Troop deployment: If AmCan speaks, will Obama listen?

Just Say NO wrote:

If we send more troops to Afghanistan..we will be there for many years. We simply can't afford to do so financially or to sacrifice the life of one more soldier in a war many generals have said is not winnable. Isn't 8 yrs enough?
Neither of these wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) are winnable. So if we support and love our troops bring them HOME. Let them be in the land they love and use them for border patrol. At least they will know why they are fighting and they will be on our land.

Marley wrote:

This so-called president is either hiding behind his desk in the Oval Office, afraid to infuritate his leftwing base, or he's too busy attending cocktail parties and fund raising to pay attention to his general's request, or he's trying to suppress Fox News or anyone who criticises his policies! Recall that Hillary Clinton once called Gen. Petraeus a liar at the time of the surge. Subsequently, the surge was a success, and Ms. Goody Two Shoes was nowhere to be seen. Her reward: Secretary of State where she is absolutely clueless as to the affairs of the real world. The American people are now seeing dope and change! 2010 is just around the corner, voters!

Just Say NO wrote:

wouldn't u like to know:
I completely understand the significance of 9-11. The 19 Terrorists from September 11 included 15 Saudi Arabians, 2 from United Arab Emirates, 1 Egyptian and 1 from Lenanon.
So what's your point?
Once the Bush/Cheney efforts against Al Quaeda failed and spend BILLIONS in Iraq..this allowed Afghanistan to become a training ground for other terrorists.
So what's your point and why are we spending $68 Billion a year there?

Feinbush wrote:

If Feinbush wants troops in Afghanistan she can start by sending her own lard-**** over there plus her hubby and silver-spoon progeny. Afghanistan is a sinister killing machine and adding more 'troops' IE young adults/minorities/immigrants to the mix will only get them maimed and killed for no good reason.

wouldnt you like to know wrote:

<quoted text>
Well you're partially right, more troops will mean more people in harm's way. However,too few troops means that the ones already there are sitting ducks. We're there, and the consequenses of just running away would be terrible and far-reaching, so we need to make our objective reasonable and clear, then do what we have to to achieve it and get the hell out of there and let those barbarians do what they do best.

wouldnt you like to know wrote:

<quoted text>
I got you until your line about our troops knowing what they're fighting for. You're not saying our troops don't know what they're fighting for in Afghanistan, are you?
Does the term 9/11 mean anything to you?
As far as the wars being unwinnable goes, I'm not sure how we know that, since we have never been told what winning means in these cases.
In Afghanstan, it should have been killing bin Laden, wiping out al Qaida and breaking the Taliban's control of Afghanistan long enough for the real Afghans to take over.
But, if we want to establish a U.S.-like civilized form of governmemt and will consider nothing less as winning, then you're right. Unwinnable.
But if we can settle for establishing relative calm for a set period of weeks or months, and installing some form of trained, interim management, then it's probably totally winnable. And if we want to consider just carpet bombing everything to dust, it's for sure totally winnable.
In Iraq, we should have been happy with deposing Saddam. I'm not sure what we're doing there now, except acting as a sort-of Jihadist magnate.

Hogan69 wrote:

<quoted text>
Leave now. Read "The Great Game" or @ least research it. There is no "winning" in this region.

gun metal blue wrote:

<quoted text> first, 911 attack was done mostly by citizens of sadia arabia. so the real question is did we attack the right country in the first place or avoid it because of oil?

We We We wrote:

A lot of talk about 'we' being over there/going over there etc. You heroes must have a mouse in your pocket as you're readying to deploy. Or is 'we' a casual device bandied about by otherwise trembling keyboard generals?