OT: “Obama administration warns public to expect rise in US casualties”

[TheBreeze]

Here Barack is in July saying that troops should be redeployed from Iraq to Afghanistan:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/2437883/Barack-Obama-Redeploy-troops-to-Afghanistan-from-Iraq.html

What am I supposed to be upset about? That Obama is doing exactly what he said he would?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Breeze: The more likely and more plausible explanation is that he’s been forced to change his plans and largely because the situation in Iraq has changed so markedly and so quickly.

We’re now looking at a very different situation on the ground there and if you speak with anyone in country, they’ll tell you how far we’ve come and in a short period.

I have friends there and as little as 15 – 18 months ago they considered the war a lost cause. No more. Combat operations in many provinces have largely ceased and most of the US forces are focused on training the Iraqi Army and police forces and restoring order and stability.

The fact that Obama is ABLE to deploy those 18,000 Marines to Afghanistan should not be lost on you. He can do so because they’re NOT NEEDED in Iraq. The question you should ask is why are they not needed in Iraq?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Breeze: The more likely and more plausible explanation is that he’s been forced to change his plans and largely because the situation in Iraq has changed so markedly and so quickly.

We’re now looking at a very different situation on the ground there and if you speak with anyone in country, they’ll tell you how far we’ve come and in a short period.

I have friends there and as little as 15 – 18 months ago they considered the war a lost cause. No more. Combat operations in many provinces have largely ceased and most of the US forces are focused on training the Iraqi Army and police forces and restoring order and stability.

The fact that Obama is ABLE to deploy those 18,000 Marines to Afghanistan should not be lost on you. He can do so because they’re NOT NEEDED in Iraq. The question you should ask is why are they not needed in Iraq?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Breeze: The more likely and more plausible explanation is that he’s been forced to change his plans and largely because the situation in Iraq has changed so markedly and so quickly.

We’re now looking at a very different situation on the ground there and if you speak with anyone in country, they’ll tell you how far we’ve come and in a short period.

I have friends there and as little as 15 – 18 months ago they considered the war a lost cause. No more. Combat operations in many provinces have largely ceased and most of the US forces are focused on training the Iraqi Army and police forces and restoring order and stability.

The fact that Obama is ABLE to deploy those 18,000 Marines to Afghanistan should not be lost on you. He can do so because they’re NOT NEEDED in Iraq. The question you should ask is why are they not needed in Iraq?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Breeze: The more likely and more plausible explanation is that he’s been forced to change his plans and largely because the situation in Iraq has changed so markedly and so quickly.

We’re now looking at a very different situation on the ground there and if you speak with anyone in country, they’ll tell you how far we’ve come and in a short period.

I have friends there and as little as 15 – 18 months ago they considered the war a lost cause. No more. Combat operations in many provinces have largely ceased and most of the US forces are focused on training the Iraqi Army and police forces and restoring order and stability.

The fact that Obama is ABLE to deploy those 18,000 Marines to Afghanistan should not be lost on you. He can do so because they’re NOT NEEDED in Iraq. The question you should ask is why are they not needed in Iraq?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Breeze: The more likely and more plausible explanation is that he’s been forced to change his plans and largely because the situation in Iraq has changed so markedly and so quickly.

We’re now looking at a very different situation on the ground there and if you speak with anyone in country, they’ll tell you how far we’ve come and in a short period.

I have friends there and as little as 15 – 18 months ago they considered the war a lost cause. No more. Combat operations in many provinces have largely ceased and most of the US forces are focused on training the Iraqi Army and police forces and restoring order and stability.

The fact that Obama is ABLE to deploy those 18,000 Marines to Afghanistan should not be lost on you. He can do so because they’re NOT NEEDED in Iraq. The question you should ask is why are they not needed in Iraq?

[partypup]

[quote=afx114][quote=partypup]I wonder how many more troops and innocent civilians will have to die in this new front on “terror” before the Left Wing finally comes to its senses and realizes that they have been snowed? What do you think?[/quote]

I think you’ll find that most lefties believe that we should have been in Afghanistan and Pakistan all along. Not Iraq. You know, going after the guys who actually attacked us. To most lefties, shifting troops from Iraq to Afghanistan is a good thing. If we had surged into there rather than Iraq, things would be a lot different today.

Criticizing Obama for ramping up in Afghanistan is like criticizing the plumber who has to fix the toilet after you’ve stopped it up with a massive load of nasty, smelly shit.

Lefties aren’t against war. We’re against un-necessary, un-planned, un-managed wars.[/quote]

No, your party is only against the wars it did not “start”.

And I know of no sane Leftist who believes that had we taken the war to Pakistan after 9/11, the world would be a lot different today. The Democrats have a problem waging a war in Iraq that enrages Musmilms and emoboldens terrorists, but you don’t think the same would have happened if we had attacked Pakistan? Seriously, how would that have looked any different from Iraq?

And I might also add, Pakistan poses a slight problem that Iraq did not: it possesses nuclear capability.

And you’re going to tell me that you and “most lefties” believe that we should have been in Pakistan? You think wasting American lives in Afghanistan is somehow better than seeing them squandered in Iraq? Seriously??

And where is the proof that Pakistan was one of “the guys who actually attached us”? My understanding is that the hijackers’ nationalities broke down as follows: 15 Saudis, 1 Egyptian, 1 Lebanese, 2 from union of Arab Emirates. Where is Pakistan on this list? Why didn’t we take the fight to Saudi Arabia, the country that spawned 75% of the hijackers?

Lastly, you do realize how Afghanistan worked out for the Russians 25 years ago…don’t you? Apparently both you and Obama need to be briefed on the lessons of endless war in a country that devours everything that enters it.

Ugh. I never thought it was possible, but with this type of thinking coming from the Left, and having seen what the Right has to offer, I am actually dreading the next 4 years more than the last 8…

[partypup]

[quote=afx114][quote=partypup]I wonder how many more troops and innocent civilians will have to die in this new front on “terror” before the Left Wing finally comes to its senses and realizes that they have been snowed? What do you think?[/quote]

I think you’ll find that most lefties believe that we should have been in Afghanistan and Pakistan all along. Not Iraq. You know, going after the guys who actually attacked us. To most lefties, shifting troops from Iraq to Afghanistan is a good thing. If we had surged into there rather than Iraq, things would be a lot different today.

Criticizing Obama for ramping up in Afghanistan is like criticizing the plumber who has to fix the toilet after you’ve stopped it up with a massive load of nasty, smelly shit.

Lefties aren’t against war. We’re against un-necessary, un-planned, un-managed wars.[/quote]

No, your party is only against the wars it did not “start”.

And I know of no sane Leftist who believes that had we taken the war to Pakistan after 9/11, the world would be a lot different today. The Democrats have a problem waging a war in Iraq that enrages Musmilms and emoboldens terrorists, but you don’t think the same would have happened if we had attacked Pakistan? Seriously, how would that have looked any different from Iraq?

And I might also add, Pakistan poses a slight problem that Iraq did not: it possesses nuclear capability.

And you’re going to tell me that you and “most lefties” believe that we should have been in Pakistan? You think wasting American lives in Afghanistan is somehow better than seeing them squandered in Iraq? Seriously??

And where is the proof that Pakistan was one of “the guys who actually attached us”? My understanding is that the hijackers’ nationalities broke down as follows: 15 Saudis, 1 Egyptian, 1 Lebanese, 2 from union of Arab Emirates. Where is Pakistan on this list? Why didn’t we take the fight to Saudi Arabia, the country that spawned 75% of the hijackers?

Lastly, you do realize how Afghanistan worked out for the Russians 25 years ago…don’t you? Apparently both you and Obama need to be briefed on the lessons of endless war in a country that devours everything that enters it.

Ugh. I never thought it was possible, but with this type of thinking coming from the Left, and having seen what the Right has to offer, I am actually dreading the next 4 years more than the last 8…

[partypup]

[quote=afx114][quote=partypup]I wonder how many more troops and innocent civilians will have to die in this new front on “terror” before the Left Wing finally comes to its senses and realizes that they have been snowed? What do you think?[/quote]

I think you’ll find that most lefties believe that we should have been in Afghanistan and Pakistan all along. Not Iraq. You know, going after the guys who actually attacked us. To most lefties, shifting troops from Iraq to Afghanistan is a good thing. If we had surged into there rather than Iraq, things would be a lot different today.

Criticizing Obama for ramping up in Afghanistan is like criticizing the plumber who has to fix the toilet after you’ve stopped it up with a massive load of nasty, smelly shit.

Lefties aren’t against war. We’re against un-necessary, un-planned, un-managed wars.[/quote]

No, your party is only against the wars it did not “start”.

And I know of no sane Leftist who believes that had we taken the war to Pakistan after 9/11, the world would be a lot different today. The Democrats have a problem waging a war in Iraq that enrages Musmilms and emoboldens terrorists, but you don’t think the same would have happened if we had attacked Pakistan? Seriously, how would that have looked any different from Iraq?

And I might also add, Pakistan poses a slight problem that Iraq did not: it possesses nuclear capability.

And you’re going to tell me that you and “most lefties” believe that we should have been in Pakistan? You think wasting American lives in Afghanistan is somehow better than seeing them squandered in Iraq? Seriously??

And where is the proof that Pakistan was one of “the guys who actually attached us”? My understanding is that the hijackers’ nationalities broke down as follows: 15 Saudis, 1 Egyptian, 1 Lebanese, 2 from union of Arab Emirates. Where is Pakistan on this list? Why didn’t we take the fight to Saudi Arabia, the country that spawned 75% of the hijackers?

Lastly, you do realize how Afghanistan worked out for the Russians 25 years ago…don’t you? Apparently both you and Obama need to be briefed on the lessons of endless war in a country that devours everything that enters it.

Ugh. I never thought it was possible, but with this type of thinking coming from the Left, and having seen what the Right has to offer, I am actually dreading the next 4 years more than the last 8…

[partypup]

[quote=afx114][quote=partypup]I wonder how many more troops and innocent civilians will have to die in this new front on “terror” before the Left Wing finally comes to its senses and realizes that they have been snowed? What do you think?[/quote]

I think you’ll find that most lefties believe that we should have been in Afghanistan and Pakistan all along. Not Iraq. You know, going after the guys who actually attacked us. To most lefties, shifting troops from Iraq to Afghanistan is a good thing. If we had surged into there rather than Iraq, things would be a lot different today.

Criticizing Obama for ramping up in Afghanistan is like criticizing the plumber who has to fix the toilet after you’ve stopped it up with a massive load of nasty, smelly shit.

Lefties aren’t against war. We’re against un-necessary, un-planned, un-managed wars.[/quote]

No, your party is only against the wars it did not “start”.

And I know of no sane Leftist who believes that had we taken the war to Pakistan after 9/11, the world would be a lot different today. The Democrats have a problem waging a war in Iraq that enrages Musmilms and emoboldens terrorists, but you don’t think the same would have happened if we had attacked Pakistan? Seriously, how would that have looked any different from Iraq?

And I might also add, Pakistan poses a slight problem that Iraq did not: it possesses nuclear capability.

And you’re going to tell me that you and “most lefties” believe that we should have been in Pakistan? You think wasting American lives in Afghanistan is somehow better than seeing them squandered in Iraq? Seriously??

And where is the proof that Pakistan was one of “the guys who actually attached us”? My understanding is that the hijackers’ nationalities broke down as follows: 15 Saudis, 1 Egyptian, 1 Lebanese, 2 from union of Arab Emirates. Where is Pakistan on this list? Why didn’t we take the fight to Saudi Arabia, the country that spawned 75% of the hijackers?

Lastly, you do realize how Afghanistan worked out for the Russians 25 years ago…don’t you? Apparently both you and Obama need to be briefed on the lessons of endless war in a country that devours everything that enters it.

Ugh. I never thought it was possible, but with this type of thinking coming from the Left, and having seen what the Right has to offer, I am actually dreading the next 4 years more than the last 8…

[partypup]

[quote=afx114][quote=partypup]I wonder how many more troops and innocent civilians will have to die in this new front on “terror” before the Left Wing finally comes to its senses and realizes that they have been snowed? What do you think?[/quote]

I think you’ll find that most lefties believe that we should have been in Afghanistan and Pakistan all along. Not Iraq. You know, going after the guys who actually attacked us. To most lefties, shifting troops from Iraq to Afghanistan is a good thing. If we had surged into there rather than Iraq, things would be a lot different today.

Criticizing Obama for ramping up in Afghanistan is like criticizing the plumber who has to fix the toilet after you’ve stopped it up with a massive load of nasty, smelly shit.

Lefties aren’t against war. We’re against un-necessary, un-planned, un-managed wars.[/quote]

No, your party is only against the wars it did not “start”.

And I know of no sane Leftist who believes that had we taken the war to Pakistan after 9/11, the world would be a lot different today. The Democrats have a problem waging a war in Iraq that enrages Musmilms and emoboldens terrorists, but you don’t think the same would have happened if we had attacked Pakistan? Seriously, how would that have looked any different from Iraq?

And I might also add, Pakistan poses a slight problem that Iraq did not: it possesses nuclear capability.

And you’re going to tell me that you and “most lefties” believe that we should have been in Pakistan? You think wasting American lives in Afghanistan is somehow better than seeing them squandered in Iraq? Seriously??

And where is the proof that Pakistan was one of “the guys who actually attached us”? My understanding is that the hijackers’ nationalities broke down as follows: 15 Saudis, 1 Egyptian, 1 Lebanese, 2 from union of Arab Emirates. Where is Pakistan on this list? Why didn’t we take the fight to Saudi Arabia, the country that spawned 75% of the hijackers?

Lastly, you do realize how Afghanistan worked out for the Russians 25 years ago…don’t you? Apparently both you and Obama need to be briefed on the lessons of endless war in a country that devours everything that enters it.

Ugh. I never thought it was possible, but with this type of thinking coming from the Left, and having seen what the Right has to offer, I am actually dreading the next 4 years more than the last 8…

[Arraya]

From 1997… The taleban ended up turning the west down.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm,

A spokesman for the company, Unocal, said the Taleban were expected to spend several days at the company’s headquarters in Sugarland, Texas.

Unocal says it has agreements both with Turkmenistan to sell its gas and with Pakistan to buy it. <--Karzai ex unocal employee A senior delegation from the Taleban movement in Afghanistan is in the United States for talks with an international energy company that wants to construct a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to Pakistan.

U.S. INTERESTS IN THE CENTRAL ASIAN
REPUBLICS HEARING BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC
OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION
FEBRUARY 12, 1998

For those who are not familiar with the terminology, the netback is the price which the producer receives for his oil or gas at the well head after all the transportation costs have been deducted. So it’s the price he receives for the oil he produces at the well head.

The second option is to build a pipeline south from Central Asia to the Indian Ocean. One obvious route south would cross Iran, but this is foreclosed for American companies because of U.S. sanctions legislation. The only other possible route is across Afghanistan, which has of course its own unique challenges. The country has been involved in bitter warfare for almost two decades, and is still divided by civil war. From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of the pipeline we have proposed across Afghanistan could not begin until a recognized government is in place
that has the confidence of governments, lenders, and our company.

Of course it’s about the terrorists. HAHA Follow the oil pipelines. Of course it was a stroke of luck to have the attacks, I guess, considering there was huge projects in the works.

Cheney as CEO of Halliburton-1999

For the world as a whole, oil companies are expected to keep finding and developing enough oil to offset our seventy one million plus barrel a day of oil depletion, but also to meet new demand. By some estimates there will be an average of two per cent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead along with conservatively a three per cent natural decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from? Governments and the national oil companies are obviously in control of about ninety per cent of the assets. Oil remains fundamentally a government business. While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greeter access there, progress continues to be slow

[Arraya]

From 1997… The taleban ended up turning the west down.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm,

A spokesman for the company, Unocal, said the Taleban were expected to spend several days at the company’s headquarters in Sugarland, Texas.

Unocal says it has agreements both with Turkmenistan to sell its gas and with Pakistan to buy it. <--Karzai ex unocal employee A senior delegation from the Taleban movement in Afghanistan is in the United States for talks with an international energy company that wants to construct a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to Pakistan.

U.S. INTERESTS IN THE CENTRAL ASIAN
REPUBLICS HEARING BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC
OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION
FEBRUARY 12, 1998

For those who are not familiar with the terminology, the netback is the price which the producer receives for his oil or gas at the well head after all the transportation costs have been deducted. So it’s the price he receives for the oil he produces at the well head.

The second option is to build a pipeline south from Central Asia to the Indian Ocean. One obvious route south would cross Iran, but this is foreclosed for American companies because of U.S. sanctions legislation. The only other possible route is across Afghanistan, which has of course its own unique challenges. The country has been involved in bitter warfare for almost two decades, and is still divided by civil war. From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of the pipeline we have proposed across Afghanistan could not begin until a recognized government is in place
that has the confidence of governments, lenders, and our company.

Of course it’s about the terrorists. HAHA Follow the oil pipelines. Of course it was a stroke of luck to have the attacks, I guess, considering there was huge projects in the works.

Cheney as CEO of Halliburton-1999

For the world as a whole, oil companies are expected to keep finding and developing enough oil to offset our seventy one million plus barrel a day of oil depletion, but also to meet new demand. By some estimates there will be an average of two per cent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead along with conservatively a three per cent natural decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from? Governments and the national oil companies are obviously in control of about ninety per cent of the assets. Oil remains fundamentally a government business. While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greeter access there, progress continues to be slow

[Arraya]

From 1997… The taleban ended up turning the west down.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm,

A spokesman for the company, Unocal, said the Taleban were expected to spend several days at the company’s headquarters in Sugarland, Texas.

Unocal says it has agreements both with Turkmenistan to sell its gas and with Pakistan to buy it. <--Karzai ex unocal employee A senior delegation from the Taleban movement in Afghanistan is in the United States for talks with an international energy company that wants to construct a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to Pakistan.

U.S. INTERESTS IN THE CENTRAL ASIAN
REPUBLICS HEARING BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC
OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION
FEBRUARY 12, 1998

For those who are not familiar with the terminology, the netback is the price which the producer receives for his oil or gas at the well head after all the transportation costs have been deducted. So it’s the price he receives for the oil he produces at the well head.

The second option is to build a pipeline south from Central Asia to the Indian Ocean. One obvious route south would cross Iran, but this is foreclosed for American companies because of U.S. sanctions legislation. The only other possible route is across Afghanistan, which has of course its own unique challenges. The country has been involved in bitter warfare for almost two decades, and is still divided by civil war. From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of the pipeline we have proposed across Afghanistan could not begin until a recognized government is in place
that has the confidence of governments, lenders, and our company.

Of course it’s about the terrorists. HAHA Follow the oil pipelines. Of course it was a stroke of luck to have the attacks, I guess, considering there was huge projects in the works.

Cheney as CEO of Halliburton-1999

For the world as a whole, oil companies are expected to keep finding and developing enough oil to offset our seventy one million plus barrel a day of oil depletion, but also to meet new demand. By some estimates there will be an average of two per cent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead along with conservatively a three per cent natural decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from? Governments and the national oil companies are obviously in control of about ninety per cent of the assets. Oil remains fundamentally a government business. While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greeter access there, progress continues to be slow

[Arraya]

From 1997… The taleban ended up turning the west down.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm,

A spokesman for the company, Unocal, said the Taleban were expected to spend several days at the company’s headquarters in Sugarland, Texas.

Unocal says it has agreements both with Turkmenistan to sell its gas and with Pakistan to buy it. <--Karzai ex unocal employee A senior delegation from the Taleban movement in Afghanistan is in the United States for talks with an international energy company that wants to construct a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to Pakistan.

U.S. INTERESTS IN THE CENTRAL ASIAN
REPUBLICS HEARING BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC
OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION
FEBRUARY 12, 1998

For those who are not familiar with the terminology, the netback is the price which the producer receives for his oil or gas at the well head after all the transportation costs have been deducted. So it’s the price he receives for the oil he produces at the well head.

The second option is to build a pipeline south from Central Asia to the Indian Ocean. One obvious route south would cross Iran, but this is foreclosed for American companies because of U.S. sanctions legislation. The only other possible route is across Afghanistan, which has of course its own unique challenges. The country has been involved in bitter warfare for almost two decades, and is still divided by civil war. From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of the pipeline we have proposed across Afghanistan could not begin until a recognized government is in place
that has the confidence of governments, lenders, and our company.

Of course it’s about the terrorists. HAHA Follow the oil pipelines. Of course it was a stroke of luck to have the attacks, I guess, considering there was huge projects in the works.

Cheney as CEO of Halliburton-1999

For the world as a whole, oil companies are expected to keep finding and developing enough oil to offset our seventy one million plus barrel a day of oil depletion, but also to meet new demand. By some estimates there will be an average of two per cent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead along with conservatively a three per cent natural decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from? Governments and the national oil companies are obviously in control of about ninety per cent of the assets. Oil remains fundamentally a government business. While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greeter access there, progress continues to be slow

[Author]

Posts