More Troops to Afghan

thanks


its seems since Bush refused to reinstate the draft for his ill advised war ( because he knew it menat it would not be allowed to fly by the people) that Americans have forgotten thisnrule of the draft.


If you are not willing to reinstate the draft to do a war then that war is NOT REALLY NESSESARY.



when was the last time America didnt reinstate then draft to declare a war?



lets do a little history lesson
 
Corazón said:
So what are you then but a PFC in the first battalion Keyboard Warriors?
Click to expand...
he's an idiot, and he's way off on the numbers. we didn't lose 4k - maybe 2.5k

NATO has done a heroic job sticking with us in Afgh- "Op Resolute Support"

NATO Secretary General welcomes new US South Asia strategy
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_146442.htm
NATO Allies and partners have already committed to increasing our presence in Afghanistan. NATO currently has over 12,000 troops in the country. In recent weeks, more than fifteen nations have pledged additional contributions to our Resolute Support Mission. We place special emphasis on continuing the development of Afghan Special Forces, Air Forces and improving command and control.
 
noise said:
the ignorant peanut gallery chimes in.
We are already spending the money -how much will this "escalation" of like 400k troops cost? It can't be all that much - since you make the claim -you figure it out.

But the Big News is battlefield autonomy to the commanders.
They can go after targets at will, and they can go after networks like the Haqqani

It's EZ to sit there and bitch -not so EZ to provide an alternative.
A complete pull out would lead to fracturization or Taliban control / i.e. a terrorist state
Click to expand...


The Average Salary of a U.S. Soldier

Average annual cost of enlisted personel = $29,380 per person.

As an example, the Army website broke down the annual $29,380 compensation of a military police sergeant into $29,380 for salary, $16,164 for housing, $3,900 for food allowances, $1,800 for special pay, and tax advantages of $2,716.

Officer pay is divided into 10 grades, starting from the lowest O-1 and continuing to O-10. For example, as of 2012, the O-1 grade, or second lieutenant, earned $33,941 per year for less than two years of experience, $42,703 annually for four years and $42,703 yearly for six years. The O-3 grade of captain granted yearly wages of $45.256 for less than two years, $60,372 for four years and $63,263 for six years. At O-4, or major, officers made $51,473 annually for less than two years, $64,447 yearly for four years and $68,317 per year for six years.

The ratio of enlisted personel to officers = 3:1.

400k/4 = 100k.

300k enlisted x $29, 380 = $8,814,000,000.00/yr.

100k officers x $50, 000 = $5,000,000,000.00/yr (est.)

Total in personel costs alone = 9,314,000,000.00/yr or just under 9.5 billion per year.

That does not include all of the equipment, construction, housing, transport, fuel, weapons, ammunition, etc, etc, etc.

So maybe double the personnel cost and say $20 billion per year?

That cheap enough for you, annette?
 
Nomad said:

The Average Salary of a U.S. Soldier

Average annual cost of enlisted personel = $29,380 per person.

As an example, the Army website broke down the annual $29,380 compensation of a military police sergeant into $29,380 for salary, $16,164 for housing, $3,900 for food allowances, $1,800 for special pay, and tax advantages of $2,716.

Officer pay is divided into 10 grades, starting from the lowest O-1 and continuing to O-10. For example, as of 2012, the O-1 grade, or second lieutenant, earned $33,941 per year for less than two years of experience, $42,703 annually for four years and $42,703 yearly for six years. The O-3 grade of captain granted yearly wages of $45.256 for less than two years, $60,372 for four years and $63,263 for six years. At O-4, or major, officers made $51,473 annually for less than two years, $64,447 yearly for four years and $68,317 per year for six years.

The ratio of enlisted personel to officers = 3:1.

400k/4 = 100k.

300k enlisted x $29, 380 = $8,814,000,000.00/yr.

100k officers x $50, 000 = $5,000,000,000.00/yr (est.)

Total in personel costs alone = 9,314,000,000.00/yr or just under 9.5 billion per year.

That does not include all of the equipment, construction, housing, transport, fuel, weapons, ammunition, etc, etc, etc.

So maybe double the personnel cost and say $20 billion per year?

That cheap enough for you, annette?
Click to expand...
impressive math -i won't ask for a source

so these are all new personnel - or are they existing personnel shifted to "in theater"? *whoops*

we have spent close to $1T in Afghan however, but those costs were heavy during the earlier phases
 
noise said:
impressive math -i won't ask for a source

so these are all new personnel - or are they existing personnel shifted to "in theater"? *whoops*

we have spent close to $1T in Afghan however, but those costs were heavy during the earlier phases
Click to expand...

The source is linked at the top of the post in large blue text.
 
christiefan915 said:
It had already started at the time of the speech: "on the same day of the speech, ABC News announced that ninety advance troops from the 82nd Airborne Division had already arrived in Baghdad."

And if you're saying no military specifics, you haven't read the speech. Good lord, he handed it to them on a silver platter. :palm:

"20,000 additional troops"
"five brigades deployed to Baghdad"
"troops will work alongside Iraqis and embed in their formations"
"clear and secure neighborhoods"
"increase forces in Anbar province by 4000 troops"
"deployment of additional carrier strike group to the region"
"deploy Patriot air defense systems"
Click to expand...

That's the general outline of intentions. Trump did that, too. We're not giving them any exact entrance/exit timeline so the enemy can set their calendars and watches for them to know how long they've got to relax and let their guard down.

Barry O - "On August, 31, 2010 Iraq's combat mission will come to an end."
 
noise said:
he's an idiot, and he's way off on the numbers. we didn't lose 4k - maybe 2.5k

NATO has done a heroic job sticking with us in Afgh- "Op Resolute Support"

NATO Secretary General welcomes new US South Asia strategy
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_146442.htm
NATO Allies and partners have already committed to increasing our presence in Afghanistan. NATO currently has over 12,000 troops in the country. In recent weeks, more than fifteen nations have pledged additional contributions to our Resolute Support Mission. We place special emphasis on continuing the development of Afghan Special Forces, Air Forces and improving command and control.
Click to expand...

Oh, that's good. Only 2.5k.

Your posts are really hard to stomach. You have no principles.
 
Thing1 said:
Oh, that's good. Only 2.5k.

Your posts are really hard to stomach. You have no principles.
Click to expand...
who said "that's good?"..
you are unable to discern starting new wars of interventionism vs. dealing with a hot war dropped into your lap
When you figure that out, then you can address my "principles"
 
it was dropped in Obamas lap too asshole


your Bush fucks destroyed any possiblity of middle east peace for a generation.
 
Amadeus said:
I agree that the draft is poison for warmongers. When you and yours have skin in the game, you're not so willing to pull the trigger on military intervention.
Click to expand...

except that like any pantie wearing liberal you once again underestimate our volunteer Armed Services, you know, the ones that make it possible for you to whine day in and day out about elected leaders, and free speech, and war monuments, etc.

And for the record did you know that the Military men and women of this great country are by and large supportive of president Trump and his foreign policies?
Of course you are aware of it, lest you're dumber than you portray, which is possible I suppose.

Bush, nor certainly not Obama truly stomped out the face of terror in Afghanistan.
Bush to his credit was asked by commanders in the field to reassign resources to Iraq so he's got that, but Obama, dear God that poor excuse for a leader had no friggin clue why we were there, what we were there for and certainly didn't care anything beyond what was the best move politically in regards to.

he wanted to be able to say he brought 90% of the troops home because he saw his base wearing panties. He didn't understand the face of terror, the JV team he called ISIS, abandon Iraq, abandon Afghanistan and all of the sacrifice to date. but I'll get elected in 2012 because of it.

Well the party is over, let the adult have a crack at it. and stfu unless you have an IDEA. a foreign word to liberals right now I understand, so just stfu.
 
Getin the ring said:
except that like any pantie wearing liberal you once again underestimate our volunteer Armed Services, you know, the ones that make it possible for you to whine day in and day out about elected leaders, and free speech, and war monuments, etc.

And for the record did you know that the Military men and women of this great country are by and large supportive of president Trump and his foreign policies?
Of course you are aware of it, lest you're dumber than you portray, which is possible I suppose.

Bush, nor certainly not Obama truly stomped out the face of terror in Afghanistan.
Bush to his credit was asked by commanders in the field to reassign resources to Iraq so he's got that, but Obama, dear God that poor excuse for a leader had no friggin clue why we were there, what we were there for and certainly didn't care anything beyond what was the best move politically in regards to.

he wanted to be able to say he brought 90% of the troops home because he saw his base wearing panties. He didn't understand the face of terror, the JV team he called ISIS, abandon Iraq, abandon Afghanistan and all of the sacrifice to date. but I'll get elected in 2012 because of it.

Well the party is over, let the adult have a crack at it. and stfu unless you have an IDEA. a foreign word to liberals right now I understand, so just stfu.
Click to expand...

You supported the unbelievably misguided and disastrous invasion of Iraq...correct?
 
noise said:
he's an idiot, and he's way off on the numbers. we didn't lose 4k - maybe 2.5k

NATO has done a heroic job sticking with us in Afgh- "Op Resolute Support"

NATO Secretary General welcomes new US South Asia strategy
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_146442.htm
NATO Allies and partners have already committed to increasing our presence in Afghanistan. NATO currently has over 12,000 troops in the country. In recent weeks, more than fifteen nations have pledged additional contributions to our Resolute Support Mission. We place special emphasis on continuing the development of Afghan Special Forces, Air Forces and improving command and control.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ....

A total of 4,491 U.S. service members were killed in Iraq between 2003 and 2014. (link)
 
Getin the ring said:
except that like any pantie wearing liberal you once again underestimate our volunteer Armed Services, you know, the ones that make it possible for you to whine day in and day out about elected leaders, and free speech, and war monuments, etc.

And for the record did you know that the Military men and women of this great country are by and large supportive of president Trump and his foreign policies?
Of course you are aware of it, lest you're dumber than you portray, which is possible I suppose.

Bush, nor certainly not Obama truly stomped out the face of terror in Afghanistan.
Bush to his credit was asked by commanders in the field to reassign resources to Iraq so he's got that, but Obama, dear God that poor excuse for a leader had no friggin clue why we were there, what we were there for and certainly didn't care anything beyond what was the best move politically in regards to.

he wanted to be able to say he brought 90% of the troops home because he saw his base wearing panties. He didn't understand the face of terror, the JV team he called ISIS, abandon Iraq, abandon Afghanistan and all of the sacrifice to date. but I'll get elected in 2012 because of it.

Well the party is over, let the adult have a crack at it. and stfu unless you have an IDEA. a foreign word to liberals right now I understand, so just stfu.
Click to expand...

link
 
Bush veered from afganistan to go after Sadam and Iraq.


he lied about the connections to terror there.


Bush allowed terrorist to go free so haliburton could make some BIG BUCKS


Americans died for that decision


the middle east exploded


just like we told you it would asshole
 
noise said:
impressive math -i won't ask for a source

so these are all new personnel - or are they existing personnel shifted to "in theater"? *whoops*

we have spent close to $1T in Afghan however, but those costs were heavy during the earlier phases
Click to expand...

Probably a mixture of both.

Either way, they are 400k troops who won't be available to fight NK after the Trumptard in Chief escalates his war of words with bowl head into a war of bullets and bombs.
 
The secret ingredient in Trump's foreign policy is outsourcing the heavy-lifting to other nations.

North Korea: Can't China do it?

Afghanistan: Can't Pakistan do it?

As if these other nations are going to operate against their own interests and come running to Trump's demands.
 
Thing1 said:
You supported the unbelievably misguided and disastrous invasion of Iraq...correct?
Click to expand...

Did you support the disastrous withdrawal?

Why would you think this withdrawal would be any less disastrous? Do you really think Trump wants to stay there just for jollies of it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top