• 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!

War-weary US is numbed to drumbeat of troop deaths

Has America become numb to troop deaths in Afghanistan


  • Total voters
    21
When Bush was president and the Iraq surge was going on all you heard about on the nightly news was how many US troops were being killed. Now the media pretty much ignores the casualty count even though it was higher in obamas Afghan surge than it was in the Iraq surge. This is no coincidence and this is not about people getting used to our soldiers being killed, it is about the liberal media covering the wars under obama and Bush in an entirely different fashion. The truth is the media is doing all it can to shade the news to favor obama just as they did to portray Bush in the worst possible light.. Americans have not become numb they are just not being told about US casualties and I'll bet most think there are far fewer in Afghanistan under obama than there were under Bush.


CNSNews.com) - Two-thirds of U.S. military fatalities in the decade-long Afghan war have occurred since May 15, 2009, when the first wave of the troop surge ordered by President Barack Obama arrived in Afghanistan.

"The 1,180 U.S. military fatalities in Afghanistan reported between May 15, 2009 and today account for approximately 66 percent of the total of 1,792 U.S. military fatalities in that country since the beginning of the war in October 2001, according to CNSNews.com’s database of all fatalities in the war."


More US Troop Deaths in Afghanistan Under Obama Than Bush
Full story: End the Federal Reserve

As early as August of 2010, the number of American soldiers, who had died in Afghanistan under Barack Obama, surpassed the number of troops that died under George W. Bush’s authority. Think about it: In less than two years, Obama’s actions have resulted in the deaths of more Americans in Afghanistan than in eight years of Bush’s Presidency.

The lack of reporting is a indicator of media bias, not whether or not the the public as a whole is numb to troop deaths. When Bush was president troop deaths mattered in the media's eyes.Now that Obama is president troop deaths are meaningless to liberals in general. I remember on another forum back when Bush was president a liberal had a troop death thread and posted on it any time a troop death was reported. Now that Obama is president he seems to no longer care.
 
Wait...thats a little bit schizo, dont you think? I thought Afghanistan was where the war was REALLY at and that IS the war Obama would have supported? Bloody ****ing hell...wont you people EVER pick a side and will you turn EVERY SINGLE TOPIC into a 'its not his fault' commentary?

Obama has 'owned' Afghanistan for nearly 4 years. He applied for the job. Own the bitch. People are dying and his 'policy' there is a disaster.

you never complained about it when bush was president.

now all of a sudden the conservatives are against the war?
 
you never complained about it when bush was president.

now all of a sudden the conservatives are against the war?
You are completely wrong and may have seen it here. I believe Bush failed COMPLETELY in the post war ops and we should have been out of both countries no later than 5 years after our enemies were defeated. Said so thyen and have said so countless times here. Ive 'been' there. I know those people. **** them. They should have been told to sink or swim...5 years and out.
 
I think it's a bit of both. I agree with you that the media is far less willing to hold Obama accountable for war casualties than they were for Bush (or than they probably would have been for McCain). It's sad that they give him a pass on this, because Obama's Afghanistan policy has been catastrophic.

But I also think that it's true that people are just more war-weary. Many of us can barely remember a time we weren't at war. I started following politics during the 2000 election, when I was 16 years old. A year later, we were at war and have been ever since...so I don't even really remember a time when we were at peace, and it seems like the war casualties are the new normal. I think there is something to be said for the idea that people are numb to casualties and it doesn't really register anymore.

I'm glad that you, as a liberal, can see this. I have thought it for awhile. The media does give President Obama a pass on this particular subject. I don't understand it. This isn't the economy or gay marriage, both things he has gotten a pass on. These are human beings losing their lives, families being shattered, the best of us being killed. For what? We (service members) don't know. I didn't agree with Iraq, but at least when I deployed there I knew why. I could see progress being made, a strategy was given to us, an endstate that was reachable and realistic was there. In Afghanistan, we walk right past the very thing that funds the insurgency (poppy) everyday and do nothing about it. When we arrive in country, we are given rules of what not to do, regulations to follow, and a brief to watch out for "friendly" fire from Afghani police and soldiers. There is no goal given. There is no endstate. It seems that everyone, to include the Generals in charge of the war, haven essentially surrendered to the inevitable result of our excursion there. That being we are the same as Alexander the Great and the Russians, a more powerful yet defeated invader that will be sent home with its tail between its legs. All the while, Marines and soldiers on the ground know exactly what we need to do to win. 1st, burn the poppy and replace it with wheat (which requires the exact same conditions to grow as poppy). Provide a way for Afghani farmers to export their wheat and not just sell in domestically. 2nd, stop being so risk averse and allow us to use our combined arms, maneuver warfare approach that has worked so well in the past. Insurgents and terrorists don't get peed on when we can just blow them away. That is much more satisfying. 3rd, stop trying to train Afghani police and soldiers the same way we did Iraiq's. We should not be living with these treacherous people. Not yet. 4th, stop putting up with Karzai's crooked ways. Cut funding to things he wants until he realizes we won't deal with his crap anymore. There's so much more, but, this post is becoming ridiculously long already.
 
Troop deaths are inevitable when you occupy a foreign land.
 
WASHINGTON (AP) —" It was another week at war in Afghanistan, another string of American casualties, and another collective shrug by a nation weary of a faraway conflict whose hallmark is its grinding inconclusiveness."

War-weary US is numbed to drumbeat of troop deaths - Yahoo! News

This article says we have become numb to troop deaths but I don't think so. I think the media is ignoring troop deaths because they support obama and try to sweep this under the rug so we are not numb we are just not being informed and reminded of the casualty rates we are suffering.

In case you forgot, Obama did not start these conflicts. Obama withdrew from Iraq, unlike others we know.
 
Wait...thats a little bit schizo, dont you think? I thought Afghanistan was where the war was REALLY at and that IS the war Obama would have supported? Bloody ****ing hell...wont you people EVER pick a side and will you turn EVERY SINGLE TOPIC into a 'its not his fault' commentary?

Obama has 'owned' Afghanistan for nearly 4 years. He applied for the job. Own the bitch. People are dying and his 'policy' there is a disaster.

The Bush clan owned Afghanistan for 8 years mind you. He didnt even apply for the job.
 
In case you forgot, Obama did not start these conflicts. Obama withdrew from Iraq, unlike others we know.

Obama could have withdrawn from Afghanistan like he did from Iraq. Instead, he made the decision to escalate. He didn't have to do it; no one was forcing him. Therefore he absolutely should be held accountable for the war. He owns the war in Afghanistan at least as much as Bush did, and our needless casualties in this fiasco are absolutely Obama's fault.
 
Obama could have withdrawn from Afghanistan like he did from Iraq. Instead, he made the decision to escalate. He didn't have to do it; no one was forcing him. Therefore he absolutely should be held accountable for the war. He owns the war in Afghanistan at least as much as Bush did, and our needless casualties in this fiasco are absolutely Obama's fault.

no, it's congresses fault because the constitution says that only congress has the power to declare. It's a ****ed up situation so don't go blaming obama.
 
no, it's congresses fault because the constitution says that only congress has the power to declare. It's a ****ed up situation so don't go blaming obama.

Huh? How is it Congress' fault? No war was declared, and even if it had been, the commander-in-chief is the one who carries out the war. Not Congress. Obama made the decision to "surge" in Afghanistan; he could have instead chosen to withdraw and there would be no way that Congress could have stopped him.
 
no, it's congresses fault because the constitution says that only congress has the power to declare. It's a ****ed up situation so don't go blaming obama.

We all know that Congressional approval is only a formality. No official ''war" has been declared in Afghanistan, therefore, the actions there fall under the president's authority to administer "War Powers" within the limits of Congressional approval. As the US Constitution ONLY references the "Act of Declaring War".......your reference to constitutionality does not apply in this particular situation.
 
The lack of reporting is a indicator of media bias, not whether or not the the public as a whole is numb to troop deaths. When Bush was president troop deaths mattered in the media's eyes.Now that Obama is president troop deaths are meaningless to liberals in general. I remember on another forum back when Bush was president a liberal had a troop death thread and posted on it any time a troop death was reported. Now that Obama is president he seems to no longer care.

I remember that at WS, and that guy is in this forum saying nothing about troop deaths now.
 
In case you forgot, Obama did not start these conflicts. Obama withdrew from Iraq, unlike others we know.

Obama withdrew from Iraq on a timeframe that was established during the Bush administration.
 
Huh? How is it Congress' fault? No war was declared, and even if it had been, the commander-in-chief is the one who carries out the war. Not Congress. Obama made the decision to "surge" in Afghanistan; he could have instead chosen to withdraw and there would be no way that Congress could have stopped him.

Only congress has the power to declare war. Congress ****ed up when they passed the war powers act. It's unconstitutional. Congress was and is wrong. Both parties.
 
Only congress has the power to declare war. Congress ****ed up when they passed the war powers act. It's unconstitutional. Congress was and is wrong. Both parties.

Constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution is an entirely different issue. Fact is, it IS the law, whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant. Funny how some pretend to be strict constructionists.........when it suits them. :shrug:
 
Only congress has the power to declare war. Congress ****ed up when they passed the war powers act. It's unconstitutional. Congress was and is wrong. Both parties.

What does that have to do with Obama choosing to surge in Afghanistan? We were already in Afghanistan when he took office, so regardless of what Congress was or wasn't supposed to do back in 2001 when we first invaded, the commander-in-chief has sole discretion as to how to execute the war and how many troops will be deployed. Obama is absolutely to blame for the foolish decision to double down on Afghanistan...which requires no congressional authorization, with or without the War Powers Act.
 
The Bush clan owned Afghanistan for 8 years mind you. He didnt even apply for the job.
When you hire a ****ty replacement coach that does a ****ty job, you dont keep whining about how bad the guy was you replaced...you get rid of the loser and go another direction.
 
WASHINGTON (AP) —" It was another week at war in Afghanistan, another string of American casualties, and another collective shrug by a nation weary of a faraway conflict whose hallmark is its grinding inconclusiveness."

War-weary US is numbed to drumbeat of troop deaths - Yahoo! News

This article says we have become numb to troop deaths but I don't think so. I think the media is ignoring troop deaths because they support obama and try to sweep this under the rug so we are not numb we are just not being informed and reminded of the casualty rates we are suffering.

The media reports too much it, that's why we're numb. After a while you don't notice anymore.

And besides, the rest of the media is reporting that the prince of England is flashin' his peepee in Las Vegas: which one are we supposed to listen to?
 
Wait...thats a little bit schizo, dont you think? I thought Afghanistan was where the war was REALLY at and that IS the war Obama would have supported? Bloody ****ing hell...wont you people EVER pick a side and will you turn EVERY SINGLE TOPIC into a 'its not his fault' commentary?

Obama has 'owned' Afghanistan for nearly 4 years. He applied for the job. Own the bitch. People are dying and his 'policy' there is a disaster.

Everybody's policy there has been a disaster for about 1000 years, Obama's has not been the worst. Unllike Bush in Iraq he has a decent coalition of NATO forces so we are not alone. He gave the Afghans the chance to train a police force and we are now on our way out. His drone war has been spectacular at hitting Alqeada and the Taliban. You are all nothing but fakers anyway....you want the "endless war" and you're mad at Obama for not going along with it. We will put the Bush induced nightmare of the "endless war" behind us for good. Bin Ladens dead, the drones will keep the terrorists busy forever and our troops are all home by 2014. That is what you call cleaning up a huge mess in record time. And we all can sleep alot better.
 
Last edited:
When you hire a ****ty replacement coach that does a ****ty job, you dont keep whining about how bad the guy was you replaced...you get rid of the loser and go another direction.

When the replacement coach inherited a debt of some $12 trillion from his predecessor, the debt snowballs and USA becomes a banana republic.
 
When you hire a ****ty replacement coach that does a ****ty job, you dont keep whining about how bad the guy was you replaced...you get rid of the loser and go another direction.

This "coach" has completed our mission there and has our troops coming home. I guess we won't be needing a replacement after all.
 
Everybody's policy there has been a disaster for about 1000 years, Obama's has not been the worst. Unllike Bush in Iraq he has a decent coalition of NATO forces so we are not alone. He gave the Afghans the chance to train a police force and we are now on our way out. His drone war has been spectacular at hitting Alqeada and the Taliban. You are all nothing but fakers anyway....you want the "endless war" and you're mad at Obama for not going along with it. We will put the Bush induced nightmare of the "endless war" behind us for good. Bin Ladens dead, the drones will keep the terrorists busy forever and our troops are all home by 2014. That is what you call cleaning up a huge mess in record time. And we all can sleep alot better.

No, the drones will keep our military busy forever. Constant drone attacks tend to radicalize the population and create more anti-American sentiment...as we've seen in Pakistan and Yemen where we've managed to completely destabilize the government and created an atmosphere of total lawlessness.
 
This "coach" has completed our mission there and has our troops coming home. I guess we won't be needing a replacement after all.
The 'coach' argued against the other guys game plan, then used it, and now doesnt know what the **** to do so he just ignores it.
 
When the replacement coach inherited a debt of some $12 trillion from his predecessor, the debt snowballs and USA becomes a banana republic.
The replacement coach inherited a 9 trillion dollar debt, 7 of which the 'other guy' was responsible for signing. The new 'coach' added 7 trillion in less than half the time the other guy did and that doesnt say **** about the war in Afghanistan or his failure there but it DOES show how readily you will ignore his failures and attempt to divert attention in any way possible to the other guy.
 
The replacement coach inherited a 9 trillion dollar debt, 7 of which the 'other guy' was responsible for signing. The new 'coach' added 7 trillion in less than half the time the other guy did and that doesnt say **** about the war in Afghanistan or his failure there but it DOES show how readily you will ignore his failures and attempt to divert attention in any way possible to the other guy.

Two words prevented the replacement coach from doing his job - Republican obstructionism.
 
Back
Top Bottom