• 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!

43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforcemen

Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Not being afraid of dieing and being stupid aren't the same thing. There still has to be a method to the madness. Just like Japanese Banzai and Kamikaze attacks; it was bad tactics, but there was an objective.

Yeah, to inflict casualties.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Yeah, to inflict casualties.

Inflict more casualties than they lost. A 1:5 kill ratio, in favor of the enemy, is good for morale. It's been my experience that most folks, regardless of religion, or culture, are more afraid of dieing that you would think.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Inflict more casualties than they lost. A 1:5 kill ratio, in favor of the enemy, is good for morale. It's been my experience that most folks, regardless of religion, or culture, are more afraid of dieing that you would think.

There is some reason that these Taliban fighters to fearlessly attack a numerically superior army with better weapons and training...

What is it?
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

There is some reason that these Taliban fighters to fearlessly attack a numerically superior army with better weapons and training...

What is it?

Stupidity? Poor leadership? In experience? Bad judgement? Over confident, because they knew they outnumbered the troops holding the outpost? Didn't count on American combat multipliers? Those are a few things I can think of, but I have a hard time believing that it was a well conceived assaut.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

GYSGT well said GYSGT,go and show them what it is all about,just to win.

all the best to u.

mikeey

I wish my country would remember what it takes to win wars. Today, our military has to contend with the average dumb ass (citizen and politician) who just watched a CNN special and fancies himself the expert on warfare. And after his protests to handcuff the war fighter, he will ask the military why "victory" doesn't come in a day.

The military's unspoken and unofficial motto anymore is to win despite the American politician.
 
Last edited:
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

I,d say its somewhat savvy when there considerably out numbered, have no air support, and next to no artillery support. As you know full well if they were to fight conventionally that 'slaughtered another day' would come a whole lot quicker.

The only thing savvy about them is that they know that eventually we will leave. It won't matter that it will be on our terms. It's up to the average idiot in America if that means that they win. I'm betting that we will leave Afghanistan in "defeat" because the average idiot is looking to honor this enemy (out of political correctness), because he is unable to define victory in accordane to the world he lives in.
 
Last edited:
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Stupidity? Poor leadership? In experience? Bad judgement? Over confident, because they knew they outnumbered the troops holding the outpost? Didn't count on American combat multipliers? Those are a few things I can think of, but I have a hard time believing that it was a well conceived assaut.

I disagree. I believe their objective was to accomplish a spectacular attack that would be on the front page of the U.S. papers the next morning. They succeeded. IO, man...it's all about IO.

I also believe the enemy has better G2 than we do. So, yes, I do think they knew how many there were, what weapons they had and what the defense looked like. And probably what the defense battle drill was, since they've probably watched them do it before or gotten intel from an indigenous worker inside the wire. You aren't giving these guys enough credit.

And finally, I think that the enemy definetely knew they would take heavy losses...but the mission wasn't took take over the outpost. It was to make the papers.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

I disagree. I believe their objective was to accomplish a spectacular attack that would be on the front page of the U.S. papers the next morning. They succeeded. IO, man...it's all about IO.

I also believe the enemy has better G2 than we do. So, yes, I do think they knew how many there were, what weapons they had and what the defense looked like. And probably what the defense battle drill was, since they've probably watched them do it before or gotten intel from an indigenous worker inside the wire. You aren't giving these guys enough credit.

And finally, I think that the enemy definetely knew they would take heavy losses...but the mission wasn't took take over the outpost. It was to make the papers.

I understand all that and if they hadn't lost half their assault force, I might agree. But, then again, perhaps they were shooting for the Cronkite Effect.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

I understand all that and if they hadn't lost half their assault force, I might agree.

Well thanks Sarge, that's probably as close as I'm going to get with you for an agreement.

But, then again, perhaps they were shooting for the Cronkite Effect.

That's what IO is...you are catching on,Sarge.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Well thanks Sarge, that's probably as close as I'm going to get with you for an agreement.

I wouldn't say that, you haven't been here that long.



That's what IO is...you are catching on,Sarge.

Yeah, good thing that piece-a-**** is dead and can't spread anymore of his defeatest bull****.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Yeah, good thing that piece-a-**** is dead and can't spread anymore of his defeatest bull****.

Yup....Always a good idea to kill the messenger.....Problem Solved!
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

We also, 'turn out weaknesses into strengths and the enemy's strengths become his weakness', too. Why attack a position that you know will be unsuccessful, lose half your unit and only kill 8 of your enemy?

I,m not sure it was a total failure for the enemy. American forces have been planning to leave that outpost for sometime-this incident may make that happen alot quicker.

Paul
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

The only thing savvy about them is that they know that eventually we will leave. It won't matter that it will be on our terms. It's up to the average idiot in America if that means that they win. I'm betting that we will leave Afghanistan in "defeat" because the average idiot is looking to honor this enemy (out of political correctness), because he is unable to define victory in accordane to the world he lives in.

Do occupying forces not always leave, eventually?

But i agree most Western societies have lost the stomach for victory or more to the point, have lost lost the stomach for a war that does not endear itself to a large percentage of the population.
Fighting wars in a half **** manner only makes the suffering linger.

Paul
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

I,m not sure it was a total failure for the enemy. American forces have been planning to leave that outpost for sometime-this incident may make that happen alot quicker.

Paul

From what I've read on the situation, the abandonement of the post went as schedualed.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

If he decided to pull em out and use drones, I'd be happier than him dragging his feet.

IF he sent them in immediatly, I would support it 100%


I'd be happy if he decided.


Though, I am not a "GOP" :shrug:

Rev, c'mon.

If he opted to use preditor drones instead of using ground troops in those hard to reach mountain areas, you'd be all over him like a wet blanket speaking out against all the money being wasted on drones not hitting their targets, etc., etc., etc. And if not you, then every other individual who opposes this President.

He can't win for losing. And all of you who oppose him wait for every opportunity to pounce on him instead of giving the man room to do his job as effectively as possible. So, let's be honest about this one thing if we can't be honest about anything else: You'd rather he failed than successed. And you'll latch onto anything that remotely paints this President in a negative light.

Be honest about it for once.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Rev, c'mon.

If he opted to use preditor drones instead of using ground troops in those hard to reach mountain areas, you'd be all over him like a wet blanket speaking out against all the money being wasted on drones not hitting their targets, etc., etc., etc. And if not you, then every other individual who opposes this President.

He can't win for losing. And all of you who oppose him wait for every opportunity to pounce on him instead of giving the man room to do his job as effectively as possible. So, let's be honest about this one thing if we can't be honest about anything else: You'd rather he failed than succeed. And you'll latch onto anything that remotely paints this President in a negative light.

Be honest about it for once.

Don't hold your breath, OV. This is Rev we're talking about here. :roll:
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Don't hold your breath, OV. This is Rev we're talking about here. :roll:




you got quite the mouth on you. :lol:



As for what you bolded, I want him to give our troops the things needed to succeed. SO I want him to succeed here.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Rev, c'mon.

If he opted to use preditor drones instead of using ground troops in those hard to reach mountain areas, you'd be all over him like a wet blanket speaking out against all the money being wasted on drones not hitting their targets, etc., etc., etc. And if not you, then every other individual who opposes this President.


Wrong, I'd disagree with the choice, but I think its better than no decision at all.


He can't win for losing. And all of you who oppose him wait for every opportunity to pounce on him instead of giving the man room to do his job as effectively as possible. So, let's be honest about this one thing if we can't be honest about anything else: You'd rather he failed than successed. And you'll latch onto anything that remotely paints this President in a negative light.


Incorrect. You all attack anyone who dares critisize your god king.



Be honest about it for once.




I am always honest. Always. Sorry that upsets you. :shrug:
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Do occupying forces not always leave, eventually?


It doesn't matter what occupying forces do in history. If America wanted to stay in Afghanistan until the end of time, we would completely obliterate our enemies (civilians be damned like in histories true victorious wars) and do exactly that. Nobody could deny our power and if we really wanted to obliterate we simply could. But the fact is that history has proven to even our most retarded of critics that American forces have never conquered in order to add any stars to our flag. The only ground we have ever asked for was in Europe where we could bury our dead......who died for their sorry asses. (And by "their" I mean the French).

My point was that, since they know this about our troops and out country, they only need to wait out our stay while we skip along and pretend that we are doing something worthwhile. If we are staying, the military leaders have spoken and need more troops. This is not the correct strategic route to take, but our civilian leader is determined to leave us in Afghanistan. He may as well respect the demands of his war leaders and tell the Democratic politicians to wear a uniform before they deem their opinions above those that bleed for their sorry asses. (And by "their" I do not mean the French).

Like you stated...."lingering." This is why our wars since WWII have been without "complete" victory. (Gulf War aside because that was a war gamers dream come true.)
 
Last edited:
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

< Insert Republican President's name here> lied, People died.

Too bad that is not allowed when the president is a Democrat!
 
Back
Top Bottom