President Obama turns forces loose to decimate the Taliban

[top gun]

President Obama turns loose an aggressive new hot pursuit strategy against the Taliban in Afghanistan (you might remember the Taliban... they were the one's that actually attacked us on 9-11 and as a response the then President Bush took our country on his big $12 BILLION DOLLAR PER MONTH carousel ride into Iraq... )

Over 4000 US Marines were mostly air dropped deep into Taliban strongholds to break them up from within. They will then hold these areas. Notably this is also a major opium cultivating area where a lot of the Taliban's funding comes from.

Major military operation under way in Afghanistan
By LARA JAKES, Associated Press Writer Lara Jakes, Associated Press Writer –Wed Jul 1, 7:53 pm ET

WASHINGTON – Thousands of U.S. Marines and hundreds of Afghan troops moved into Taliban-infested villages with armor and helicopters Wednesday evening in the first major operation under President Barack Obama's revamped strategy to stabilize Afghanistan.

The offensive was launched shortly after 1 a.m. Thursday local time in Helmand province, a Taliban stronghold in the southern part of the country. The goal is to clear insurgents from the hotly contested Helmand River Valley before the nation's Aug. 20 presidential election.

Dubbed Operation Khanjar, or "Strike of the Sword," the military push was described by officials as the largest and fastest-moving of the war's new phase. British forces last week led similar missions to fight and clear out insurgents in Helmand and neighboring Kandahar provinces.

"Where we go we will stay, and where we stay, we will hold, build and work toward transition of all security responsibilities to Afghan forces," Marine Corps Brig. Gen. Larry Nicholson said in a statement.

 

[Kool aid kid]

Do we know the exit plan?

 

[GenSeneca]

President Obama turns loose an aggressive new hot pursuit strategy against the Taliban in Afghanistan

Did he authorize enough troops that we're "not just air raiding villages and killing civilians"?

you might remember the Taliban... they were the one's that actually attacked us on 9-11 and as a response ...

...As a response we went to war in Afghanistan, dethroning the Taliban and capturing or killing several high ranking Al Qaeda members, including KSM, the architect of 9/11.

Iraq was about enforcing UN security resolutions against Saddam... No matter what the revisionists try to claim our reason for war was, the bill authorizing the use of force in Iraq specifically stated it was for the purpose of enforcing security resolutions - Not in retaliation for 9/11.

President Bush took our country on his big $12 BILLION DOLLAR PER MONTH carousel ride into Iraq...

Top Gun is historically and factually challenged. America is not a dictatorship that bends to the will of one man, no matter how much Top Gun and the progs wish we would do just that for Obama and crying about obstructionism when we don't go along.

The vote to go to war in Iraq was as follows:
Senate: 77 yea, 23 nay --- 30 Democrats voted for the war, 21 voted no.
House: 296 yea, 133 nay --- 81 Democrats for, 126 against.

Without the Democrats voting for the war, we would not have gone.

Over 4000 US Marines were mostly air dropped deep into Taliban strongholds to break them up from within. They will then hold these areas.

Still no exit strategy....

Notably this is also a major opium cultivating area where a lot of the Taliban's funding comes from.

Lets take a look at the economic genius that is Obama:
Taliban makes about $50 million from the opium crops which they buy from the farmers.
Obama's plan is to spend $300 million to teach the farmers to grow other crops.
We could simply buy the opium from the farmers, dump it in the ocean, which would take it off the drug market, and save ourselves at least $250 million in the process.

 

[top gun]

Did he authorize enough troops that we're "not just air raiding villages and killing civilians"?

The commanders on the ground and the United States Marine Corps say... YES!

We will under President Obama turn up the heat on the real causes of 9-11 in Afghanistan.

Iraq was about enforcing UN security resolutions against Saddam... No matter what the revisionists try to claim our reason for war was, the bill authorizing the use of force in Iraq specifically stated it was for the purpose of enforcing security resolutions - Not in retaliation for 9/11.

Bush lied us in all the way everyone knows that now. He used the emotions generated by the 9-11 attacks... said Iraq was involved (which was a complete and utter lie) and then proceeded to invade a country that said they had no WMD's... and had no WMD's. Then Bush proceeded to throw $12 BILLION DOLLARS PER MONTH FOR & YEARS away because he was stuck in his lie.

Top Gun is historically and factually challenged. America is not a dictatorship that bends to the will of one man, no matter how much Top Gun and the progs wish we would do just that for Obama and crying about obstructionism when we don't go along.

The vote to go to war in Iraq was as follows:
Senate: 77 yea, 23 nay --- 30 Democrats voted for the war, 21 voted no.
House: 296 yea, 133 nay --- 81 Democrats for, 126 against.

Without the Democrats voting for the war, we would not have gone.

Lied to one and all!

 

[GenSeneca]

The commanders on the ground and the United States Marine Corps say... YES!

They said the same thing under Bush but the Messiah still claimed we were doing nothing more than air raiding villages and killing civilians.

Perhaps Harry Reid will come out and say: "This war is lost"

Or maybe, if we're really lucky, John Freakin Kerry (who served in vietnam) will come out and say that American soldiers are going into the homes of Afghanis, "Terrorizing kids, women and children in the dark of night".

Lied to one and all!

If Bush is the Dumbas$ "mental midget" as you continually insist that he is... And he fooled all of you... That's not only really sad but it also doesn't bode well for how easily dictators who hate us will be able to fool you as well.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Do we know the exit plan?

thats what you ask before the war starts.....you know back in 2001....way to catch up though

 

[top gun]

GenSeneca;101132]They said the same thing under Bush but the Messiah still claimed we were doing nothing more than air raiding villages and killing civilians.

The difference being Bush as Commander in Chief was a liar and only presented the information he wanted. Removed top commanders and commanders on the ground that did not say the things he & Darth Cheney wanted to here.

President Obama has no special love affair with war and the collateral damage that is often a part. In the broad long term picture he only wants to get in do the best job possible and get out as quickly as possible. Not Nation Build.

Or maybe, if we're really lucky, John Freakin Kerry (who served in vietnam) will come out and say that American soldiers are going into the homes of Afghanis, "Terrorizing kids, women and children in the dark of night".

If you don't know about war atrocities that have been talked about openly and probably hundreds of books written about by American soldiers then I don't know what to say.

There were some bad things that happened over there. I had one buddy ended up shooting himself after he got home because he couldn't cope with some of the things he saw done.

If Bush is the Dumbas$ "mental midget" as you continually insist that he is... And he fooled all of you... That's not only really sad but it also doesn't bode well for how easily dictators who hate us will be able to fool you as well.

Why would that be???

If you're the President of the United States and you choose to choreographed a need for war scenario especially after something that had people in mourning like the 9-11 attacks a talking squirrel could probably do it... and Did!

 

[Hobo1]

President Obama has no special love affair with war and the collateral damage that is often a part. In the broad long term picture he only wants to get in do the best job possible and get out as quickly as possible. Not Nation Build.

Actually, Obama is trying a combination of capturing former Taliban strongholds and then "staying there". Staying there can mean keep the Taliban out - but from what I have read Obama is also trying to change the hearts and minds of the people who live in these areas. He is doing that by building schools, providing medical care, and trying everything that looks to me like nation building.

I think this really is the only strategy available, because the Afgan people generally hate us now. Plus, the Taliban are experts at avoiding a fight when the odds are odds are against them - and later showing up behind the lines well equipped to do some major damage on our "read guard". We've got to the the majority of Afgan people on our side so the Taliban cannot move around so freely.

But any strategy in this war is very risky. Even our best strategy might be not be good enough to win this war.

 

[PLC1]

President Obama has no special love affair with war and the collateral damage that is often a part. In the broad long term picture he only wants to get in do the best job possible and get out as quickly as possible. Not Nation Build.

Actually, Obama is trying a combination of capturing former Taliban strongholds and then "staying there". Staying there can mean keep the Taliban out - but from what I have read Obama is also trying to change the hearts and minds of the people who live in these areas. He is doing that by building schools, providing medical care, and trying everything that looks to me like nation building.

I think this really is the only strategy available, because the Afgan people generally hate us now. Plus, the Taliban are experts at avoiding a fight when the odds are odds are against them - and later showing up behind the lines well equipped to do some major damage on our "read guard". We've got to the the majority of Afgan people on our side so the Taliban cannot move around so freely.

But any strategy in this war is very risky. Even our best strategy might be not be good enough to win this war.

The Taliban defeated the Soviet Union, didn't it? What makes us think it can't defeat the US as well?

Of course, we were supporting the Taliban during the time they were fighting our old enemy, but that's another story.

 

[top gun]

President Obama has no special love affair with war and the collateral damage that is often a part. In the broad long term picture he only wants to get in do the best job possible and get out as quickly as possible. Not Nation Build.

Actually, Obama is trying a combination of capturing former Taliban strongholds and then "staying there". Staying there can mean keep the Taliban out - but from what I have read Obama is also trying to change the hearts and minds of the people who live in these areas. He is doing that by building schools, providing medical care, and trying everything that looks to me like nation building.

I think this really is the only strategy available, because the Afgan people generally hate us now. Plus, the Taliban are experts at avoiding a fight when the odds are odds are against them - and later showing up behind the lines well equipped to do some major damage on our "read guard". We've got to the the majority of Afgan people on our side so the Taliban cannot move around so freely.

But any strategy in this war is very risky. Even our best strategy might be not be good enough to win this war.

I understand what you're saying but there is a difference. We aren't invading we are working with the existing government. And you point out good things about building schools and such. We're trying to help win the hearts & minds of the general population.

There's a lot of countries we give aid to... that's nation helping not Nation Building.

Nation Building is like what we did in Iran. We didn't like their democratically elected leader so we overthrew him and put in the Shah of Iran.

Or in Iraq. We didn't like the leader so we invaded the country, hunted him down, had him tried by his his opposition who of course killed him and promoted and protected this (temporarily) more pro-western government.

 

[top gun]

The Taliban defeated the Soviet Union, didn't it? What makes us think it can't defeat the US as well?

Of course, we were supporting the Taliban during the time they were fighting our old enemy, but that's another story.

Yes in the past it's been that old saying... My enemies enemy is my friend.

I think we have some things in our favor that will help us out there this time.

#1... The Taliban has to be a little worn down and somewhat depleted because when we went into Iraq they went up there to fight us. So they've been taking losses already for 8 years.

#2... They don't have either the US or Russia backing them up with money, advisers and weapons this time.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

The Taliban defeated the Soviet Union, didn't it? What makes us think it can't defeat the US as well?

Of course, we were supporting the Taliban during the time they were fighting our old enemy, but that's another story.

actually no the Taliban did not defeat the Soviets....there where many groups who fought them, they where one, and they just happen to win the civil war after. The Taliban won in Afghanistan only because the people wanted law and order and a end to the war, and would support anyone who could get that...Afganistan with the CIA, Pakistan, Sauds, and others beat the Soviets....not the taliban

 

[Hobo1]

The Taliban defeated the Soviet Union, didn't it? What makes us think it can't defeat the US as well?

Of course, we were supporting the Taliban during the time they were fighting our old enemy, but that's another story.

HEY, whose messing with the code??? That's not my quote...PLC said that!! I never said that - I never would because I think the fight of the Taliban and Al Qaeda against the Soviet Union has no significant meaning in the current war.

For that matter, the Afganistan war lords defeated (or halted) Alexander the Great as well - but that's another story too.

 

[PLC1]

HEY, whose messing with the code??? That's not my quote...PLC said that!! I never said that - I never would because I think the fight of the Taliban and Al Qaeda against the Soviet Union has no significant meaning in the current war.

For that matter, the Afganistan war lords defeated (or halted) Alexander the Great as well - but that's another story too.

Good for you for not taking credit for my well thought out and obviously correct observations.