Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Obama - Clinton Disaster -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (22885)	12/1/2009 7:51:14 PM
From: Zincman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 103300

<he may as well tell the enemy to wait it out > Exactly.. and that is what they will do...

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (22885)	12/1/2009 8:05:00 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 103300

Re: "gutless coward ...shouldn't be allow to set foot on the grounds of such a great university....' Why so bitter? (Did he dodge enlistment like a Cheney? Or skip out on required service in the Guard like the second Bush?)

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (22885)	12/1/2009 8:34:31 PM
From: loantech	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 103300

Didn't all those similar generals keep calling for more troops in Vietnam? <NFG>

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (22885)	12/1/2009 10:00:43 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 103300

Re: "going to send only 30,000 troops..." Not counting the extra 10,000 he already sent in early Spring of this year (filling a request for more troops that Bush had given short-shrift to for more then two years....), and the 5,000 or so new NATO forces he's arranged for. With the new 30,000, (delivered faster then previously thought possible), on top of the already delivered 10,000 from Spring, plus the additional 5,000 or so from NATO... and in combination with the newly narrowed tasking for our forces (no longer 'open-ended stay' and 'total defeat for all Taliban' but now 'until Afghan's and Pakistan's governments and armed forces can effectively stand against the threat from radicals') the US military (including McCrystal) are satisfied with the force structure. Already is around 25% more then Bush ever committed before the latest increase arrives, and the Spring 2010 deployment will come earlier then even McCrystal asked for.... Re: "... obumble will also announce a withdrawal time table, he may as well tell the enemy to wait it out because we're leaving soon enough." Actually, I believe the exact opposite of that is true. There is a solid strain of psi-ops in the phrasing of this 'start to drawn-down in 2011' pledge. (Notice: doesn't say how many! <g>) The very LAST MESSAGE we want the Afghan (and especially the Pastun peoples, backbone of the Taliban movement) to hear is that America has "no plans for leaving" because the Tali will spin that in all of their propaganda as "the US wants to permanently OCCUPY our land". That is what they have been saying all along, and that is probably one of the main reasons they have REGAINED so much STRENGTH in the recent years after our eight plus years in-country already. It's a propaganda VICTORY for the Taliban and al Qaeda if the people see us as "foreign occupiers". Promising to leave is just SMART warfare. (Not to mention the other equally valid point: somewhere along the line we reach and then pass the point of diminishing returns even just from a cost basis. Stay TOO LONG and the net effect is to WEAKEN the United States instead of strengthening her.)