At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
Let's say we were to go ahead with the Democrats idea of moving 150,000 troops from Iraq to fight in Afghanistan . Then we lose Pakistan's cooperation in the effort .
Afghanistan is land locked with Pakistan and Iran owning the direct routes from the nearest ocean . Currently 75 percent of all of our supplies flow either through or over Pakistan.40 percent of the fuel shipped to U.S. forces comes directly from Pakistani refineries.
How would we supply that many troops with the supplies needed to conduct long term operations ? An interesting logistical dilemma.
I have my thoughts on the subject but I'd like to hear yours.
How would we supply that many troops with the supplies needed to conduct long term operations ? An interesting logistical dilemma.
Hello tom:
Personally, I don’t think we need LONG term operations. Maybe we should just bring 'em home and let their mamma’s feed them.
Why not? Are you gonna tell me that we need 'em???? For what???? So they can let Ben Laden go again, and maybe shoot another football player and lie about it????
Or, maybe we can install another puppet dictator in Pakistan when our current one runs afoul of his own people. We're good at that. Yeah, that's how you spread democracy - install a tyrant!! The people in the world love us for that……
You think you need to figure out the teeny logistical stuff. I guess that allows you to MISS the big picture. Of course, Bush lost the big picture years ago, so it's not surprising you have too.
Tom- I'm on my way out the door for work. Just curious what purpose did the Democrats cite for troop movement? Personally at this point since OBL long escaped, any future military actions should come against Iran. They are the ones with the big mouthed dictator wanting to annihilate Americans and Jews from the planet. Otherwise the one thing I need addressed is what it will take for a reduction in oil prices. Republican candidate Romney said we are least twenty years away from breaking away from being dependant on other nations for oil. If the Democrats can prove that going to Afghanistan is good for lowering prices at the pump, I might take them seriously.
tomder55 agrees: For what it's worth . I don't think we need to redeploy large numbers to Afghanistan either . It's the Dems obsessed with OBL not me. But my question would equally apply to the NATO forces and US troops currently there.
Hello again, tom:
If you're suggesting that Bush didn't learn any lessons from the Soviet Unions history in Afghanistan, then I absolutely agree.
Upon second thought, I think I was being TOO kind. Bush COULDN'T have learned any history about Afghanistan, because I'm also absolutely certain that he didn't bother to check.
I have not mentioned President Bush at all. Are you suggesting that we should not have gotten into Afghanistan ?
btw ;I'd say the scenario I mentioned is more in line with the British experiences in Afghanistan and their reliance of a supply line through the Kyber Pass.
First, there is no tactical or strategic benefit to moving 150,000 troops to Afghanistan.
Second, Tom is right, there would be no way to supply troops in Afghanistan without Pakistani support. Oh, we could probably do it by flying over Uzbekistan which has US bases and is a friendly nation, but that's a very small fix fo a very big problem. We don't have the infrastructure in Uzbekistan to supply that many troops in Afghanistan. In Pakistan we do. And coming in from the north instead of the south would be problematic and much more costly. It could be done, but why would we want to?
Bobby . When exploration was stalled by the opposition at ANWR one of the lines was that we would not begin to see the benefit for 6 or more years . That was 6 years ago.
I think the days of cheap oil are over . We will adapt despite the opposition to almost all the alternatives to petroleum .
The PUMP??? Da stinkin PUMP???? Bobby! You want the Dems to fix what Bush broke, and it's THEIR seriousness you doubt????
I suppose you took Bush seriously, who is an oilman afterall, when he said that going to Iraq would guarantee us a cheap supply of oil.
Plus, you're right about the Republicans. War with Iran'll REALLY bring down the price of crude. Bwa, ha ha.
excon
Excon, I don't know where you have been, but Bush is the only guy in town who HASN'T mentioned oil availability and oil prices as a reason for going to war against Saddam or Ahmadinejad. It's the DEMS who keep saying that Bush went to war for oil. Bush has never mentioned oil prices as a reason for going to war. Neither have the Republicans. That's a liberal position.
Linear Mode
