Page 1 of 3

Afghanistan

Posted: 14 Sep 2009 07:33
by Freakzilla
Pictures from the front: http://www.military.com/slideshows/afgh ... SRC=dod.nl" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Re: Afghanistan

Posted: 14 Sep 2009 08:48
by Seraphan
Interesting pics.

Re: Afghanistan

Posted: 14 Sep 2009 15:46
by E. LeGuille
Still no real media exposure on this war. We've been there longer than we have in any other conflict. Well, whatever they are doing, I salute them.

Re: Afghanistan

Posted: 14 Sep 2009 16:05
by A Thing of Eternity
I don't know if I'd salute someone without knowing what they're doing...


... but having a pretty good idea in this case, yes I salute them.

Re: Afghanistan

Posted: 15 Sep 2009 12:57
by SandRider
E. LeGuille wrote: We've been there longer than we have in any other conflict.
Viet Nam, 1959-1975 ?

Re: Afghanistan

Posted: 15 Sep 2009 13:11
by Freakzilla
SandRider wrote:
E. LeGuille wrote: We've been there longer than we have in any other conflict.
Viet Nam, 1959-1975 ?
The War on Drugs, 1969-present.

The war on drugs is a war on you.

Re: Afghanistan

Posted: 15 Sep 2009 13:23
by A Thing of Eternity
Freakzilla wrote:
SandRider wrote:
E. LeGuille wrote: We've been there longer than we have in any other conflict.
Viet Nam, 1959-1975 ?
The War on Drugs, 1969-present.

The war on drugs is a war on you.
:D

Re: Afghanistan

Posted: 15 Sep 2009 17:23
by chanilover
This shambles is in the British media a lot recently, mostly because people in general are sick of it and want to pull our troops out.

Re: Afghanistan

Posted: 16 Sep 2009 17:27
by E. LeGuille
No, SandRider, you're right. I was thinking of conflict with world-wide involvement. Sorry!

And yeah, the War on Drugs... that could be considered a world-wide conflict... everyone is affected by what the U.S. does when it comes to drugs. Koreans / Chinese export pharmaceutical drugs, and South America export drugs you don't get from a doctor.

Difference? Taste.

Re: Afghanistan

Posted: 18 Sep 2009 13:36
by Leto
is the afghanistan War a world-wide one?
I'm not sure... :think:

Re: Afghanistan

Posted: 18 Sep 2009 14:28
by SandRider
the Bush Doctrine of the "War on Terror" (unchanged by Obama, except the name)
says the United States federal government can and will use military force in any
nation in the world in pursuit of "terrorists".

The war in Afghanistan has now morphed from a "hunt for Al-Qaida" to an open
conflict with the "Taliban", who didn't just lay down and quit after the first quarter.

Re: Afghanistan

Posted: 18 Sep 2009 17:40
by Freakzilla
SandRider wrote:the Bush Doctrine of the "War on Terror" (unchanged by Obama, except the name)...
Is that why defense is the ONLY area in which Obama has cut spending? :P

Re: Afghanistan

Posted: 18 Sep 2009 17:48
by SandRider
Freakzilla wrote:
SandRider wrote:the Bush Doctrine of the "War on Terror" (unchanged by Obama, except the name)...
Is that why defense is the ONLY area in which Obama has cut spending? :P

total defense outlays have increased for FY2010, as they always do.

your "cuts" you heard about from Fox News was on R&D projects,
laser-plane, more space-guns, the stormtrooper exo-skeleton scam, &etc.

as was exhaustively debunked right here in this forum last spring.

overall DOD spending is increased in the next budget, as it always is.

obama bashing fail.
again.

if anything, I wish the administration would slash the defense budget.

wish someone would, just once.

wish in one hand, shit in the other .... see which fills up faster.

Re: Afghanistan

Posted: 18 Sep 2009 17:49
by A Thing of Eternity
SandRider wrote:
Freakzilla wrote:
SandRider wrote:the Bush Doctrine of the "War on Terror" (unchanged by Obama, except the name)...
Is that why defense is the ONLY area in which Obama has cut spending? :P

total defense outlays have increased for FY2010, as they always do.

your "cuts" you heard about from Fox News was on R&D projects,
laser-plane, more space-guns, the stormtrooper exo-skeleton scam, &etc.

as was exhaustively debunked right here in this forum last spring.

overall DOD spending is increased in the next budget, as it always is.

obama bashing fail.
again.

if anything, I wish the administration would slash the defense budget.

wish someone would, just once.

wish in one hand, shit in the other .... see which fills up faster.
But...


... those exoskeletons were essential damnit!!

Re: Afghanistan

Posted: 18 Sep 2009 17:53
by Freakzilla
...Eastern European missle shield... :wink:

Ask the guys in Afghanastan if they have everything they need.

Re: Afghanistan

Posted: 18 Sep 2009 18:02
by A Thing of Eternity
But, what's your response when you say that's the only area Obama cut, and SR says it's been increased?

Re: Afghanistan

Posted: 18 Sep 2009 18:13
by Freakzilla
A Thing of Eternity wrote:But, what's your response when you say that's the only area Obama cut, and SR says it's been increased?
From The Huffington Post (an American liberal news website and aggregated blog):

The Obama administration has asked the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff to cut the Pentagon's budget request for the fiscal year 2010 by more than 10 percent -- about $55 billion -- a senior U.S. defense official tells FOX News.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/0 ... 62884.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Image

Re: Afghanistan

Posted: 18 Sep 2009 18:19
by A Thing of Eternity
Looks like I'm the ref for this here match. :wink:

Alrighty SR - what is your response to that?

I did notice the word "Fox" in your source, which is a near disqualification Freak! Watch out for those in the future, but I'll allow it here because commies picked it up and repeated it. :D

Re: Afghanistan

Posted: 18 Sep 2009 18:23
by Freakzilla
A Thing of Eternity wrote:Looks like I'm the ref for this here match. :wink:

Alrighty SR - what is your response to that?

I did notice the word "Fox" in your source, which is a near disqualification Freak! Watch out for those in the future, but I'll allow it here because commies picked it up and repeated it. :D
I figure if the commies thought it was good enough to quote.... :wink:

Re: Afghanistan

Posted: 18 Sep 2009 19:03
by Mandy
Were you actually for the EuroShield, Freak? (sounds like a European brand of Depends) You know they're not actually doing away with missile defense, they're just changing the plan so they're defending against different types of missiles.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/17/ ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Re: Afghanistan

Posted: 18 Sep 2009 19:44
by Freakzilla
Mandy wrote:Were you actually for the EuroShield, Freak? (sounds like a European brand of Depends) You know they're not actually doing away with missile defense, they're just changing the plan so they're defending against different types of missiles.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/17/ ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I'm for defending our allies. I'm sure the Russians are very happy about us leaving their old states unprotected.

Isreal will take care of the Iranian nuclear threat.

Re: Afghanistan

Posted: 19 Sep 2009 12:50
by Leto
Freakzilla wrote: I'm for defending our allies. I'm sure the Russians are very happy about us leaving their old states unprotected.
Hey dude, don't you know that Cold War is over?
You've not to consider Russia as an enmy but as an ally. Change your paradigm and you'll see the word differently ;)

Re: Afghanistan

Posted: 19 Sep 2009 15:45
by SandRider
a "cut" in projected scheduled budget increases is not a cut of over-all outlays.

good lord, they've been playing this game for thirty years now, both sides ...

the budget is $100 for Item X.
scheduled increase (possibly from a bill passed years & years ago) is $50.
new budget reduces scheduled increase to $25.
new budget outlay for Item X is now $125.
political opponents go to media saying budget cut by 50%.
media too lazy, American people too stupid to unravel budget process.

rinse and repeat.

also, Freak, let's talk about "supplementals" & "collateral outlays",
both huge chunks of billions of dollars at a time not listed in the
federal budget.

nobody in the federal government is cutting anything, ever, no matter what party has the throttle.

Re: Afghanistan

Posted: 19 Sep 2009 16:05
by SandRider
complete text of the article linked to by Freak -
The Obama administration has asked the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff to cut the Pentagon's budget request for the fiscal year 2010 by more than 10 percent -- about $55 billion -- a senior U.S. defense official tells FOX News.

Last year's defense budget was $512 billion. Service chiefs and planners will be spending the weekend "burning the midnight oil" looking at ways to cut the budget -- looking especially at weapons programs, the defense official said.

Some overall budget figures are expected to be announced Monday.

Obama met Friday at the White House with a small group of military advisers, including Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman, and Gen. Jim Jones, National Security Council chairman.
neat, lotsa figgers in there.

hmmm, what figger be missin ? mebbe the most important fucking one, what the total request was ?

let's just say the Pentagon sent in a request for, oh fuck, $700 billion dollars.
and the Administration says, nah, cut out about 55 big ones there, chief.
so the outlay {the motherfucking on the books outlay} for FY 2010
would be $645 billion. If FY 2009 was $512 billion, overall this would appear,
to a fucking sane person anyway, to be a budget increase.

Only someone high on Oxycontin could see this as a budget cut.

they do this every fucking year, on a wide variety of budget items.
what you see reported depends on which pet project of which vocal politicians
doesn't get it's increase ...

and look at some of the figures over the last few years for the "supplementals" for Iraq -
some of those were the same size as the DODs total outlays.

that dog won't hunt.
Obama's not "gutting" the military (and Bill Clinton sure as fuck didn't, either, despite
what Fox News and that drug-addled Limbaugh screamed endlessly about back then)

You're being spun and lied to.
Welcome to America.

Re: Afghanistan

Posted: 28 Jun 2010 13:58
by Kensai
chanilover wrote:This shambles is in the British media a lot recently, mostly because people in general are sick of it and want to pull our troops out.
Also this war had nothing to do with us and it was Dubya and his lapdog Blair that got us into it. Did you know the USA wanted British tooprs in Vietnam but the Primeminister at the time (can't remember who) essentially told Nixon to go f**k himself.