• 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!

US Deaths Double In Afghanistan As Troops Pour In

Quit trying to change the subject. You laughed at dead GIs. Typical right-winger.

Not quite. A typical right winger respects our troops and the difficult job they're doing.

Rabid, mouth-breathing partisan hacks laugh at dead GIs.
 
The "Prof" has learned his propaganda lessons well.
Tell a lie long enough, hard enough and the fools(tea baggers) will fall in line.
Afghanistan is NOT Bush's war, NOT Obama's, its America's war..
Were it me, I'd never gone to Afghanistan in the first place and become involved in their wretched "country" and stone age human rights..
Now we are there and we must see this thru.
Will we ever learn??
 
The "Prof" has learned his propaganda lessons well.

Not really. He kind of sucks at it, actually.
 
Rabid, mouth-breathing partisan hacks laugh at dead GIs.

IMO the worst type of hack there is. Attacking politicians is one thing, troops is totally different.
 
Not quite. A typical right winger respects our troops and the difficult job they're doing.

How do they do that? Yellow bumper sticker?
 
I wonder if there's anything about this topic that warrants discussion besides the OP's unconscionable bad taste in laughing at the dead troops, or who's more patriotic: democrats or republicans.

Anything...?
 
Quit trying to change the subject. You laughed at dead GIs. Typical right-winger.





What? how is that a typical right winger? :doh



This right winger thinks the prof laughing about troop deaths to score political points is abhorrent, and my view is typical of "right wingers" on this thread....



On another note. I remember back in 2004+ many on the left including some here who are now decrying it, spent years with fake body counts gloating over dead troops and what not..... it was far more "typical" of certain left wingers to engage in this abhorrent behavior......
 
Troop numbers increase, action taken increases, sadly troop deaths increase.

The pathetic use of this to score political points now is no better than what many liberals have been doing for the past 7 years. Its disgusting and its a disservice to the troops. The ONLY thing I find interesting about the story is the fact that it's getting a hell of a lot less play than it would under George Bush. And you know something? I'm fine with that. Not because of the blatant hypocrisy and left wing slant of the majority of the media, but because it should've never been a large part of a non-stop news cycle in the first place during a time of war. I have zero doubts that its not getting as much play because it isn't as politically advantageous for many in teh media to push it anymore, but to me in this case the ends matter more than the means.

War is war and unfortunantly troops lose their lives, especially as operations are ramped up. We do not need a running tally or constant reminder of this in negative ways back home if there's any hope to kep up citizen resolve to finish the job.
 
Quit trying to change the subject.

LOL!

the subject:

1. it is a president's solemn and grave responsibility to ensure that america's heroes and their families are never asked to make this ultimate sacrifice except in the service of america's imminent security interests

2. because this is OBAMA'S WAR, he's president and he ESCALATED

3. every casualty which occurs over there is on his watch

4. unfortunately, our best and bravest are being exposed to foolish and unnecessarily heightened risks due to their operating under ROE's ridiculously unreal

5. tragically, our first and finest are fighting in a battleground from which the enemy we seek who are responsible for 9-11 have already largely relocated

6. desperately, the success of our mission, therefore, is entirely dependent on the efforts of corrupt and incompetent zardari in pakistan

7. dangerously, the president has consequently initiated what the london times calls obama's "secret war in pakistan"

8. ominously, the measure of american martyrdom has increased four fold since afghanistan became OBAMA'S WAR

now, what was the subject you wished to discuss, again?

oh, yeah: ME!

LOL!
 
The point is, Obama's rules of engagement are incredibly unpopular among the troops, and it's getting soldiers needlessly killed.
 
How do they do that? Yellow bumper sticker?

If that's all they're able to do, I don't have a problem with it.

Personally, I served for 11 years.

Any other smartass comments?
 
And of course now that Republicans are claiming people are "needlessly getting cared" (a statement that illicited calls of "Using the troops for political gain" and "You don't support then" in the past) its obviously true and therefore completely acceptable, but when the Dem's did it then they hated the troops, american, and apple pie.

:roll:
 
The point is, Obama's rules of engagement are incredibly unpopular among the troops, and it's getting soldiers needlessly killed.

What has changed?
 
There is nothing wrong, or necessarily partisan to talk about the cost of war. You can't fight any war without there being a price paid. The question always boils down to gain versus costs. Like many, I understood and support Afghanistan more than Iraq because it made a little more sense as OBL was actually there, and Pakistan was and is a concern (what happens in Afghanistan matters to Pakistan).

This does not mean I agree with everything Obama has done. Both some of the mindless bombing and the surge of troops in Afghanistan seem more counter productive to me than more clearly defining our role and limits in that region.
 
What has changed?

Obama's New Rules for Engagement

• No night or surprise searches.

• Villagers have to be warned prior to searches.

• ANA or ANP must accompany U.S. units on searches.

• U.S. soldiers may not fire at the enemy unless the enemy is preparing to fire first.

• U.S. forces cannot engage the enemy if civilians are present.

• Only women can search women.

• Troops can fire at an insurgent if they catch him placing an IED but not if insurgents are walking away from an area where explosives have been laid.
 

You forgot:

1) There are a lot more troops in Afghanistan now:

US_troops_in_Afghanistan.png
 
You forgot:

1) There are a lot more troops in Afghanistan now:

US_troops_in_Afghanistan.png

That's irrelevant. They don't all fight at the same time.

It's the manner they're forced to fight now that is leading to an percentage increase in casualties.

Do not defend Obama's rules of engagement. It is truly pathetic what he's doing to these troops for political reasons.
 
That's irrelevant. They don't all fight at the same time.

It's the manner they're forced to fight now that is leading to an percentage increase in casualties.

Do not defend Obama's rules of engagement. It is truly pathetic what he's doing to these troops for political reasons.



So you're basically saying that the doubling of the troop count has absolutely nothing to do with the higher body count. Is that what you're saying?
 
So you're basically saying that the doubling of the troop count has absolutely nothing to do with the higher body count. Is that what you're saying?

Yep. Just because there are more troops doesn't mean they're all engaged at the same time.

Our soldiers aren't getting killed in massive militaristic exchanges of gunfire. They're getting killed because they can't take the actions and precautions ahead of time that they could before when the enter dangerous city areas.
 
So you're basically saying that the doubling of the troop count has absolutely nothing to do with the higher body count. Is that what you're saying?





are you saying these absurd ROE's have absolutley nothing to do with the higher body count?
 
Do you have any evidence they do? Or is this another you just know deal?

God help us all.:roll:

Doesn't it just kind of make sense? If you kill the people before they have a chance to shoot you, does that not increase your chances?

This ain't rocket science, pardon the pun.

Read these again:

• No night or surprise searches.

• Villagers have to be warned prior to searches.

• ANA or ANP must accompany U.S. units on searches.

• U.S. soldiers may not fire at the enemy unless the enemy is preparing to fire first.

• U.S. forces cannot engage the enemy if civilians are present.

• Only women can search women.

• Troops can fire at an insurgent if they catch him placing an IED but not if insurgents are walking away from an area where explosives have been laid.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom