Troop deployment: If AmCan speaks, will Obama listen?

City Councilmember Ed West said he's dedicated to lending this city's official voice to the call for more U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

[dave1021]

So how many of its citizens is American Canyon prepared to send over to Afghanistan as cannon fodder? Immediate members of the city council should have special priority, I would think.

[dave1021]

Sorry - "immediate family members".

[Just Say NO]

If we send more troops to Afghanistan..we will be there for many years. We simply can't afford to do so financially or to sacrifice the life of one more soldier in a war many generals have said is not winnable. Isn't 8 yrs enough?
Neither of these wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) are winnable. So if we support and love our troops bring them HOME. Let them be in the land they love and use them for border patrol. At least they will know why they are fighting and they will be on our land.

[wouldnt you like to know]

Just Say NO wrote:

If we send more troops to Afghanistan..we will be there for many years. We simply can't afford to do so financially or to sacrifice the life of one more soldier in a war many generals have said is not winnable. Isn't 8 yrs enough?
Neither of these wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) are winnable. So if we support and love our troops bring them HOME. Let them be in the land they love and use them for border patrol. At least they will know why they are fighting and they will be on our land.

I got you until your line about our troops knowing what they're fighting for. You're not saying our troops don't know what they're fighting for in Afghanistan, are you?
Does the term 9/11 mean anything to you?
As far as the wars being unwinnable goes, I'm not sure how we know that, since we have never been told what winning means in these cases.
In Afghanstan, it should have been killing bin Laden, wiping out al Qaida and breaking the Taliban's control of Afghanistan long enough for the real Afghans to take over.
But, if we want to establish a U.S.-like civilized form of governmemt and will consider nothing less as winning, then you're right. Unwinnable.
But if we can settle for establishing relative calm for a set period of weeks or months, and installing some form of trained, interim management, then it's probably totally winnable. And if we want to consider just carpet bombing everything to dust, it's for sure totally winnable.
In Iraq, we should have been happy with deposing Saddam. I'm not sure what we're doing there now, except acting as a sort-of Jihadist magnate.

[John from Vallejo]

Senator Feinstein is a pragmatic leader. I am a fence sitter when it comes to the decision to send more troops, but I will throw my support behind Senator Feinstein. Thank goodness someone is showing some leadership from Washington.

BTW, let's wakeup California and support Tom Campbell for governor. Whitman won't even enter a debate. Moonbeam is too much of a politician. Newsome should run for Lieutenant Governor.

[Marley]

This so-called president is either hiding behind his desk in the Oval Office, afraid to infuritate his leftwing base, or he's too busy attending cocktail parties and fund raising to pay attention to his general's request, or he's trying to suppress Fox News or anyone who criticises his policies! Recall that Hillary Clinton once called Gen. Petraeus a liar at the time of the surge. Subsequently, the surge was a success, and Ms. Goody Two Shoes was nowhere to be seen. Her reward: Secretary of State where she is absolutely clueless as to the affairs of the real world. The American people are now seeing dope and change! 2010 is just around the corner, voters!

[Klansman]

Marley wrote:

This so-called president is either hiding behind his desk in the Oval Office, afraid to infuritate his leftwing base, or he's too busy attending cocktail parties and fund raising to pay attention to his general's request, or he's trying to suppress Fox News or anyone who criticises his policies! Recall that Hillary Clinton once called Gen. Petraeus a liar at the time of the surge. Subsequently, the surge was a success, and Ms. Goody Two Shoes was nowhere to be seen. Her reward: Secretary of State where she is absolutely clueless as to the affairs of the real world. The American people are now seeing dope and change! 2010 is just around the corner, voters!

You be against Obama you be a racist.

[Just Say NO]

wouldn't u like to know:
I completely understand the significance of 9-11. The 19 Terrorists from September 11 included 15 Saudi Arabians, 2 from United Arab Emirates, 1 Egyptian and 1 from Lenanon.
So what's your point?
Once the Bush/Cheney efforts against Al Quaeda failed and spend BILLIONS in Iraq..this allowed Afghanistan to become a training ground for other terrorists.
So what's your point and why are we spending $68 Billion a year there?

[amcanrer]

Maybe we should count the number of citizens who support gay marriage and those who support troops in Afghanistan.

Of course, neither is of municipal concern! The City Council should instead encourage their constituents to contact the appropriate officials with views on issues of such broader scope.

[Feinbush]

If Feinbush wants troops in Afghanistan she can start by sending her own lard-ass over there plus her hubby and silver-spoon progeny. Afghanistan is a sinister killing machine and adding more 'troops' IE young adults/minorities/immigrants to the mix will only get them maimed and killed for no good reason.

[wouldnt you like to know]

Just Say NO wrote:

wouldn't u like to know:
I completely understand the significance of 9-11. The 19 Terrorists from September 11 included 15 Saudi Arabians, 2 from United Arab Emirates, 1 Egyptian and 1 from Lenanon.
So what's your point?
Once the Bush/Cheney efforts against Al Quaeda failed and spend BILLIONS in Iraq..this allowed Afghanistan to become a training ground for other terrorists.
So what's your point and why are we spending $68 Billion a year there?

I think my point was fairly clear, actually, as opposed to yours, which needs some clarification.
For instance, why would Bush/Cheney's efforts against al Qaida in Iraq failing allow Afghanistan to become a haven for terrorists? Their failure to eliminate Bin Landin and al Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan has done that. Which is why I was saying we've got to define what victory means in this instance, get it done and leave.
Also, we went into Afghanistan first, because it was from there that bin Ladin and his Taliban supporters launched the 9/11 attacks.
Second, no one went after al Qaida in Iraq, since they were in Afghanistan and not Iraq. There is a branch there, now, though.
So, my point was, we need to define victory, accomplish the mission and leave. What's yours?

[wouldnt you like to know]

Feinbush wrote:

If Feinbush wants troops in Afghanistan she can start by sending her own lard-**** over there plus her hubby and silver-spoon progeny. Afghanistan is a sinister killing machine and adding more 'troops' IE young adults/minorities/immigrants to the mix will only get them maimed and killed for no good reason.

Well you're partially right, more troops will mean more people in harm's way. However,too few troops means that the ones already there are sitting ducks. We're there, and the consequenses of just running away would be terrible and far-reaching, so we need to make our objective reasonable and clear, then do what we have to to achieve it and get the hell out of there and let those barbarians do what they do best.

[Hogan69]

wouldnt you like to know wrote:

<quoted text>
Well you're partially right, more troops will mean more people in harm's way. However,too few troops means that the ones already there are sitting ducks. We're there, and the consequenses of just running away would be terrible and far-reaching, so we need to make our objective reasonable and clear, then do what we have to to achieve it and get the hell out of there and let those barbarians do what they do best.

Leave now. Read "The Great Game" or @ least research it. There is no "winning" in this region.

[We We We]

A lot of talk about 'we' being over there/going over there etc. You heroes must have a mouse in your pocket as you're readying to deploy. Or is 'we' a casual device bandied about by otherwise trembling keyboard generals?

[When]

When are 'WE' going to Mars-- LOL

[its our job]

I am in the army. don't you people know we signed on for this. We know our jobs and do it. no one plans for war but it happens. don't blame the current president, because its BUSH FAULT WE ARE IN SO MUCH SH11T. we appreciate the support but you didn't force us to sign up, we volunteered

[gun metal blue]

wouldnt you like to know wrote:

<quoted text>
I got you until your line about our troops knowing what they're fighting for. You're not saying our troops don't know what they're fighting for in Afghanistan, are you?
Does the term 9/11 mean anything to you?
As far as the wars being unwinnable goes, I'm not sure how we know that, since we have never been told what winning means in these cases.
In Afghanstan, it should have been killing bin Laden, wiping out al Qaida and breaking the Taliban's control of Afghanistan long enough for the real Afghans to take over.
But, if we want to establish a U.S.-like civilized form of governmemt and will consider nothing less as winning, then you're right. Unwinnable.
But if we can settle for establishing relative calm for a set period of weeks or months, and installing some form of trained, interim management, then it's probably totally winnable. And if we want to consider just carpet bombing everything to dust, it's for sure totally winnable.
In Iraq, we should have been happy with deposing Saddam. I'm not sure what we're doing there now, except acting as a sort-of Jihadist magnate.

first, 911 attack was done mostly by citizens of sadia arabia. so the real question is did we attack the right country in the first place or avoid it because of oil?

[gun metal blue]

Hogan69 wrote:

<quoted text>
Leave now. Read "The Great Game" or @ least research it. There is no "winning" in this region.

years have proven the only way to "win" in that reagon is total elimination of the "offending" people. mass extintion. this was done in the area of what is now jordon 100's of years ago. while other "people" have risen up, the original "offenders" never did as their entire "group" was exterminated.

[wouldnt you like to know]

gun metal blue wrote:

<quoted text> first, 911 attack was done mostly by citizens of sadia arabia. so the real question is did we attack the right country in the first place or avoid it because of oil?

You're right, the terrorists were mostly originally from Saudi Arabia, as is bin Ladin, but it's not (at least not admittedly or officially) Saudi Arabia that attacked us, it was believers in the al Qaida idiology. Bin Ladin was and is, I guess the general wisdom is, in Afghanistan or on the Afghan border with Pakistan, which is why we attacked Afghanistan and not Saudi Arabia.
The fact that such attack would have PO's our "allies" and likely disrupted our flow of oil is another issue.
The fact that we're fighting adherents of an evil ideology, as opposed to a country, presents the West with a completly new type of conflict, and we don't have a handle on how to effectivly prosecute such a war and maintain our ideals.
I mean, the West could probably annhialate the Muslim world if it wanted to, but then who would we be?
It's the same dilema Israel faces every day. They could have made short work of the Palestinians decades ago, but aren't prepared to live with themselves having done such a thing.

[wouldnt you like to know]

We We We wrote:

A lot of talk about 'we' being over there/going over there etc. You heroes must have a mouse in your pocket as you're readying to deploy. Or is 'we' a casual device bandied about by otherwise trembling keyboard generals?

What a maroon. By "we," we mean the country. Our country is at war, and "our" soldiers are over there fighting for us. That's still "We," and if it isn't, we're not a nation at all.