Bill, or Nixon, or FDR or many other of our presidents. US Grant, great general, horrible president. Personally, I love the fact that we still fail to learn from others mistakes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fieldgeneral 10 Author Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 Thoughts, those in command on the ground requested 60 to 40,000 more troops, this administration doesn't seem to mind slighting the military and putting more lives at risk by not approving the levels of troops required. They requested these troops in august........ The mission shouldn't have anything to do with building afghanastan as a country, what does that have to do with the problem of islamic extremists in the region that are completely independent of any country. Announcing a withdraw in 3 years, absolute incompetence. They've just told the enemy they all they have to do is lay low for 3 years. They've just told American troops to put their lives on the line for 3 years for nothing, all efforts will be wasted when they pull out with a lot of unfinished business and the job undone. It's political, another campaign tool, 3 years, i.e. in time for the 2012 elections. They've just told the troops they don't mind risking their lives, forcing them to lose a war, all to further the democrat election machine. They just showed the world the u.s. doesn't have the will to finish a fight, if they fully intend to do things as the American people were told they would be done... Complete incompetence in every way. Not to mention msnbc's chris mathews actually stated that westpoint was "enemy territory". On the air after last night's speech, MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews questioned the venue for President Obama's speech on Afghanistan, calling the U.S. Military Academy an "enemy camp" where officials in the Bush administration went to drum up support for "democratizing the world." http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/12/02/video-chris-matthews-calls-west-point-enemy-camp/ Could the liberals be any more of a disgrace to this country and all that it has stood for? They're the enemy. Why shouldn't there be some sort of rebuilding the infrastructure of their gov't. If we don't, we will have these problems for years to come. Their gov't knows and allows the extremists to operate in their country. The extremists are independent, but operate with the knowing of the gov't who do nothing to stop it. Many of the people in that country are in the stone age and don't know of any ruling government or care. We have to eliminate the enemy and help fix the government that tolerates them. Isn't that what was done in Iraq with the over throw of Hussein and their awful gov't. I know the trip to Iraq had some great outcomes, but it was wrong time for that battle. Now we have a president who inherited a badly designed war and he is concentrating our troops to Afghanistan. The move that should have been made directly following 9-11. 40,000 may have been the low number, but it was said 40-60,000 to get the job done. They are getting the 40,000 combined. We've been there since 01/02. Obama's admin at least had the balls to send them to the right place instead of Iraq. Taking our concentration off of the Islamic Extremists and putting it on a retalitation for daddy was the biggest disgrace that I have ever seen. The Bush Admin tried ignored warnings after warnings about Al-Qaeda etc... until something happened. Maybe he wanted it to happen just in time for reelection. I don't know and neither do you, but some of the accusations you people throw around doesn't make any sense. A timeline means, we must do our job right the first time. We must do what we came to do. We can't go to other countries and fight meaningless wars and battles to prolong what has already been too long. A timeline means we are coming for you and we won't stop until 40,000 strong put an end to your way terrorism. They will do the job and will succeed. I have faith in my military unlike some of you do. Don't try to reply with I have faith blah blah blah. You don't I just read it. I'm sure those guys are really glad they are fighting for you. A timeline means, it isn't open ended. We have a job, we have to finish it in that time. Most tasks / jobs are that way. If we leave it open eneded, we leave it to be there for 45 years and then finally get the sense to leave. Russia spent a long time there with little to show. As far as the media goes, I'm tired of mostly all of them. They all have a side or political agenda. Fox / cnn / nbc/ so forth are all awful to report what works for their agenda better. Pretty sad. No need in throwing up the democrat or liberal side of it, it exists on all fronts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucfan64 309 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 Why shouldn't there be some sort of rebuilding the infrastructure of their gov't. If we don't, we will have these problems for years to come. Their gov't knows and allows the extremists to operate in their country. The extremists are independent, but operate with the knowing of the gov't who do nothing to stop it. Many of the people in that country are in the stone age and don't know of any ruling government or care. We have to eliminate the enemy and help fix the government that tolerates them. Isn't that what was done in Iraq with the over throw of Hussein and their awful gov't. I know the trip to Iraq had some great outcomes, but it was wrong time for that battle. Now we have a president who inherited a badly designed war and he is concentrating our troops to Afghanistan. The move that should have been made directly following 9-11. 40,000 may have been the low number, but it was said 40-60,000 to get the job done. They are getting the 40,000 combined. We've been there since 01/02. Obama's admin at least had the balls to send them to the right place instead of Iraq. Taking our concentration off of the Islamic Extremists and putting it on a retalitation for daddy was the biggest disgrace that I have ever seen. The Bush Admin tried ignored warnings after warnings about Al-Qaeda etc... until something happened. Maybe he wanted it to happen just in time for reelection. I don't know and neither do you, but some of the accusations you people throw around doesn't make any sense. A timeline means, we must do our job right the first time. We must do what we came to do. We can't go to other countries and fight meaningless wars and battles to prolong what has already been too long. A timeline means we are coming for you and we won't stop until 40,000 strong put an end to your way terrorism. They will do the job and will succeed. I have faith in my military unlike some of you do. Don't try to reply with I have faith blah blah blah. You don't I just read it. I'm sure those guys are really glad they are fighting for you. A timeline means, it isn't open ended. We have a job, we have to finish it in that time. Most tasks / jobs are that way. If we leave it open eneded, we leave it to be there for 45 years and then finally get the sense to leave. Russia spent a long time there with little to show. As far as the media goes, I'm tired of mostly all of them. They all have a side or political agenda. Fox / cnn / nbc/ so forth are all awful to report what works for their agenda better. Pretty sad. No need in throwing up the democrat or liberal side of it, it exists on all fronts. I have tremendous faith in our military, I DO NOT HAVE FAITH, in our commander in chief! When the head General requests A MINIMUM of 40,000 troops and is sent only 30,000, that tells me that the President thinks that he knows more than the General. The last time I checked Barack Hussein Obama does not have military experience, nor did he attend the "enemy camp," as Chris Matthews called it, West Point to receive his training! The president is trying to appease, his liberal friends by sending in fewer troops than were requested, his decision to send more troops in is an attempt to appease his moderate friends. This is war and it costs lives, it is a rather unfortunate situation that our leaders will not agree to send the MINIMUM amount of troops requested to "get the job done!" If the presidents TIMELINE is so pro victory, then why doesn't he just send in 80,000 troops and shorten the TIMELINE? According to what you are saying, by sending in FEWER troops the timeline will be the motivator for us to get the job done and get out, but if the timeline was shorter, fewer casualties would take place. How could he shorten the TIMELINE, by sending MORE TROOPS! The logic of liberalism never ceases to amaze me....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buzzsawBeaver 12 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 "Why shouldn't there be some sort of rebuilding the infrastructure of their gov't. If we don't, we will have these problems for years to come. Their gov't knows and allows the extremists to operate in their country. The extremists are independent, but operate with the knowing of the gov't who do nothing to stop it. Many of the people in that country are in the stone age and don't know of any ruling government or care." Because the country simply doesn't function the way most countries do, making it something it's not is not only difficult but it's likely to fail, the last sentence you wrote that I quoted is exactly the reason. Not only is it likely to fail, but the president just up and declares that the u.s. is going to change the country of afghanistan, ancient in it's ways, in a matter of 2 years and then withdraw in time for the 2012 elections? Iraq is a completely different type of country with a complex government and a population with a committed interest in their government and country for decades. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buzzsawBeaver 12 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 "Obama's admin at least had the balls to send them to the right place instead of Iraq. Taking our concentration off of the Islamic Extremists and putting it on a retalitation for daddy was the biggest disgrace that I have ever seen." I don't know where to start, retaliation for daddy, how many times have we been over this. Comment on these quotes if you will. "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998 "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998 "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001 "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002 "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buzzsawBeaver 12 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 "The Bush Admin tried ignored warnings after warnings about Al-Qaeda etc... until something happened" Bush administration? Bush was president for 9 months before sept. 11th, do you really just spout false statements thinking we really just don't know any better? Are you not familiar with who was president when al queda bombed the world trade center in '93? Or who was president as they increased their threats and attempts throughout the '90s up till they bombed the u.s.s. cole? Are you not familiar what president had the opportunity to seize bin laden in the late '90s but deemed him not a credible threat? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buzzsawBeaver 12 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 "A timeline means, we must do our job right the first time. We must do what we came to do. We can't go to other countries and fight meaningless wars and battles to prolong what has already been too long. A timeline means we are coming for you and we won't stop until 40,000 strong put an end to your way terrorism. They will do the job and will succeed. I have faith in my military unlike some of you do. Don't try to reply with I have faith blah blah blah. You don't I just read it. I'm sure those guys are really glad they are fighting for you. A timeline means, it isn't open ended. We have a job, we have to finish it in that time. Most tasks / jobs are that way. If we leave it open eneded, we leave it to be there for 45 years and then finally get the sense to leave. Russia spent a long time there with little to show." I hate to rain on your parade but I already served in iraq, I've more than put my $ where my mouth is about faith in the u.s military. Any soldier or marine will tell you that war won't be wrapped up in 2 years, especially if that time and effort is put into nation building and force protection instead of a strict agenda of hunting down and killing terrorists cells where they are out in the remote regions. You do know they intend to pull most troops out of those more remote regions at that don't you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buzzsawBeaver 12 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 I have tremendous faith in our military, I DO NOT HAVE FAITH, in our commander in chief! When the head General requests A MINIMUM of 40,000 troops and is sent only 30,000, that tells me that the President thinks that he knows more than the General. The last time I checked Barack Hussein Obama does not have military experience, nor did he attend the "enemy camp," as Chris Matthews called it, West Point to receive his training! The president is trying to appease, his liberal friends by sending in fewer troops than were requested, his decision to send more troops in is an attempt to appease his moderate friends. This is war and it costs lives, it is a rather unfortunate situation that our leaders will not agree to send the MINIMUM amount of troops requested to "get the job done!" If the presidents TIMELINE is so pro victory, then why doesn't he just send in 80,000 troops and shorten the TIMELINE? According to what you are saying, by sending in FEWER troops the timeline will be the motivator for us to get the job done and get out, but if the timeline was shorter, fewer casualties would take place. How could he shorten the TIMELINE, by sending MORE TROOPS! The logic of liberalism never ceases to amaze me....... Liberals don't any real concept of the military or what it takes to win wars or the mindset troops and military personnel have. Most liberals don't even correctly identify with combat troops, to them they're all poor lied to folks who just needed the $, don't really want to fight or got scammed into front line positions by recruiters and who sit around complaining that they're at war, wishing some peace promoting organization would rescue them from their life at war. Of course the only time they have a hint of hesitation about orders is when they know that their government is not behind them and won't let them fight with the gloves off or just do their destructive jobs full force. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buzzsawBeaver 12 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 when the military and government don't back those who fight, "3 elite commandos to be court martialed for giving terrorist some justice", so tell me, when are we actually gonna back these people? "Recently a team of Navy SEALs captured Ahmed Hashim Abed, the terrorist who murdered and then mutilated three Blackwater security guards in Fallujah in 2004. Now three of the Navy SEALs face a court martial for prisoner abuse. The alleged abuse is said to have taken place after Ahmed Hashim Abed was in custody. The three Navy SEALs in question have refused a non judicial punishment and have opted for a court According to Fox News: "Matthew McCabe, a Special Operations Petty Officer Second Class (SO-2), is facing three charges: dereliction of performance of duty for willfully failing to safeguard a detainee, making a false official statement, and assault. "Petty Officer Jonathan Keefe, SO-2, is facing charges of dereliction of performance of duty and making a false official statement. "Petty Officer Julio Huertas, SO-1, faces those same charges and an additional charge of impediment of an investigation." In other words the three Navy SEALs are facing a court martial for beating a prisoner and then trying to cover it up. Hot Air's Allahpundit suggests that the strategy of going to a court martial is a smart one on the part of the Navy SEALs. The Navy SEAL court martial is taking place against the highly controversial spectacle of a show trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and several other terrorists in New York City. "The last thing The One needs after shipping KSM off to NYC for his close-up is the image of SEALs being hauled off to prison for busting some jihadi in the face. In fact, according to Fox, the SEALs requested a court-martial rather than nonjudicial punishment, presumably because they know full well how awful this looks for the military. Prediction: Wrist slap." It would be a bitter irony for President Obama if at the same time Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is denouncing the United States as a cesspool of infidels in open court, a trio of hero Navy SEALs is being put on trial for roughing up a prisoner. The military, under Obama, cannot go too easy on the Navy SEALs. So doing would insure the wrath of the media. But punishing American heroes for giving one of the worst examples of human debris a beat down runs the risk of angering everyone else. Despite the embarrassment of Abu Ghraib, most people, to quote Katherine Hepburn, would observe that people like Ahmed Hashim Abed and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed could be, "Peeled like a pear and God himself would call it justice." The murder and mutilation of the Blackwater guards precipitated a series of major battles in which a Marine force was obliged to liberate Fallujah from terrorist control." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buzzsawBeaver 12 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 another reason america simply can't fight a war present day. This is really hard for me to fathom. It's not necessarily political, democrat or republican, as it is about political correctness itself.. That said, I guarantee, the u.s. will eventually get in a war against a strong conventional army (and there are some) that will fight to win and only after we take a real beating will we remove political correctness from our military. http://defendmichael.wordpress.com/ "MILITARY PROSECUTORS WITHHOLD EVIDENCE; ARMY RANGER GOES TO PRISON FOR 25 YEARS FOR SHOOTING AL QAEDA OPERATIVE The Story Michael Behenna On March 20th, 2009, Army Ranger 1st Lieutenant Michael Behenna was sentenced to 25 years in prison for killing Ali Mansur, a known Al Qaeda operative while serving in Iraq. Mansur was known to be a member of an Al Qaeda cell operating in the lieutenant’s area of operation and was suspected to have organized an attack on Lt. Behenna’s platoon in April 2008 which killed two U.S. soldiers and injured two more. Army intelligence ordered the release of Mansur and Lt. Behenna was ordered to return the terrorist to his home. During the return of Mansur, Lt. Behenna again questioned the Al Qaeda member for information about other members of the terrorist cell, and financial supporters. During this interrogation, Mansur attacked Lt. Behenna, who killed the terrorist in self-defense. The government subsequently prosecuted Lt. Behenna for premeditated murder. Not only is this a miscarriage of justice on the behalf of Lt. Behenna, who was acting to prevent further loss of life in his platoon, it is demoralizing to the U.S. troops who continue to fight on behalf of the freedom and security of our nation. Whether it is U.S. border patrol agents, members of the armed forces, or FBI agents, no individual who is serving on the frontlines in the War on Terror should be so blatantly mistreated." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buzzsawBeaver 12 Report Share Posted January 6, 2010 hard to defeat terrorism when the president is sympathetic to their cause. I'm sort of speechless when considering an acting u.s. president released enemy combatants to rejoin the fight against this country. And they're contemplating releasing a lot more to yemen as of last week. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6975971.ece At least a dozen former Guantánamo Bay inmates have rejoined al-Qaeda to fight in Yemen, The Times has learnt, amid growing concern over the ability of the country’s Government to accept almost 100 more former inmates from the detention centre. The Obama Administration promised to close the Guantánamo facility by January 22, a deadline that it will be unable to meet. The 91 Yemeni prisoners in Guantánamo make up the largest national contingent among the 198 being held. Six prisoners were returned to Yemen last month. After the Christmas Day bomb plot in Detroit, US officials are increasingly concerned that the country is becoming a hot-bed of terrorism. Eleven of the former inmates known to have rejoined al-Qaeda in Yemen were born in Saudi Arabia. The organisation merged its Saudi and Yemeni offshoots last year. The country’s mountainous terrain, poverty and lawless tribal society make it, in the opinion of many analysts, a close match for Afghanistan as a new terrorist haven. Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, voiced concern about the growing strength of al-Qaeda in Yemen. “Obviously, we see global implications from the war in Yemen and the ongoing efforts by al-Qaeda in Yemen to use it as a base for terrorist attacks far beyond the region,†she said. A Yemeni, Hani Abdo Shaalan, who was released from Guantánamo in 2007, was killed in an airstrike on December 17, the Yemeni Government reported last week. The deputy head of al-Qaeda in the country is Said Ali al-Shihri, 36, who was released in 2007. Ibrahim Suleiman al-Rubaish, who was released in 2006, is a prominent ideologue featured on Yemeni al-Qaeda websites. Geoff Morrell, the spokesman for the Pentagon, said: “This is a large question that goes beyond the issue of transferring detainees. The bulk of the remaining detainees are from Yemen and that has been the case for a long time. We are trying to work with the Yemeni Government on this.†The US Government issued figures in May showing that 74 of the 530 detainees in Guantánamo were suspected or known to have returned to terrorist activity since their release. They included the commander of the Taleban in Helmand province, Mullah Zakir, whom the British Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Jock Stirrup, called “a key and seemingly effective tactical leaderâ€. Among others who returned to terrorism was Abdullah Saleh al-Ajmi, a Kuwaiti who killed six Iraqis in Mosul in 2008. The number believed to have “returned to the fight†in the May 2009 estimate was double that of a US estimate from June 2008. US officials acknowledged that more detainees were known to have reoffended since, but the number has been classified. “There is a historic trend and it continues. I will only say that we have said there is a trend, we are aware of it, there is no denying the trend and we are doing our best to deal with this reality,†Mr Morrell said. Officials said that a higher proportion of those still being held were likely to return to terrorism because they were considered more of a security threat than those selected in the early stages of the release programme. Chris Boucek, an expert on the region for the Carnegie Endowment think-tank, said that up-to-date figures for Saudi Arabia showed that 26 of the 120 Saudis released from Guantánamo were either in jail, wanted by the authorities or dead. Gregory Johnsen, a Yemen expert at Princeton University, said evidence showed that al-Qaeda was seeking to use Yemen to mount a renewed campaign into Saudi Arabia. He cited a recent incident in which two Saudi militants, one the brother-in-law of alShihri, were killed while trying to cross the border in women’s clothing. Martyrdom videos were subsequently posted on militant websites. The Saudi Government had boasted previously of a zero reoffence rate for Guantánamo detainees who were put through its widely praised rehabilitation programme for al-Qaeda members. Robert Lacey, who writes about Saudi Arabia, made numerous visits to the Prince Mohammad bin Naif rehabilitation facility north of Riyadh. “I know a number of young men from Guantánamo who were successfully reintegrated,†he told The Times. “The programme involves the whole family with a mixture of religious re-education, patriotism, guilt and co-opting in terms of being given a car, job and a nice wife.†However, other analysts suggested that the claims for the Saudi programme were exaggerated. Mr Johnsen pointed out that an attack that nearly killed Prince Mohammad bin Naif, the Saudi head of counterterrorism, in August was mounted by a Yemen-based al-Qaeda terrorist who had offered to join the reintegration programme to get near his target. “The Saudi programme is nothing but bureaucratised bribery. The ideologically committed terrorists simply won’t listen,†Mr Johnsen said. The Yemen reintegration programme for terrorists was abandoned on December 10, 2005. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.01bb665814ffc257795fe158cb2045c7.png.8a531ac878a82772b21014d7a6167582.png){kind=logo}
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.