I saw that it was cancelled, but as far as I understand, it performed better than the M4 and other rifles by a substantial margin during testing.

Not to get too far off track here, but I think that direct gas inpingement is a fairly lousy idea in a service rifle.

10/12/2009 3:51:50 PM

Obama's War
Coming October 13 at 9 p.m.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/

L.A. Times review:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-obama-war13-2009oct13,0,6788241.story

10/13/2009 5:57:36 AM

Quote :

"As a former armorer, I can tell you that soldiers' weapons are never as "meticulously cared for" as they claim."

Sounds like NCOs and LTs weren't doing their job.

Quote :

"Not to get too far off track here, but I think that direct gas inpingement is a fairly lousy idea in a service rifle."

Yeah, it is, and it's a bitch to clean. Nevertheless, if you do your job and keep it clean, it works fine. For every guy with a story about his rifle jamming, there's plenty of other people who haven't had a problem with it. Time for a new weapon? Yeah, I'd agree, but there's no point in spending money on a new rifle if you're not going to dramatically change the characteristics of the ballistics. Also, keep your mags clean and cover 'em up. Sand is a bitch for any firearm's reliability.

10/13/2009 11:42:46 AM

Quote :

"Are you really trying to downplay the fact that the Taliban had an explicit alliance with al Qaeda and allowed them to operate camps where militants from around the world could gather and train to kill Americans? Thats a bit worse than letting someone park their camper in your driveway. "

I'm saying blind revenge doesn't help our cause at all so yes,I am downplaying it.

Quote :

"This same argument was used against Iraq not long ago. "

But at what cost?

Also, things are better in Iraq than they were a few years ago, but i fyou haven't noticed they still aren't fine and dandy and theres no end in sight

10/14/2009 12:10:58 PM

^ I'd say that attacking someone who continues to facilitate a very clear threat to the US is more than blind revenge.

Are you arguing that the US should have left Iraq when it was at it's worst?

10/14/2009 2:52:14 PM

Why Joe Biden Should Resign
Arianna Huffington
Posted: October 14

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/why-joe-biden-should-resi_b_320929.html

10/15/2009 6:15:06 AM

Fuck the goddamed Italians

Quote :

"When ten French soldiers were killed last year in an ambush by Afghan insurgents in what had seemed a relatively peaceful area, the French public were horrified. Their revulsion increased with the news that many of the dead soldiers had been mutilated — and with the publication of photographs showing the militants triumphantly sporting their victims’ flak jackets and weapons. The French had been in charge of the Sarobi area, east of Kabul, for only a month, taking over from the Italians; it was one of the biggest single losses of life by Nato forces in Afghanistan. What the grieving nation did not know was that in the months before the French soldiers arrived in mid-2008, the Italian secret service had been paying tens of thousands of dollars to Taleban commanders and local warlords to keep the area quiet, The Times has learnt. The clandestine payments, whose existence was hidden from the incoming French forces, were disclosed by Western military officials. US intelligence officials were flabbergasted when they found out through intercepted telephone conversations that the Italians had also been buying off militants, notably in Herat province in the far west. In June 2008, several weeks before the ambush, the US Ambassador in Rome made a démarche, or diplomatic protest, to the Berlusconi Government over allegations concerning the tactic. However, a number of high-ranking officers in NATO have told The Times that payments were subsequently discovered to have been made in the Sarobi area as well. Western officials say that because the French knew nothing of the payments they made a catastrophically incorrect threat assessment. “One cannot be too doctrinaire about these things,” a senior Nato officer in Kabul said. “It might well make sense to buy off local groups and use non-violence to keep violence down. But it is madness to do so and not inform your allies.”"

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6875376.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=797093

10/15/2009 6:03:04 PM

http://ow.ly/15VTCO

Quote :

"Officials, citing massive fraud, deny Hamid Karzai outright victory in Afghanistan's election HAMID KARZAI has been dealt a painful blow as the saga of Afghanistan’s torturous presidential election drags on. An independent investigation has found that nearly one in three of the votes supposedly cast for the Afghan president in August were fraudulent. The results of an audit by the country’s Electoral Complaints Commission (ECC), published on Monday October 19th, put Mr Karzai’s share of the vote a couple of points below the 50% that he required to win another term without facing a run-off against his closest challenger, Abdullah Abdullah. But the UN-backed electoral commission is not the only game in town. Mr Karzai’s supporters immediately questioned the authority of the ECC, which is dominated by Western officials. His supporters claim that the final reckoning can only be delivered by the Independent Election Commission, a body packed with people appointed by—and loyal to—the president. Diplomats in Kabul fear a “car crash” outcome where the IEC, under Mr Karzai’s orders, refuses to accept the results or mounts a legal challenge questioning the ECC’s orders. A weekend of long and acrimonious meetings between officials from the two sides suggests that the IEC will indeed challenge the results."

10/19/2009 7:16:18 PM

Karzai is a fucking tyrant, half as bad as the Taliban, with a sweet tongue.

Remove the fraudster.

10/19/2009 7:57:28 PM

details? I mean I've read conflicting reviews but I'd be interested in a quick bullet point list and / or links to back that up. (Not agreeing or disagreeing, just want more to read).

10/19/2009 8:06:08 PM

One of the biggest issues that the Afghan government faces is a lack of legitimacy. I can't see this helping.

10/19/2009 8:08:37 PM

Quote :

"Obama's War Coming October 13 at 9 p.m. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/ L.A. Times review: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-obama-war13-2009oct13,0,6788241.story"

Afghanistan Is Obama's War Now
Facing a host of bad options, Barack Obama is poised to take ownership of a war that will inevitably shadow his presidency.
Saturday, Oct. 17, 2009

Quote :

"President Obama has called Afghanistan a 'war of necessity' and the central battlefield in the fight against Al Qaeda and its network of violent extremist groups. Some of his earliest moves in office were to craft a new strategy for the conflict, to hand-pick diplomats and generals to implement it, and to throw 21,000 more U.S. combat troops into the fight. Then the bloodshed spiked, the chaos worsened with fraudulent August elections, and an urgent request for 40,000 additional troops -- and conceivably as many as 80,000 -- landed like a grenade in the White House Situation Room. If Obama approves the 40,000-troop increase requested by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, allied troop levels would near the peak deployed during the Iraq war. Little wonder that senior White House aides have been nervously eyeing polls showing that a majority of Americans now oppose sending more troops, and no surprise that they are reading books on Vietnam, where U.S. soldiers fought and bled for five years after the 1968 Tet offensive arguably broke the will of the American public."

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/nj_20091017_2858.php

It's interesting how some of you seem to be ignoring this reality--it's not as much fun when there's no Bush to bash, is it? In the meantime, Obama "dithers" while his top commander in Afghanistan waits for the 40,000 soldiers he requested.

Tick-tock, tick-tock. . . .

10/19/2009 8:23:17 PM

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/04/recent_scenes_from_afghanistan.html

10/20/2009 7:25:30 AM

Quote :

"Let me suggest just one lesson that seems to be on no one else's mind at a moment when a key "option" being offered in Washington -- especially by Democrats not eager to see tens of thousands more U.S. troops heading Afghanistan-wards -- is to arm and "train" ever more thousands of Afghans into a vast army and police security force for a government that hardly exists. Based on the last three decades in the region, don't you think that we should pause and consider who exactly we may be arming and who exactly we may be supporting, and whether, given those 30 years of history, we have the slightest idea what we're doing?"

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=286

10/20/2009 10:20:18 AM

this just in: the cia is now blowing up pakistani colleges to begin escalating the steps toward an invasion.

10/20/2009 10:22:15 PM

link?

10/21/2009 12:51:40 AM

Obama Goes AWOL
On Afghanistan, "voting present" would be an improvement.
OCTOBER 20, 2009

Quote :

"'The United States cannot wait for problems surrounding the legitimacy of the Afghan government to be resolved before making a decision on troops, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said,' Reuters reports from aboard a U.S. military aircraft. . . ."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704500604574485461450697346.html

Whoa! That's pretty blunt language by Gates to Obama--we'll see what happens.

10/21/2009 4:39:02 AM

Do you have a link about the CIA blowing up Pakistani colleges to "begin escalating the steps" before we invade?

Or is this another case of:

Quote :

"Its clearly obvious this is the work of the CIA. I took a class on it, I know the CIA's fingerprints."

10/22/2009 12:44:52 AM

another case of ^

and you should have heard the way it was served up on a pladder so that fox news could propaganda it out of the park.

Quote :

"A suicide bomber killed at least two people at an Islamic university in the Pakistani capital Islamabad today. The attack in a female cafeteria was one of two explosions that rocked the building. Pakistan has been hit by a series of attacks by Islamist militants in recent weeks and has been braced for more as the army attacks an a- Qaida and Taliban stronghold in the north-west. Dr Waseem Khwaja at a hospital in the city, the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences, said the blasts killed one female student and wounded 11 more. Students from around the world attend the university. Most take Islamic studies. "

I also know al-quaeda's fingerprints. I mean this is so obvious. Usually its really hard to tell if something was CIA or not (like iran's elections). They are great at what they do but every now and then they get a little careless and go overboard. Do people really think Al-Quaeda is this stupid? Bombing of all places, a muslim school because it teaches women? Sure they would disagree with it but would they bomb it? no. They also take immediate responsibility for their attacks...but I'm sure before long the CIA will release a manufactured claim and serve that up on a pladder to the media as well. This is a major step in getting pakistani forces into the region and possibly even US forces eventually.

10/22/2009 1:06:45 AM

Oh sweet, just more of your completely unsubstantiated speculation which we shouldn't question because you "took a class on it" once.

Quote :

"Bombing of all places, a muslim school because it teaches women? Sure they would disagree with it but would they bomb it? no. They also take immediate responsibility for their attacks"

No where does anyone say that it was bombed because it teaches women. Al Qaeda hasn't claimed responsibility.

Quote :

"This is a major step in getting pakistani forces into the region and possibly even US forces eventually."

Hopefully you're aware that Pakistani forces are already in the middle of a large offensive. Not that it matters, as many in the Pakistani government blame the bombings on India.

Oh, and the word is spelled "platter".

10/22/2009 1:39:04 AM

^^http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1595#comic

I took a class in terrorism once. Got an A+ in it too. Too bad it still makes me completely unqualified to judge whether or not an attack was the CIA's doing from a news article. Jesus H. Christ.

10/22/2009 11:48:24 AM

NATO Ministers Endorse Wider Afghan Effort
October 23, 2009

Quote :

"BRATISLAVA, Slovakia — Defense ministers from NATO on Friday endorsed the ambitious counterinsurgency strategy for Afghanistan proposed by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, giving new impetus to his recommendation to pour more troops into the eight-year-old war."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/24/world/europe/24nato.html

Where's Obama?

10/24/2009 12:09:22 PM

dunno

Are we supposed to believe Barack Obama is the first president to not act simultaneously with NATO?

(I do agree, however, that waiting on an Afghan govt to get its shit together is like waiting for another GnR album)

[Edited on October 24, 2009 at 5:05 PM. Reason : dssas]

10/24/2009 5:04:37 PM

^ Um. . .did you ever consider that sending the forces General McChrystal has requested might actually help the Afghan government "get its shit together"? BTW, Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Robert Gates, U.S. Secretary of Defense; and the NATO defense ministers all agree with General McChrystal's counterinsurgency strategy.

Again, where's Obama? WTF is he waiting for? And even if he orders more forces today, it'll take months for them to arrive in theater.

Watch this and you'll see that our guys need help--now:

Obama's War

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/

10/24/2009 9:37:50 PM

he can't just leave the troops that are there hanging but he also can't send more into harms way. hopefully he is rethinking everything right now and will end up doing the right thing...bringing them all home.

10/24/2009 9:47:42 PM

^ And it'll be yet another flip-flop--in an ever-growing line of them--concerning a central theme of Obama's presidential campaign.

Obama is breaking his vow to fight a 'war of necessity'
10/23/09

Quote :

"A steady trope of President Barack Obama's foreign policy has been the contention that the mission to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and install a democratic government in its place was a distraction from the war in Afghanistan. And the corollary of that view was Obama's vow, repeated frequently during the presidential campaign, that he would finish the job. 'When John McCain said we could just "muddle through" in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on Sept. 11,' Obama declared in his Aug. 28, 2008, acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. With Iraq as a foil, Afghanistan, in liberal parlance, has long been 'the good war,' uncontaminated by Halliburton, neocons and nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. However, as Obama nears a decision on whether to meet the request of his handpicked commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, for some 40,000 additional troops, he must wrestle with the fact that the liberal base that elected him adamantly resists not just a troop increase but fighting the war itself. Opposition to the war in Afghanistan, once a preserve of far-left publications like The Nation and organizations like MoveOn.org, is now expressed by the majority of Democratic Party voters. An August CNN/Opinion Research poll found that a full three-quarters of Democrats now oppose the war. And a Clarus Research poll conducted earlier this month reported that only 17 percent support sending more troops, with 61 percent supporting a withdrawal. Democrats in Washington are now beginning to reflect the views of their constituents back home. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) is already calling for a withdrawal timeline. And Speaker Nancy Pelosi, as good a bellwether of Democratic congressional opinion as anybody, said in September, 'I don't think there's a great deal of support for sending more troops to Afghanistan in the country or in the Congress.' Should Obama decide to send more soldiers, he will face a major backlash from an already beleaguered caucus."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28618.html

[Edited on October 24, 2009 at 9:55 PM. Reason : .]

10/24/2009 9:54:29 PM

Zinni to Obama: Time’s Up on Afghanistan Decision
October 26, 2009

Quote :

"Anthony Zinni stepped up his call for the Obama administration to quit dillydallying and send more troops to Afghanistan to fight the insurgency. A counterinsurgency strategy, he said, would work better over the long run than continuing narrower counterterrorism operations that target Taliban and al Qaeda leaders. The retired Marine Corps general, who had been the top commander in the Middle East and Central Asia, said the Obama administration needs more forces in Afghanistan quickly. Zinni said his own son was among the troops waiting to be deployed, adding: 'I think that we owe them a decision. For the life of me, I can't figure out why we're still waiting for one.' Zinni, who spent considerable time working with the Pakistani and Indian governments while he headed Centcom during the Clinton administration, told the International Peace Operations Association's annual conference that a counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan could better resolve the nettlesome problems with Taliban and al Qaeda fighters and drug production. The association is a trade group for battlefield contractors; Zinni is chairman of BAE Systems Inc., the U.K. defense giant's U.S. arm."

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/10/26/zinni-to-obama-times-up-on-afghanistan-decision/

10/27/2009 1:48:03 PM

U.S. official resigns over Afghan war
Foreign Service officer and former Marine captain says he no longer knows why his nation is fighting
Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Quote :

"When Matthew Hoh joined the Foreign Service early this year, he was exactly the kind of smart civil-military hybrid the administration was looking for to help expand its development efforts in Afghanistan. A former Marine Corps captain with combat experience in Iraq, Hoh had also served in uniform at the Pentagon, and as a civilian in Iraq and at the State Department. By July, he was the senior U.S. civilian in Zabul province, a Taliban hotbed. But last month, in a move that has sent ripples all the way to the White House, Hoh, 36, became the first U.S. official known to resign in protest over the Afghan war, which he had come to believe simply fueled the insurgency. 'I have lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purposes of the United States' presence in Afghanistan,' he wrote Sept. 10 in a four-page letter to the department's head of personnel. 'I have doubts and reservations about our current strategy and planned future strategy, but my resignation is based not upon how we are pursuing this war, but why and to what end.' The reaction to Hoh's letter was immediate. Senior U.S. officials, concerned that they would lose an outstanding officer and perhaps gain a prominent critic, appealed to him to stay. U.S. Ambassador Karl W. Eikenberry brought him to Kabul and offered him a job on his senior embassy staff. Hoh declined. From there, he was flown home for a face-to-face meeting with Richard C. Holbrooke, the administration's special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. 'We took his letter very seriously, because he was a good officer,' Holbrooke said in an interview. 'We all thought that given how serious his letter was, how much commitment there was, and his prior track record, we should pay close attention to him.' While he did not share Hoh's view that the war 'wasn't worth the fight,' Holbrooke said, 'I agreed with much of his analysis.' He asked Hoh to join his team in Washington, saying that 'if he really wanted to affect policy and help reduce the cost of the war on lives and treasure,' why not be 'inside the building, rather than outside, where you can get a lot of attention but you won't have the same political impact?' Hoh accepted the argument and the job, but changed his mind a week later. 'I recognize the career implications, but it wasn't the right thing to do,' he said in an interview Friday, two days after his resignation became final. 'I'm not some peacenik, pot-smoking hippie who wants everyone to be in love,' Hoh said. Although he said his time in Zabul was the 'second-best job I've ever had,' his dominant experience is from the Marines, where many of his closest friends still serve. 'There are plenty of dudes who need to be killed,' he said of al-Qaeda and the Taliban. 'I was never more happy than when our Iraq team whacked a bunch of guys.' But many Afghans, he wrote in his resignation letter, are fighting the United States largely because its troops are there -- a growing military presence in villages and valleys where outsiders, including other Afghans, are not welcome and where the corrupt, U.S.-backed national government is rejected. While the Taliban is a malign presence, and Pakistan-based al-Qaeda needs to be confronted, he said, the United States is asking its troops to die in Afghanistan for what is essentially a far-off civil war."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/26/AR2009102603394.html

Why are we still fighting? Because Obama declared Afghanistan the "the central front" in this "overseas contingency operation," a "war of necessity." But a "dithering" Obama simply won't commit the necessary forces to finish the job.

10/27/2009 4:22:36 PM

lol, the central figure in the article you cited says he advocates a reduction in the amount of troops:

From page 4:

Quote :

"If the United States is to remain in Afghanistan, Hoh said, he would advise a reduction in combat forces. "

10/27/2009 4:46:17 PM

^ LOL! Did I say he didn't?

This is the very point. Concerning Afghanistan, there is a disconnect among some of the soldiers on the ground, some in Congress, the American people, and Obama's rhetoric. It's decision time--one way or another.

And it's telling how you completely avoided the fact that the Obama administration basically tried to promote Hoh into silence concerning his objections about Afghanistan. They don't want anyone to focus on Obama's indecision concerning Afghanistan--hell, there's a more important war on with FOX News, haven't you heard?

10/27/2009 4:56:31 PM

Troops already outnumber Taliban 12-1
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jWM24PqWpJg-935bFXbYANhGJ_lQD9BJLDVO0

You're an idiot if you think this boils down to troops. It's not an issue of troops in Iraq, it wasn't an issue of troops in Vietnam, and it's not an issue of troops in A-stan either. Forcing peace by the presence of a military isn't peace, otherwise we would have left Saddam alone with Iraq.

[Edited on October 27, 2009 at 5:30 PM. Reason : ]

10/27/2009 5:28:48 PM

^ Well it isn't only troops. It is a combination of troops and the right strategy. The number of troops requested by GEN Shinseki in 2002 before the invastion of Iraq was wildly out of line with what Rumsfeld felt was necessary. Of course, we know who won out there and the result was a disaster. Had the full number been sent in with a clear mission in 2003, the war would still have been unnecessary, but not nearly as costly (IMO).

Insurgencies aren't fighting symmetric warfare and do not need 1:1 parity to be effective. The AP numbers also do not take into account the support the Taliban might receive from sympathetic locals. These numbers would be the equivalent of the logistics Soldiers who number in the 100,000 US troops but not the Taliban numbers. A more effective measure would be trigger pullers vs. trigger pullers. Counting effective trigger pullers (combat arms US forces plus only a fraction of Afghan forces) would pull that number much closer in line.

Even then, the occupying force would require more boots simply because it must hold ground. The Taliban doesn't need to gain and hold ground in the short term to prove victorious.

Quote :

"Why was the XM-8 cancelled?"

Right now, my best guess would be that it is just a little too much for the DoD supply system to introduce a new service rifle across the board. OTOH, the politics of the procurement process are possibly some of the most corrupt and convoluted activities in the Federal Government.

10/27/2009 5:36:52 PM

^^ Yeah, some Intarweb fuckhead--you--knows more than General Stanley McChrystal, ISAF and USFOR-A commander; Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Robert Gates, U.S. Secretary of Defense; the NATO defense ministers; and so on. They have all requested more forces.

Shut. . .the fuck. . .up, you reflexively defensive, bed-wetting leftist, Obama cock gobbler.

[Edited on October 27, 2009 at 5:39 PM. Reason : .]

10/27/2009 5:38:39 PM

If it were all as simple as "more troops", then we, the United States, a country with absolutely and unquestionably the greatest degree of military power in the entire world, would have already ended this whole thing a long time ago.

While, yes, the generals tend to know what they are doing and are requesting more troops, and it's probably a good idea to give them some, anyone saying that it boils down solely to numbers is committing something beyond a gross oversimplification. Shit, after a certain point (which, for the record, I highly doubt we've reached yet in Afghanistan), it boils down to political stability over occupying military control.

10/27/2009 5:48:16 PM

^^ they're military men, of course they'll want more troops. It's practically their job. And McChrystal at least is a very firm believer in winning hearts and minds, his goal for the troops isn't to force peace, like you seem to be insinuating.

And in your view, how many more troops? We already have 12-1 on the taliban, do we need 20-1? 100-1?

Adding more troops only delays the inevitable, it doesn't actually solve the main problems, and i'm sure that unlike you, McChrsytal, Gates, and EVEN OBAMA realizes this.

10/27/2009 5:55:21 PM

^^ Sweet Jesus, more strawmen. Can someone post where I indicated that success in Afghanistan "boils down solely to numbers"?

^ The fucking top general on the ground has requested more troops. Fucking send them--now! BTW, I can remember a time when bug-eyed, flap-jawed liberals were howling that we needed to listen to our commanders on the ground--what happened?!.

Yet, they--including the NATO defense ministers--support sending more troops. I wonder what these commanders on the ground know that a handful of assholes on the Internet don't? Hmm?
Maybe, the fucking facts!

10/27/2009 6:02:05 PM

^ it's not the president's job to roll over for the military, and any president that would do so would be dumb.

Most people don't know squat about healthcare, the internet, nuclear energy, or a whole host of things yet we're asked to vote based on these issues.

If sending more troops would fix the problem, more troops would have been there yesterday. It's more complex than that.

I think Obama will end up sending more troops, but I also think they're looking for a clear "exit strategy" if that's even possible anymore.

[Edited on October 27, 2009 at 6:17 PM. Reason : ]

10/27/2009 6:14:36 PM

^ Honoring the urgent troop request of your hand-picked commander--and pretty much the rest of the military and civilian commanders--isn't rolling over. Obama is a neophyte and he needs to lean more heavily on his much more experienced commanders.

You don't have the capacity to grasp the concept, I know, but it's called leadership. For one thing, it is having the ability to delegate to and trust the decision-making process of your subordinates.

[Edited on October 27, 2009 at 6:22 PM. Reason : .]

10/27/2009 6:21:27 PM

Quote :

"If it were all as simple as "more troops", then we, the United States, a country with absolutely and unquestionably the greatest degree of military power in the entire world, would have already ended this whole thing a long time ago."

We actually do not have an exceptionally large military by pure troop strength numbers. We're large and well augmented by other systems, but Iraq had more active duty land forces than we did in 2003.

Quote :

"We already have 12-1 on the taliban"

flawed numbers, already addressed.

Quote :

"it's not the president's job to roll over for the military, and any president that would do so would be dumb."

No it isn't. He's not in an enviable position, but he's been the President / President Elect for nearly a year. You'd think he'd have a game plan for Afghanistan by now. Agreed that events change but part of being a commander in chief is making the best possible decision with what information you have in a timely manner. Delay is never productive in combat. Pull them out, leave it the same, or plus up the total numbers, but make a fucking decision already.

10/27/2009 6:23:10 PM

Quote :

"We actually do not have an exceptionally large military by pure troop strength numbers."

I actually realized that as I was posting, but having better guns and machines I can consider to be close enough. That's actually why I used the term "degree of military power".

10/27/2009 6:57:24 PM

Yeah, but machines and technology don't occupy battle space and interact with humans the way other humans do. So while our technological advantage might allow us to seek and destroy our enemies easier, it does not make building trust and establishing national stability any easier.

10/27/2009 8:38:11 PM

Quote :

"Yet, they--including the NATO defense ministers--support sending more troops. I wonder what these commanders on the ground know that a handful of assholes on the Internet don't? Hmm? Maybe, the fucking facts! "

This would be like leaving the decision to decorate or not up to Martha Stewart. BUT SHES A DECORATION EXPERT!!

Quote :

"Delay is never productive in combat. Pull them out, leave it the same, or plus up the total numbers, but make a fucking decision already."

Decisions this important should never be made overnight. Obama shouldn't feel pushed into making any deicsions. Let him think about it so he can make the best decision. Also, wouldn't no decision fall under "leave it the same".

IMO he's debating if hes going to grant the extra troops or pull them out all together but he will wait until after the healthcare vote to announce his final decision; so not to alienate any public option votes.

10/27/2009 11:17:00 PM

^ You never defended your wild and completely unsubstantiated theory about the CIA blowing up pakistani universities.

10/28/2009 1:32:08 AM

Quote :

"Why was the XM-8 cancelled?"

During my short ROTC stint, one of the sergeants said it had a bad habit of exploding in the hands of soldiers/testers. Where he got that information and whether or not it's accurate I can't say, but it's the only reason I've heard offered, from someone who could conceivably be in a position to know.

Quote :

"Troops already outnumber Taliban 12-1"

It's not an issue of outnumbering them, it's an issue of having enough guys to cover the ground. Of course, even the proposed increases will only let us keep an eye on a fraction of the country, but (hopefully) there's also a plan to watch the right fractions.

10/28/2009 1:59:55 AM

Brother of Afghan Leader Is Said to Be on C.I.A. Payroll
Published: October 27, 2009

Quote :

"KABUL, Afghanistan — Ahmed Wali Karzai, the brother of the Afghan president and a suspected player in the country’s booming illegal opium trade, gets regular payments from the Central Intelligence Agency, and has for much of the past eight years, according to current and former American officials. The agency pays Mr. Karzai for a variety of services, including helping to recruit an Afghan paramilitary force that operates at the C.I.A.’s direction in and around the southern city of Kandahar, Mr. Karzai’s home. The financial ties and close working relationship between the intelligence agency and Mr. Karzai raise significant questions about America’s war strategy, which is currently under review at the White House. The ties to Mr. Karzai have created deep divisions within the Obama administration. The critics say the ties complicate America’s increasingly tense relationship with President Hamid Karzai, who has struggled to build sustained popularity among Afghans and has long been portrayed by the Taliban as an American puppet. The C.I.A.’s practices also suggest that the United States is not doing everything in its power to stamp out the lucrative Afghan drug trade, a major source of revenue for the Taliban."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/world/asia/28intel.html

But, but Bush did it, too!

And there's this:

Afghanistan attack kills 6 U.N. workers
Earlier roadside blasts leave eight U.S. troops dead, making October the deadliest month for American forces.
October 28, 2009

Quote :

"Reporting from Washington and Kabul, Afghanistan Julian E. Barnes -- An early morning assault on a Kabul guest house by attackers armed with suicide vests and assault rifles killed six U.N. workers today, just a day after eight U.S. troops died in a pair of roadside bomb attacks in southern Afghanistan, making October the deadliest month of the eight-year war for American forces."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-afghan-deaths28-2009oct28,0,6008774.story

If some of you can't see that our forces need help--now--then you're blind.

10/28/2009 3:21:08 AM

Quote :

"Decisions this important should never be made overnight."

It's been 11 months.

Quote :

" Obama shouldn't feel pushed into making any deicsions."

Yes he should. He wanted to be the President of the United States, he is the President of the United States As he pointed out in the campaign, a President has to be able to do more than one thing at a time and make difficult decisions. When people are dying because of your policies (and if you adopt the policies of your predecessor, they become your policies), you don't have the luxury of long-term rumination.

Generally, in something fluid like war, the 80% solution today is better than the 90% solution 11 months from now. He's either stalling or looking for a 100% solution which simply doesn't exist.

10/28/2009 5:14:00 AM

McCain: "It's Time to Act" in Afghanistan
October 28, 2009

Quote :

"Sen. John McCain said the White House was dragging its feet on the decision to increase troop levels and chided President Barack Obama for the delay, saying 'it's time to act.' 'We watch this situation continue to deteriorate while this long protracted process of decision-making goes on. We're not operating in a vacuum. The president of the United States needs to make this decision and soon,' McCain, R-Ariz., said on CBS' 'The Early Show.'"

Quote :

"'The strategy is right. The strategy has been reviewed time and time again since march when the president announced his support for it. The strategy is there. And everybody knows that the troop number is around 40,000. So there is not reason for further delay.'"

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/10/28/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5432677.shtml

10/28/2009 3:13:51 PM

Quote :

"Obama shouldn't feel pushed into making any deicsions."

Clearly he doesn't:

Attendance at Fundraisers during first year in office:
Obama 2008: 22
Bush 2001: 6
Clinton 1993: 5


Now, this is admittedly a weak metric, but the president spends (compared to his predecessors) an inordinate amount of time campaigning. Every day he delays, he confirms that decision of indecision.

10/28/2009 6:05:41 PM

Its not a game though. You can't just suddenly send 40,000 fathers, sons and brohters in to die without thinking it through. Especially when they aren't fighting for anything measurable and likely are fighting for no reason. Dying for no reason.

These aren't chess pieces you're playing with, its lives.

Quote :

"If some of you can't see that our forces need help OUT--now--then you're blind."

10/28/2009 6:19:08 PM

No shit. If you feel that strongly about it, you should be just as upset with the delay as someone who feels that more Soldiers are needed.


The indecision is inexcusable.

10/28/2009 6:23:37 PM