What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Ready. Set. Shop view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com Black Friday Sale starting 11/25 3PM PST. No Lines, No Crowds, Click and Save.
318 Comments
- inactive, on 03/19/2009, -17/+86Did any of you ***** morons read the article? It's not about sending that many American soldiers, it's about trying to up the number f Afghan soldiers...
- Pssdoff, on 03/19/2009, -74/+130So this year 18,000 marines are being withdrawn from Iraq and 130,000+ new troops are being deployed to Afghanistan.
Idiot Americans think this is 'CHANGE' - Lucky14, on 03/20/2009, -6/+60Read the article! The first line says " U.S. President Barack Obama is considering a plan that would double the size of Afghanistan's security force to about 400,000 troops and police officer to stabilize the nation"
key phrase - "double the size of Afghanistan's security force to about 400,000 troops ..." - BassMastr, on 03/20/2009, -6/+56I think all of you need to read the article.
- MikeSD34, on 03/20/2009, -4/+45"The relatively small size of the security forces has frustrated Afghan officials and American commanders who wanted to turn security over to legitimate Afghan security forces, and not local warlords, at a faster pace, the Times reported."
"The administration's goal of a 400,000-strong Afghan security force is more than three times the size that U.S. officials believed would be adequate for Afghanistan in 2002, when the Taliban and Al Qaeda appeared to have been routed, the report said."
But we'd rather sensationalize based off the title alone, who cares about the article? - BassMastr, on 03/20/2009, -7/+46I think everyone needs to calm down and go read the article. I am not a fan of most of Obama's policies but this is a good thing. We want them to be able to defend themselves. Dems and Reps should want this. They will be able to police themselves better than we ever will be able to.
- captspaulding, on 03/20/2009, -12/+43Read the article you dumb *****.
- P-Frank, on 03/20/2009, -2/+30It is amazing how many people talk before they read an article.
- twrussnman, on 03/19/2009, -64/+91Watch Obama Deception! Obama is a SCAM!
- GeekWithIssues, on 03/20/2009, -2/+26Bravo Wreckosaurus.
This piece isn't about the U.S. sending more troops into Afghanistan - it's about helping Afghanistan recruit more people to defend their own borders. An action that would, as the story goes, help the country stabilize itself.
You know...because the reason that Afghanistan is an Empire Crusher is because no one thinks of equipping them to protect and care for themselves. Which is what the people of that country want in the first place. No more external interventionist bullcrap busting up their lives.
Say what you want about Obama and the American people...to some degree, we deserve it. But going far-right ape-go-nuts over this story is libel to make you look foolish. - wreckosaurus, on 03/20/2009, -4/+28Did anyone read the article, or even the description of the article. For christ's sake digg.
- gsadamb, on 03/20/2009, -3/+26You know, one thing I don't remember from the campaign at all was the criticism from Barack Obama that we had ignored the security situation in Afghanistan and that it'd be a priority for him.
Oh wait, that came up in every single debate. - captspaulding, on 03/20/2009, -2/+24Why let reality get in the way of reactionary ranting?
- gotcheaprice, on 03/20/2009, -4/+25To be fair, he did say he was going to withdraw from Iraq and send news troops to Afghanistan.
- zeth006, on 03/20/2009, -2/+23Title's a bit misleading, IDK.
- inactive, on 03/19/2009, -7/+28As was Bush.. let it be known it's non-partisan.
Good quality, full length:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7535755025 ... - engti, on 03/20/2009, -4/+21he is doing what he said he would do......
- 911infowarrior, on 03/19/2009, -44/+61That's right, another globalist puppet president that promises peace and expands the war machine instead!!! The new boss is the same as the old boss... wake up from your left/right stupor before it is too late!!!
- motters, on 03/19/2009, -32/+48At a time when Americans should be reducing government spending, this is a totally insane decision, which demonstrates ignorance of recent history. It's a straightforward repeat of what happened during the Soviet era in Afghanistan.
- OneFreespirit, on 03/20/2009, -2/+18Just read the damn article- 400,000 Afghans troops.
- KSUdesigner, on 03/20/2009, -8/+23Deception? He said over and over again throughout his campaign that he was going to strengthen forces in Afghanistan.
- abcgi, on 03/20/2009, -3/+18@tama00: and you still haven't read the article! lol - we should be able to block users who comment on the tagline alone without reading the article.
- igyigyigy, on 03/20/2009, -2/+17Did *ANYONE* read the article?
They're talking about doubling the Afghan security forces, via training and equipping them, not doubling the number of US troops in the country.
I'm sure some people will have a problem with the, and they're entitled to express that but the comments here seem to imply people think it's the US troop number that's set to double which is not true. - dygel, on 03/20/2009, -3/+17You folks have short memories. Obama was saying throughout the campaign that we needed to get out of Iraq and finish the job in Afghanistan. He even suggested the notion of a Afghan surge more than once.
- Falldog, on 03/20/2009, -1/+14Nice selective listening. He also said he wanted to return focus onto Afghanistan where the real issue was prior to Bush being retarded with Iraq.
- wonkavsn, on 03/20/2009, -3/+16I met a guy who's a major in the Canadian army. He spent a few years over in Afghanistan.
I asked him if he thought we could succeed there and he told me "How long do you think it takes to become a General? About 25-30 years. In addition to uniting an extremely fragmented society, we would essentially have to stay about 25-30 years before the armed chain of command within the Afghan forces could functionally establish itself so that national interests could be secured."
I think Taliban oppression in Afghanistan is an absolutely terrible thing, but armed engagement NEVER works when it comes to trying to influence and nurture a way of living. We aren't fighting against an established army, but an ideology, which is often reinforced through military occupation. - zeth006, on 03/20/2009, -1/+14What? What do you mean?
Have you not been following the news?
The Soviets tried invade and annex Afghanistan.
Americans however are simply moving to train domestic Afghan troops. The comparison's just not there, dude. - Kiloboba, on 03/19/2009, -19/+30If you think this is just going on in America you the ignorant one. The whole world is being shoved into an international monetary system and government. Sheeple in the US have to wake up just as much as anyone else!
- kingatrock, on 03/20/2009, -1/+12" U.S. President Barack Obama is considering a plan that would double the size of Afghanistan's security force to about 400,000 troops and police officer to stabilize the nation" Someone screenshot all these morons who didn't even bother to read the first ***** line before posting their biases, truly ignorant. Take a good look at all of these guys who didn't bother to READ the FIRST LINE.
- TheTaoOfBill, on 03/20/2009, -4/+14RTFA we're not talking about 400,000 American Troops here. We are talking about building up Afghan Security and allowing them to defend themselves against Al Qaeda.
- BuzzFriendly, on 03/20/2009, -0/+10I think your partly right. It is about increasing the Afghanistan security force. The OOB (order of battle) includes US Army, US Special Forces, US Navy, US Air Force, Afghanistan national and local police, and border security units. The article doesn't say exactly who these new forces will be, but it is a safe bet it will include quite a few American and perhaps Polish soldiers that at a bare minimum would be training the new forces.
- inactive, on 03/20/2009, -0/+9People need to understand that one of the greatest plunders of national treasure is happening right under their noses.
THE DISTRACTION
The majority of the U.S. population are being distracted by this emotionally engaging "banker bonuses" or what not. Obama and Bernanke appear to be pissed off and frustrated about the bonuses going out. These emotional reactions appeal to the common man and both Obama and Bernanke are perceived to be on 'their side'. This is a simple emotional engaging ploy to distract the logical mind from the real robbery.
THE FOLLOWING IS THE REAL PROBLEM:
The Federal Reserve surging the money supply. The Federal Reserve RIGHT NOW is infusing the money supply with trillions of dollars of free-money. The core problem of this is, increases in money supply = inflation.
Inflation = destroyed currency value.
WHICH in the real world means, anyone that has either U.S. denominated assets, OR simply wages or income that is paid in U.S. dollars is going to get f*cked really bad. Your wages will stay fixed whilst your purchasing power goes down. This means when its time to pay rent, pay for education or pay for any time of good or service, you can buy LESS with the same money. - pukiman, on 03/20/2009, -2/+11Are you saying Rambo III was a bad movie?
- dygel, on 03/20/2009, -4/+13Actually, he promised this. He was always promising to get us the ***** out of Iraq and to finish the job in Afghanistan, where we actually had any business being.
- inajeep, on 03/20/2009, -1/+9wow, both side didn't read the article. It's not US troops.
- dukeeeey, on 03/20/2009, -8/+16http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_Z5KZ42GXw&fmt ...
is a good also.
Seems only a month or two ago when digg was filled with "YES WE CAN"
and "YES AMERICA IS BACK"
lol
You guys fall for the propaganda on tv, every single time. - cdominus, on 03/20/2009, -0/+8So Obama is President of Afghanistan now? Shouldn't the article say Karzai considers expanding troops to 400,000?
- Davrioza, on 03/20/2009, -1/+8They need more force in Afghanistan, progress is slow but definitely happening. With more people, more headway can be made in less time... To people who are like "oh it's another pointless war" etc etc, do you think that the Taliban should be left to rule over the country in their own sick and twisted way? Yeah sure lots of the civilians want the troops out, but a hell of a lot of them also want them to stay, and in the long run, the country will undoubtedly turn out better than it used to be. The troops are already in, wtf do you want them to do, all suddenly just pack up and leave, making the work of everybody absolutly pointless? No, the only way out now is to 'win', and that will happen quicker, and with no additional friendly loss of life, with a greater presence in the country.
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 03/20/2009, -0/+7Sucessful troll is sucessful.
- teamr, on 03/20/2009, -0/+7it's getting ridiculous! I'm all for equal opportunity and free speech but...things are getting a little crazy around here lately. If you don't support the man, fine, but why make all these bogus submissions then have all your loyal followers ignore all fact and reason to blindly repeat whatever is in the description box.
This isnt the digg nation I know. This is just blatant, ugly propaganda - clvngodess, on 03/19/2009, -7/+14Tariq Ali gives an interesting commentary on this:
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/3/19/tariq_ali_on ... - Jerryrad, on 03/20/2009, -0/+7Read the ***** article before you post your moronic quips...
- BuzzFriendly, on 03/20/2009, -0/+6Pointless or not is a personal opinion. That said, if nothing else the US should help stabilize the country. After all we did create quite a mess and like mom would say you need to clean up after yourself.
- inajeep, on 03/20/2009, -0/+6Read the article then go back to your trailer and sit in a corner.
- kingatrock, on 03/20/2009, -0/+6READ THE ARTICLE MORON.
- BassMastr, on 03/20/2009, -0/+6Actually it's widely recognized, even in Democratic circles, that the troop "surge" was in fact a success.
- kingatrock, on 03/20/2009, -8/+14First off, he said he would do this in his debates with MCCain, secondly, the majority of the people in the US were ok with the invasion of Afghanistan to find and capture/kill osama bin laden. We were not ok with being tricked into thinking Saddam had WMD's. You get ***** so twisted on your high horse you have no clue what you're talking about.
- secrity, on 03/20/2009, -0/+6He is doing what he promised to do in Afghanistan.
- Velvolver, on 03/20/2009, -1/+7Buried for a misleading sensationalist title.
If you're going to slam Obama, do it about ***** he's actually doing wrong. - gerrylazlo, on 03/20/2009, -0/+5@tama00
captain obvious? About 80% of the posts I've read so far seem to have missed this, so it is not obvious.
Most ad hominem's discredit the people posting them, but when they are obviously not even true it really makes you look like a dumbass. -
Show 51 - 100 of 326 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is