Obama to withdraw 30,000 troops against Pentagon advice

[Asian.Century]

i agree Meengla but what was the point of sending 30,000 troops in first place if they are to be called....sheer waste of billions of dollars, blood of americans and british and then time, equipment, Patreaus is to be blamed here!

 

[53fd]

Obama just finished his speech on TV on the draw down.

end of 2011 - 10,000 draw down
latest by September 2012- 23,000 draw down

remainder 66,000 troops , twice the size it was when he came into office.

He also increased the number of troops when he took over, by adding 30,000 more troops a year & a half ago. Net result: pretty much the same number of troops when he came into power, no reduction at all.

 

[Asian.Century]

He also increased the number of troops when he took over, by adding 30,000 more troops a year & a half ago. Net result: pretty much the same number of troops when he came into power, no reduction at all.

Who is to be blamed to send 33000 troops in first place??? Blood, billions lost and time and America faced with Vietnam like situation where Taliban or Alqaeda are NOT eliminated in Afghanistan.

Gen Patreaus, Mike Mullen, Obama, Bush or someone else?????

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

The presence of of these troops in Afghanistan and Iraq is not helping or improving the lives of local residents then why these troops should be there? Are Afghanistan and Iraq better and more safe country after invasion of USA. Answer is NO.

 

[Asian.Century]

Obama Ups the Odds of Defeat in Afghanistan

By Danielle Pletka
June 22, 2011, 3:47 pm

CBS and the New York Times are reporting that President Obama will order the drawdown of 10,000 troops from Afghanistan by the end of this year, and the remainder of the surge troops by September 2012. “Two administration officials said General Petraeus did not endorse the decision,” the Times tells us, “though both Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who is retiring, and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton reluctantly accepted it.”

So where did the president get the numbers? Not from Gates. Not from Clinton. Not from Petraeus. Reportedly from Joe Biden. And where did he get the dates? From the election calendar.

This is an amazing decision to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Those in the field believe that lower numbers will result in higher U.S. casualties, reduce the chance of success in stabilizing Afghanistan, and concede territory to the enemy. If, like Ron Paul, you believe there is “nothing for us to be gained in Afghanistan,” then losing faster is a great idea. If, like Obama (circa 2009), you believe there is something worth winning, then why decide to lose? Simple answer: Obama has decided that for him there is a binary sort. He can win the 2012 election or America can prevail in Afghanistan. A responsible commander-in-chief would recognize that with real leadership, he could achieve both.

http://blog.american.com/2011/06/obama-ups...in-afghanistan/

 

[khanz4996]

lol poor US together with 40 nato countries with israel and india together cant fight a small band of taliban not more then 100000 rebels and they are thinking of bullying chinese and dreaming about interference in south china sea?i think US wants to commit suicide

 

[JayAtl]

as much as you guys want to push that meme that it is some American loss, no surprises there- while crying foul when he does not drawn down: AQ in Afghanistan is down to few in numbers - fact.

If you use your logic then the number of terrorist has increased, attacks have increased in Pakistan after the Pak army move on NWF.

So what would the the logical conclusion be if we follow you guys meme?

 

[Respect4Respect01]

bye bye murderers.

 

[muse]

Obama Ups the Odds of Defeat in Afghanistan
By Danielle Pletka

Come on, now Ms. Pletka, what was "Victory" in Afghanistan about, again? -- A six plus trillion dollar financial scandal and at least 4 trillions lost on idiot wars - all the while the ordinary US person gets to worry about the largest investment most will have made in their lives, worried about their jobs and no relief in sight -- and you were saying something about "victory"? wait, you might have been trying not consider that US may have defeated itself when it imagined that it's security can be furthered by making others insecure.

 

[JayAtl]

Come on, now Ms. Pletka, what was "Victory" in Afghanistan about, again? -- A six plus trillion dollar financial scandal and at least 4 trillions lost on idiot wars - all the while the ordinary US person gets to worry about the largest investment most will have made in their lives, worried about their jobs and no relief in sight -- and you were saying something about "victory"? wait, you might have been trying not consider that US may have defeated itself when it imagined that it's security can be furthered by making others insecure.

Our lives and safety are worth it , god bless America for keeping us safe . The shutters are not down- America will prevail, we will enjoy great lives and majority of the people would still love our green cards. America will still be hugely prosperous...can you say the same of ?

 

[graphican]

GEO was reporting this number to be 10,000 instead of 33,000. Got to see his speech to be sure about the number.

 

[Tshering22]

Guess they successfully tested some latest hi-tech weapons already and met their objectives. Hence the "loss".

 

[gambit]

bye bye murderers.

Yup...That is exactly what we will say to the Taliban savages.

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

Why is everyone so happy ? Do you guys really think USA will leave totally like in 1989 ? No way hosay .

 

[Oldman1]

The presence of of these troops in Afghanistan and Iraq is not helping or improving the lives of local residents then why these troops should be there? Are Afghanistan and Iraq better and more safe country after invasion of USA. Answer is NO.

Oh yeah Iraq is a lot safer than what it was years ago. Even you cannot deny that. The Iraqi military is now handling any problems that is going on now. The terrorists cannot win.