• 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

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,903
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforcements


CNSNews.com - 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforcements


(CNSNews.com) – Another American died in Afghanistan on Wednesday, the final day of September--and exactly one month after the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan sent a confidential war assessment to the Obama administration, warning that more forces are needed--soon.

The as-yet-unnamed American serviceman who died on Wednesday was caught in a suicide attack in Khost Province, in eastern Afghanistan, press reports said.

On August 30, Gen. Stanley McChrystal sent Defense Secretary Robert Gates a war assessment in which he said more U.S. troops--and a new U.S. strategy--are needed if the U.S. is to defeat the insurgents in Afghanistan.

Since that Aug. 30 date, a total of 43 soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines have died in a war that is now the subject of much discussion--and apparently some confusion--in Washington. Forty-two of those casualties have been identified by name in U.S. Defense Department press releases (see below), while the 43rd casualty, which occurred today, has been confirmed in press reports, but not by name.

In his confidential report, which was leaked to the Washington Post on Sept. 21, Gen. McChrystal warned that defeating the insurgents will not be possible if the United States fails to "gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum" over the next 12 months.

McChrystal reportedly has prepared a separate request for tens of thousands of additional U.S. troops to be sent to the 68,000 already in Afghanistan.

Since Sept. 21, when the Washington Post leaked information from McChrystal’s confidential report, the White House has been on the defensive over its Afghanistan strategy.






Which is more inportant to Obama the olympics or US troops. There has been a request for reinforcments and a plea that we are going to lose this war id this requirment is not met.


It would be one thing for the CiC to say "no", but to do 50 or so interviews and leno, then run off to take credit for getting the olympics while troops are dying waiting for an answer?


Inexcusable, just when you think this guy can't get any worse. Shame on him.



But first, Obama welcomes golfing great Arnold Palmer to the Oval Office,” the Associated Press reported on Wednesday. Palmer is in town to receive the Congressional Gold Medal.

On Thursday, Obama plans to fly to Copenhagen to pitch Chicago as the venue for the 2016 Olympics. (See related story



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

Which is more inportant to Obama the olympics or US troops. There has been a request for reinforcments and a plea that we are going to lose this war id this requirment is not met.

It would be one thing for the CiC to say "no", but to do 50 or so interviews and leno, then run off to take credit for getting the olympics while troops are dying waiting for an answer?


Inexcusable, just when you think this guy can't get any worse. Shame on him.

pathetic. simply pathetic.

Let's be real. Even if the President ordered more soldiers into Afghanistan today they would not be on the ground until December/January at the earliest.

Given that that time frame is historically very low in terms of combat operations in the country, the White House obviously feels it has some time to make this decision.

Additionally, the President pledged during his campaign that he would not send soldiers anywhere without a clear strategy. The deployment in March was to secure the elections, and since then the entire situation has really changed in the country. It therefore makes sense, in accordance with his campaign pledge, to delay on a troop request until a new strategy can be formulated by the Pentagon and the White House.

While certainly it is tragic that any American soldiers are dying, I think it is a stretch, and unfair, to say that "troops are dying waiting for the President's answer."
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

The request for troops was filed with the Pentagon on September 25. That is 5 days ago. Let's save the over the top hysteria and hyper partisanship.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

The request for troops was filed with the Pentagon on September 25. That is 5 days ago. Let's save the over the top hysteria and hyper partisanship.

Seriously, its not as if the President can only do one thing. I'm sure Obama and his staffers are looking at the request, weighing the pros and cons and will come to a timely decision. In the meantime, its not like he should drop everything else he was scheduled to do until this decision is reached.

You act as if you're opposed to a President with the ability to multi-task. But more really you're opposed to a Democratic President - whether he can multi-task or not. Which is fine, but I'd recommend you stick to criticisms over things that actually matter - not griping about where Michelle Obama shops or what shoes she wears or that the President did this one trivial thing or that trivial thing. There's plenty of areas were than can be substantial, meaningful discussion on Obama and his policies, this is not one of them.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Seriously, its not as if the President can only do one thing. I'm sure Obama and his staffers are looking at the request, weighing the pros and cons and will come to a timely decision. In the meantime, its not like he should drop everything else he was scheduled to do until this decision is reached.

One thing to understand is that General Casey, the Chief of Staff of the Army, is reportedly either "concerned" or against the plan. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/world/asia/27military.html?em
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

The request for troops was filed with the Pentagon on September 25. That is 5 days ago. Let's save the over the top hysteria and hyper partisanship.




You keep crying "hyper-partisan" in every thread that critisizes your king.

Stop it. it's laughable.


I maintain it is you who is the over hyper-partisan obama apparachik.


"On August 30, Gen. Stanley McChrystal sent Defense Secretary Robert Gates a war assessment in which he said more U.S. troops--and a new U.S. strategy--are needed if the U.S. is to defeat the insurgents in Afghanistan"




you think that if we may be losing a war, he would get on it..... top priority.


He is not giving iraq or afghanistan the same priority he is giving leno.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

You keep crying "hyper-partisan" in every thread that critisizes your king.

Stop it. it's laughable.


I maintain it is you who is the over hyper-partisan obama apparachik.


"On August 30, Gen. Stanley McChrystal sent Defense Secretary Robert Gates a war assessment in which he said more U.S. troops--and a new U.S. strategy--are needed if the U.S. is to defeat the insurgents in Afghanistan"




you think that if we may be losing a war, he would get on it..... top priority.


He is not giving iraq or afghanistan the same priority he is giving leno.

No, I say it when people appear to be putting partisanship over reasonableness. 5 days since the actual troop request was made, that has resistance from the pentagon, including from McChrystal's boss. The delay is not unreasonable. Suggesting he is more interested in Leno than this issue is dishonest and over the top partisanship.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

The inane tactics of Michael Moore travel to DP and implant themselves into the anuses of their conservative posters.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Which is more inportant to Obama the olympics or US troops. There has been a request for reinforcments and a plea that we are going to lose this war id this requirment is not met.


It would be one thing for the CiC to say "no", but to do 50 or so interviews and leno, then run off to take credit for getting the olympics while troops are dying waiting for an answer?


Inexcusable, just when you think this guy can't get any worse. Shame on him.







pathetic. simply pathetic.

Rev I too long for the days of when the president couldn't walk and chew bubble gum at the same time. Oh where have the years gone
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Let's reduce the hyperactive partisan hackery.

December 6th, the Iraq Study Group proposes what would become the surge.

Exactly 5 days later, Bush met to discuss the plan.

January 10th the plan was announced. That's 35 days since the proposal. By then, over 200 US servicemen had died. By March, 2 months after the vanguard had been deployed, the results were not excepted, with large number of dead, May 2007 was the record of US troops lost for 2007. The last two brigades got there in April and May.

By the time the violence started to decline, September 2007, almost 11 months had gone by. Probably more as the White House was likely aware of what the Iraq Study Group was working on for months.

Also remember that the Surge itself was not the approximate cause of the turn in the war. The strategy was a radical shift away from seek and destroy to protecting local communities and having troops stay in those communities for extended periods of time as well as forming strong ties with the Awakening councils. Flooding the country with additional troops alone did not produce the results we wanted.

Does Afghanistan have a workable strategy as well? Flooding the country with more troops after the blatant fraud in the recent election will not send a good sign to the Afghans.

Iraq War troop surge of 2007 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
U.S. death toll in Iraq passes 3,000 - USATODAY.com
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Let's reduce the hyperactive partisan hackery.



Are you going to cry, when I treat you exactly the same way you are acting towards me? Again?


December 6th, the Iraq Study Group proposes what would become the surge.

Exactly 5 days later, Bush met to discuss the plan.

January 10th the plan was announced. That's 35 days since the proposal. By then, over 200 US servicemen had died. By March, 2 months after the vanguard had been deployed, the results were not excepted, with large number of dead, May 2007 was the record of US troops lost for 2007. The last two brigades got there in April and May.

By the time the violence started to decline, September 2007, almost 11 months had gone by. Probably more as the White House was likely aware of what the Iraq Study Group was working on for months.

Also remember that the Surge itself was not the approximate cause of the turn in the war. The strategy was a radical shift away from seek and destroy to protecting local communities and having troops stay in those communities for extended periods of time as well as forming strong ties with the Awakening councils. Flooding the country with additional troops alone did not produce the results we wanted.

Does Afghanistan have a workable strategy as well? Flooding the country with more troops after the blatant fraud in the recent election will not send a good sign to the Afghans.

Iraq War troop surge of 2007 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
U.S. death toll in Iraq passes 3,000 - USATODAY.com



So then if a surge is NOT the right plan, perhaps President not-a-decider, can pull em back and use drones... .

Perhaps he can fit that between Leno and the olympics.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

No, I say it when people appear to be putting partisanship over reasonableness. 5 days since the actual troop request was made, that has resistance from the pentagon, including from McChrystal's boss. The delay is not unreasonable. Suggesting he is more interested in Leno than this issue is dishonest and over the top partisanship.



So Obama, had no idea, that McChrystal, his guy, was saying that we were in trouble until 5 days ago?


You are being far more "over the top" partisan than I am.



If Bush did this, galavanted all over the world ignoring higher priorities for the olympics and Leno, I'd be all over his poop as well, Like I was for example aggressivly and completley against his bailouts.


Calling people "hyper-partisan", especially in the manner Obvious child, and you are reaching for, is simply an intellectually lacking tactic that is a highly transparent poor substitution for critical thinking on this issue for the sake of "your guy"....
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

One thing to understand is that General Casey, the Chief of Staff of the Army, is reportedly either "concerned" or against the plan. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/world/asia/27military.html?em

"George W. Casey Jr., the Army chief of staff, who worry about the capacity to provide more soldiers at a time of stress on the force, officials said."

It doesnt say he is against sending more troops.


Concern about being over stretched are a bit over done now that we are withdrawing troops from Iraq.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

No, I say it when people appear to be putting partisanship over reasonableness.
Like that from the left that started the day GWB invaded Iraq...?
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Which is more inportant to Obama the olympics or US troops. There has been a request for reinforcments and a plea that we are going to lose this war id this requirment is not met.


It would be one thing for the CiC to say "no", but to do 50 or so interviews and leno, then run off to take credit for getting the olympics while troops are dying waiting for an answer?


Inexcusable, just when you think this guy can't get any worse. Shame on him.







pathetic. simply pathetic.


The war in Afghanistan is probably the most important topic in the USA, along with the financial crisis, but Obama isn't only a "minister of war". He can't work only about Afghanistan.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

The war in Afghanistan is probably the most important topic in the USA, along with the financial crisis, but Obama isn't only a "minister of war". He can't work only about Afghanistan.




He can at least spend as much time talking to the General he picked, ans he spent with Leno. :shrug:
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

As long as this is a hyper-partisan thread, here's the way I see the GOP anti-Dem...anti-Obama ...strategy working:



If Obama takes his time to consider a goal for sending in new troops............. the GOP attacks him for dragging his feet & not supporting our gallant fighting men.

If Obama sennt in troops immediately......the GOP would attack him for not having a clear strategy & wasting the lives of more of our gallant fighting men.;)

Get it now? (they want to bring Obama down...whether the battle is Health Care, The Economy or Wars. The GOP wants its power back!....but we voters are supposed to be to stupid to see through their "Ham Handed" BS......& yeah.....I believe their BS saying..." We know we blew through money like there was no tomorrow when we were in power but..........We're better now....We Promise!!....Things will be different next time!!!...It wasn't our fault!!....) :thumbdown
 
Last edited:
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

He can at least spend as much time talking to the General he picked, ans he spent with Leno. :shrug:

it would have made a difference? Would less soldiers have died?
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

As long as this is a hyper-partisan thread, here's the way I see the GOP anti-Dem...anti-Obama ...strategy working:



If Obama takes his time to consider a goal for sending in new troops............. the GOP attacks him for dragging his feet & not supporting our gallant fighting men.

If Obama sennt in troops immediately......the GOP would attack him for not having a clear strategy & wasting the lives of more of our gallant fighting men.;)

Get it now? (they want to bring Obama down...whether the battle is Health Care, The Economy or Wars. The GOP wants its power back!....but we voters are supposed to be to stupid to see through their "Ham Handed" BS......& yeah.....I believe their BS saying..." We know we blew through money like there was no tomorrow when we were in power but..........We're better now....We Promise!!....Things will be different next time!!!...It wasn't our fault!!....) :thumbdown





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

it would have made a difference? Would less soldiers have died?




At least they would have died knowing what the mission was. Right now, they are in limbo, while he "Decides" what to do.


poop or get off the pot.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

I believe Bush took about 5 years to change strategies in Iraq, I'm gonna give Obama more than 5 days.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

So Obama, had no idea, that McChrystal, his guy, was saying that we were in trouble until 5 days ago?


You are being far more "over the top" partisan than I am.



If Bush did this, galavanted all over the world ignoring higher priorities for the olympics and Leno, I'd be all over his poop as well, Like I was for example aggressivly and completley against his bailouts.


Calling people "hyper-partisan", especially in the manner Obvious child, and you are reaching for, is simply an intellectually lacking tactic that is a highly transparent poor substitution for critical thinking on this issue for the sake of "your guy"....

So taking more than 5 days to act on a request that is not 5 days time critical is not a big deal.

People who bitched about Bush for taking vacations when the Iraq was was in progress where being just as idiotic as you are. Nothing Obama is doing reduces his ability to handle Afghanistan. You have no logical argument here, period, at all. That is why you are being over the top hyper-partisan. You are creating an imaginary issue by taking unrelated incidents and trying to suggest that Obama has not taken the time to deal with Afghanistan, which you have no proof or evidence is the case.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

I believe Bush took about 5 years to change strategies in Iraq....
... during which time I'll bet you constantly criticized him for not doing so.

I'm gonna give Obama more than 5 days.
Of course you are.
Obama (D).
 
Last edited:
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

At least they would have died knowing what the mission was. Right now, they are in limbo, while he "Decides" what to do.


poop or get off the pot.

so that wouldn't have changed anything

what do you think Obama would have done except cheer the soldiers and say hello to the gen. while drinking a cup of champagne? Obama isn't the one who decides everything, he's rather a spokeman (I hope it's not a guy hidden in the white house who does the policies about afghanistan, rather than officiers fighting there!)

. And he isn't gonna make huge policy changes every time he meets a general!
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

So Obama, had no idea, that McChrystal, his guy, was saying that we were in trouble until 5 days ago?


You are being far more "over the top" partisan than I am.



If Bush did this, galavanted all over the world ignoring higher priorities for the olympics and Leno, I'd be all over his poop as well, Like I was for example aggressivly and completley against his bailouts.


Calling people "hyper-partisan", especially in the manner Obvious child, and you are reaching for, is simply an intellectually lacking tactic that is a highly transparent poor substitution for critical thinking on this issue for the sake of "your guy"....
Bush got nailed for reading a book to a school class.
 
Back
Top Bottom