• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Eight Soldiers killed in attack in AFG

K

kansaswhig

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
1,164
Reaction score
509
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
From NYT:

KABUL, Oct. 4 (Reuters) - Eight U.S. troops were killed in battle after tribal militia attacked two combat outposts in a remote area in eastern Afghanistan, the military said on Sunday, the deadliest battle for U.S. troops in more than a year.

Two Afghan soldiers were also killed in the battle, which took place in a remote area from which U.S. forces had already announced plans to withdraw as part of commander General Stanley McChrystal's strategy to focus his forces on population centres.

Saturday's attacks were launched by militia in Nuristan province from a local mosque and a nearby village on two joint NATO and Afghan outposts, the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force said. The NATO troops in the area are American.

"My heart goes out to the families of those we have lost and to their fellow soldiers who remained to finish the fight," Colonel Randy George, commander of the U.S. force in the eastern mountain area bordering Pakistan, said in the statement.

"This was a complex attack in a difficult area. Both the U.S. and Afghan soldiers fought bravely together. I am extremely proud of their professionalism and bravery."

The statement added: "coalition forces' previously announced plans to depart the area as part of a broader realignment to protect larger populations remains unchanged."
Click to expand...

George commands 4/4 ID
 
Meanwhile,
oftencold-albums-pix-posts-picture929-considering.jpeg


Obama continues to consider the
General's request for more troops.


Poor thing must be worn to a frazzle after that whole Olympics thing.

Obamas celebrate anniversary with dinner out
 
Last edited:
Oftencold said:
Meanwhile,
oftencold-albums-pix-posts-picture929-considering.jpeg


Obama continues to consider the
General's request for more troops.


Poor thing must be worn to a frazzle after that whole Olympics thing.

Obamas celebrate anniversary with dinner out
Click to expand...

You think Obama should ignore the those in the pentagon, including the chief of staff of the army, who have questions or think more troops is a bad idea, and just commit troops in a hurry, who still would not be there to effect those dead.

I prefer a commander in chief who spends time on a problem, and ignored idiots who think he should rush to action and waste no time turning tragic deaths into a chance to score political points.
 
May they rest in peace.
 
I am continually thankful to all those who serve and carry our flag with pride and honor. Sacrifice is not forgotten.
 
Redress said:
You think Obama should ignore the those in the pentagon, including the chief of staff of the army, who have questions or think more troops is a bad idea, and just commit troops in a hurry, who still would not be there to effect those dead.

I prefer a commander in chief who spends time on a problem, and ignored idiots who think he should rush to action and waste no time turning tragic deaths into a chance to score political points.
Click to expand...



I prefer a CIC who is decisive and has his priorities in order. The 2016 Olympics should obviously take a backseat the war in Afghanistan.

PBO is the Commander in Chief. He needs to make a decision. It's his job.
 
apdst said:
I prefer a CIC who is decisive and has his priorities in order.
Click to expand...

Funny that conservatives were defending Bush as he was playing the bandjo during Katrina. But I guess that is what you refer to as "priorities" correct?
 
TheNextEra said:
Funny that conservatives were defending Bush as he was playing the bandjo during Katrina. But I guess that is what you refer to as "priorities" correct?
Click to expand...

I don't think you can make the comparison.
 
TheNextEra said:
I just did, the fact you don't like it is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Incredible! You're making a comparison to a president who is afraid to support his own army on the battlefield to a hurricane. Simply astounding.
 
apdst said:
Incredible! You're making a comparison to a president who is afraid to support his own army on the battlefield to a hurricane. Simply astounding.
Click to expand...

He's not afraid to support his own Army, that is your own ridiculous spin on it. There is a chain of command and he uses it. But then I guess some don't believe in the chain of command.
 
TheNextEra said:
He's not afraid to support his own Army, that is your own ridiculous spin on it. There is a chain of command and he uses it. But then I guess some don't believe in the chain of command.
Click to expand...

He's not using the chain of command. He's yet to even make a decision. He's a leader, or supposed to be, anyway. Before he can utilize his chain of command, he must first make a decision. Has he done that, yet?
 
apdst said:
He's not using the chain of command. He's yet to even make a decision. He's a leader, or supposed to be, anyway. Before he can utilize his chain of command, he must first make a decision. Has he done that, yet?
Click to expand...

Again, just because you don't see EVERY word Obama says does not mean he isn't making decisions. You let your own hatred of Obama blind you.
 
TheNextEra said:
Again, just because you don't see EVERY word Obama says does not mean he isn't making decisions. You let your own hatred of Obama blind you.
Click to expand...

He's already said that he refuses to send more assets to Afghanistan, before he makes and indepth study of the strategy. That's a fact.

Another fact, is that he's more interested in wasting time chasing after the Olympics and taking his ole lady to supper for their anniversary.
 
TheNextEra said:
He's not afraid to support his own Army, that is your own ridiculous spin on it. There is a chain of command and he uses it. But then I guess some don't believe in the chain of command.
Click to expand...

"You know what the chain of command is? It's the chain I go get and beat you with till you understand who's in rutting command here"
 
apdst said:
I don't think you can make the comparison.
Click to expand...

You absolutely can make the comparison. As much as people like to imagine that the president is in charge of making all sorts of decisive decisions and effecting massive action plans, the reality is that the vast majority of these things are handled by the federal bureaucracy - that's why it's there.

It's entirely possible for Obama to go to date night, campaign for the Olympics, and hang out with his kids while also doing everything that his role requires to address the situation in Afghanistan. Similarly, it's entirely possible for Bush to read to school children and play the guitar while still doing everything that his role requires to address the situation in NO or NY. It was unfair when rabid liberals attacked Bush for that, and it's unfair when rabid conservatives do it to Obama.
 
RightinNYC said:
You absolutely can make the comparison. As much as people like to imagine that the president is in charge of making all sorts of decisive decisions and effecting massive action plans, the reality is that the vast majority of these things are handled by the federal bureaucracy - that's why it's there.
Click to expand...

No, you can't make the comparison, because post-Hurricane Katrian, Bush was waiting on Kathy Blanco to make the official request for Federal troops to assist local and state units in the rescue/recovery operations. Not the other way around, like in Afghanistan.

PBO isn't sitting in DC saying, "The troops are ready to go, General, you just tell me when to kick them off".
 
So far the president seems to have voted "present" on the issue which would have to be disheartening to the troops on the ground. Suppose Gen McCrystal, instead of asking for more troops had simply announced that he wasn't sure what to do about Afganistan. That would be great for morale. Instead his boss is doing it.I can see arguments for more troops and for far less. But I don't see any merit in indecision.
 
apdst said:
No, you can't make the comparison, because post-Hurricane Katrian, Bush was waiting on Kathy Blanco to make the official request for Federal troops to assist local and state units in the rescue/recovery operations. Not the other way around, like in Afghanistan.

PBO isn't sitting in DC saying, "The troops are ready to go, General, you just tell me when to kick them off".
Click to expand...

Perhaps this is because the decision as to what to do in Afghanistan is slightly more complex than "yea, call it a disaster"?
 
RightinNYC said:
Perhaps this is because the decision as to what to do in Afghanistan is slightly more complex than "yea, call it a disaster"?
Click to expand...

But apparently, according to aspdt and Rev and a handful of others, he should rush into it, despite advice from some in the pentagon that it isa bad plan, and reservations from the Army Chief of Staff, General Casey. I wonder what those people would say if Obama rushed into it, and it proved to be a bad plan...
 
apdst said:
Incredible! You're making a comparison to a president who is afraid to support his own army on the battlefield to a hurricane. Simply astounding.
Click to expand...

I do agree that he cannot procrastinate in a decison too long and make it an informed decision but I fail to see any substantial evidence that Obama has bemm "afraid to support his own army on the battlefield ".
 
What hit me after the initial GD IT and F#$% NO when I heard the news was that this will be used by those who are opposed tro us doing what is right in Afghnastan as a anti-war weapon. "anti-war weapon" oxymoronic isn't it!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom