Thread: Obama wants troop surge in Afghanistan

Obama favours U.S. troop surge in Afghanistan

Sounding presidential, Senator Barack Obama said Wednesday he would order a surge of U.S. troops – perhaps 15,000 or more – to Afghanistan as soon as he reached the White House.

“We're confronting an urgent crisis in Afghanistan,” Mr. Obama, the Democratic contender and now clear front-runner to replace George W. Bush, said Wednesday.

“It's time to heed the call … for more troops. That's why I'd send at least two or three additional brigades to Afghanistan,” he said in his most hawkish promise to date.

A U.S. army brigade includes about 5,000 soldiers along with tanks, armoured personnel carriers and helicopter gunships.

Seeking to deflect attacks that he is dangerously inexperienced in foreign policy, Mr. Obama huddled with a high-profile panel of experts before a news conference aimed at showcasing his command of global affairs.

“The terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are still at large and plotting,” he said, echoing Mr. Bush's oft-repeated refrain.

More 'change' from Barack Obush.

That's old news. He proposed a surge of three additional combat brigades in Afghanistan last spring when he unveiled his plan for withdrawl from Iraq.

Originally Posted by Bourne

That's old news. He proposed a surge of three additional combat brigades in Afghanistan last spring when he unveiled his plan for withdrawl from Iraq.

So this is what motivated you to support Obush? You prefer death and destruction in Afghanistan rather than in Iraq?

Originally Posted by Defensor

So this is what motivated you to support Obush? You prefer death and destruction in Afghanistan rather than in Iraq?

No, it's not the sole reason why I support Obama over McCain.

No, I don't prefer death or destruction anywhere. That's why I like Obama's idea to surge three combat brigades into Afghanistan, bolster NATO's forces and finish the war there.

Originally Posted by Bourne

No, it's not the sole reason why I support Obama over McCain.

No, I don't prefer death or destruction anywhere. That's why I like Obama's idea to surge three combat brigades into Afghanistan, bolster NATO's forces and finish the war there.

"Finish" the war there? Good one, Bourne. Saint Barack will finally be able to do what nobody, including two superpowers, has been able to do since the dawn of time.

Originally Posted by Defensor

"Finish" the war there? Good one, Bourne. Saint Barack will finally be able to do what nobody, including two superpowers, has been able to do since the dawn of time.

Precisely. Obama and NATO will get the job done.

Originally Posted by Defensor

Obama favours U.S. troop surge in Afghanistan

More 'change' from Barack Obush.

you still think obama claimed to be a pacifist, don't you?

i think i figured it out! YOU got duped, somehow, into thinking obama was a pacifist and anti-war. YOU were the one who got fooled for some reason, and now you're the one who's bitter about it, so you're projecting that sense of betrayal back onto the rest of his supporters, who, rightly so, never thought obama was anti-war.

NOW it all makes sense!!

Originally Posted by nickcuse

you still think obama claimed to be a pacifist, don't you?

i think i figured it out! YOU got duped, somehow, into thinking obama was a pacifist and anti-war. YOU were the one who got fooled for some reason, and now you're the one who's bitter about it, so you're projecting that sense of betrayal back onto the rest of his supporters, who, rightly so, never thought obama was anti-war.

NOW it all makes sense!!

Exactly!

Obama isn't a "peace candidate" he is only a candidate that will fight the right wars and not fight conflicts that are counterproductive in the long run.

When has he ever said otherwise.

Defensor, you are right that Obama and McCain both support the concept of war, but your banner interprets things in black and white so it won't factor in how much sense the wars will make.

Originally Posted by nickcuse

you still think obama claimed to be a pacifist, don't you?

i think i figured it out! YOU got duped, somehow, into thinking obama was a pacifist and anti-war. YOU were the one who got fooled for some reason, and now you're the one who's bitter about it, so you're projecting that sense of betrayal back onto the rest of his supporters, who, rightly so, never thought obama was anti-war.

NOW it all makes sense!!

Defensor actually brings up a good question. Maybe you can expand on this, since I know you do support Obama for president.

Much of Obama's voting bloc is alot of younger people 40 and under who are, in fact, anti war. I do agree with you that Obama is not a pacifist, especially shown in his scathing 2002 speech about the Iraq War, in which he says this:

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

Barack Obama's Iraq Speech - Wikisource

Now, the one issue that many Obama supporters congregate on and pull together is the issue of war: not Iraq, not Afghanistan, but the concept of military conflict. Peace signs. Anti-war marches.

Many oppose U.S. presence over there, and would much rather see resources invested in humanitarian aid in the world, rather than armed conflict.

So my question is this: with other candidates such as Nader, Paul and McKinney supporting a policy that is highly critical of the War on Terror altogether, and aiming their focus on ending military interventionism in the region (which they believe is the root cause of violent backlash), why would the "anti war" crowd support Obama? He believes in the very military interventionism that this "anti-war" crowd centers almost all of their focus on.

Why?

Originally Posted by Bourne

Precisely. Obama and NATO will get the job done.

:laughing: Alright, you made your joke, Bourne, don't overdo it.