• 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!

American troops in Afghanistan losing heart, say army chaplains

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Yes, he threw 17k more troops atafghanistan, by your previous post, you think that was a mistake when you say "Deploying 40 thousand American lives is not a decision that should be made in haste. "?
Click to expand...

That is your own conclusion not mine. Mine is that the President is privy to alot more information than we are and I want him to find the most effective way to utilize our resources.
 
Zyphlin said:
Let me just be clear.

I don't have issue saying Obama needs to make a decision on this.

I don't have much issue with people complaining about his amount of direct content with the general.

I actually agree he needs to not take too long making this choice, however at the same time I don't want it done rashly either.

What I don't agree with is complaining about troop morale and claiming its due to him "carring more" about Leno/Letterman/The Olympics and putting forward troops as props for getting your attack across, all the while you're (generic you) continually being the ones that continue to shout out that "Obama cares more about Leno than you!", "Obama doesn't care about the troops but cares about the Olympics". This is like the people saying Bush just did the war for Halliburton and shouting that out continually. Is there corrolation to both? Definitely. Halliburton benefited from the Iraq War, Obama to The Olympics/Talk shows. Does that somehow definitively prove "Bush did Iraq for Halliburton" or "Obama cares more about the olympics than the troops"? ABSOLUTELY NOT. Sure, some troops may hear the news and think that, but I dare say MORE are going to think that way...and thus lose morale...when you have a plethora of right wingers continually pounding the drums telling them "He doesn't care about you, he doesnt' care about you, he doesn't care about you".

Yet we're supposed to believe that these people pushing their political point in such a way that it will damage morale even further .... "Care about the troops" ?
Click to expand...



Cares more about?


I think I was careful to point out, that it appears, his priorities are screwed.
 
Z, Bush has a reputation of being decisive. No one argued that, they just didn't agree with his decisions. With Obama it's his hesitation.
 
I don't remember Bush getting the benefit of the doubt about being privy to things we're not.
 
Zyphlin said:
Probably not. The 17k was part of what he campaigned on and as such was probably studied and thought about for some time to be ready to do it early on in the Presidency as he stated.

This new increase is something different, and thus I'm guessing he feels he should re-evaluate the situation to see if its needed, what affect the 17k had, etc.

If I spend 2k on a computer I researched for a few weeks prior and in 9 months its still not working right, I don't go back out and immedietely just throw 4k on a new computer using the same info I had the first time and assume everythings going to be hunky dorey. For one, technology could change during that time and it may be that what I bought wasn't the problem but what I was doing. Its a different situation.

Likeweise, its not unheard of to re-examine the situation 9 months after he did something previous to see if perhaps the information is different. I'm no saying he needs to take a month to figure it out, I'm just saying you can't equate the two.
Click to expand...



I see no problem with this logic.


Tell me though, do you view Obama as a "decisive" person?


Health care, Afghanistan, remember how long it took for him to have a position on Georgia...


I get the impression, he is afraid to make decisions.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
I see no problem with this logic.


Tell me though, do you view Obama as a "decisive" person?


Health care, Afghanistan, remember how long it took for him to have a position on Georgia...


I get the impression, he is afraid to make decisions.
Click to expand...
That was one of the key reasons people said a former governor was better at being the executive than a former legislator.
 
American said:
That was one of the key reasons people said a former governor was better at being the executive than a former legislator.
Click to expand...




I dunno, given her recent antics, I think it might have been a lateral move. :shock:
 
American said:
I don't remember Bush getting the benefit of the doubt about being privy to things we're not.
Click to expand...

Really. I keenly remember a great number of conservative giving Bush the benefit of the doubt about being privy to things we're not.

Seriously American, when slying trying to point out hypocracy its best to look in the mirror first.

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
I see no problem with this logic.

Tell me though, do you view Obama as a "decisive" person?

Health care, Afghanistan, remember how long it took for him to have a position on Georgia...

I get the impression, he is afraid to make decisions.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think he's decisive at all. And I think its great to point that out.

Let me be a bit more clear. If someone went:

"Look, its ridiculous he's waiting weeks to make a decision on this. The general is on the ground, he knows whats going on, and he requested troops. He needs to deal with this soon. He's got a history of being indecisive on important issues and this is NOT a situation where that can happen. Its as if he's afraid to take the WRONG action, but in this case taking delayed action IS the wrong action. Yes there may be other things he is or needs to be doing, but this is number one".

You're complaining about his indecision, you're complaining about him not listening to the general, you're complaining about his history of not taking action. You're going after him for not making this the number one priority. All the while, you're not focusing on, harping on, and pushing the notion that people keep claiming is hurting troop morale...stating that the olympics or leno specifically are higher priorities to him than dying troops in afghanistan. It also gets your point across without taking the troops, shoving your hand up their ass, and utilizing them as if they're prop puppets in a partisan attack job play you're doing.

My issue is not with the base argument of any of this that people are making. Even if I disagree with some of it, I don't have an issue with that. I have an issue with people using the troops as props to make their point seem more important. I have issue with people saying that this perception is hurting troop morale, and then immedietely focusing their arguments in a way that pushes that perception.
 
American said:
You know this pisses me off. The left can take full ownership of this one. There is no way anyone can blame the right for lousy troop morale. Anti-war protesting, calling them nazis, saying they scare women and children in the dark of night, saying the war is lost, comparing their families to little Eichmanns, and voting against funding....no this is the legacy of the left.
Click to expand...

What about the previous eight years of this war?

I know you say that you are/were critical of Bush for his AFG policy, but doesn't the Right deserve some of the blame on this, too?

Man, I bet that whole Iraq thing really put a hamper on getting more troops and equipment to AFG...did you oppose that war?

I agree that true liberals generally aren't big military supporters, but you can't deny that Iraq is the main reason why the war in AFG has been a failure.
 
Stories like this shouldn't be made public. It can't lead to any good. Now we have soldiers reading this **** online and it will effect even more soldiers's morale. It's a good example of why the media should be kept as far away from the battlefield as legally possible.
 
kansaswhig said:
What about the previous eight years of this war?

I know you say that you are/were critical of Bush for his AFG policy, but doesn't the Right deserve some of the blame on this, too?

Man, I bet that whole Iraq thing really put a hamper on getting more troops and equipment to AFG...did you oppose that war?

I agree that true liberals generally aren't big military supporters, but you can't deny that Iraq is the main reason why the war in AFG has been a failure.
Click to expand...
When did I argue critically about Bushes OEF policy? Maybe I missed it. :confused:
 
The leftist media does play a part in reducing the effectiveness of battle strategies, but they don't take all the blame for demoralizing the troops. Many right wingers are staunchly pro-war but have never even served, so they have no idea the work it takes for soldiers in the field. So on one side you have people saying no war at all costs, and on the other side you have people saying that such and such country deserves to be bombed for its most recent political statement.

The main reason why they are losing morale is because they are fighting an uphill battle that is unwinnable. They are being given a long term strategy that has few assertainable results, and an exit strategy that doesn't include the word "victory". Both the Bush and Obama administrations have the same strategy: toss money and lives at the problem and hope for improvement.

The areas of Afghanistan that are relatively more stable are just temporary quiet zones. Once forces from the Western world pull out, the dissidents will be full on again. The soldiers fighting for freedom in Afghanistan procure one area, only to see car bombs go off and more civilians killed.

The U.S. just wants another satelite power that it can rely on in a pinch, which means defending the current puppet democracy in Afghanistan. Now forces are pushing into Pakistan, and the neo-cons have their eyes on Iran, expecting soldiers to do more grunt work on their selfish behalf; all the while, the staunch left is accusing soldiers and government of being murderers.

Of course they are demoralized.
 
American said:
Either pull the troops out, or provision them to win. It's one or the other!
Click to expand...

I agree with this. Of course, my personal stance on Iraq and at this point Afghanistan is to pull out. I don't think we should have to risk our troops anymore over there. If there are terrorist attacks in the future (I mean, in general there will be; it's a probability and given enough time all probability will work out) we can deal with it then. And not in some piss ant, "we're bringing democracy" sort of way. The military has made great commitment in their resolve and character to protect this country. I think we should only call on them to their sacrifice for those means. Other places can fight their own damned wars. But if we're going to go to war, it's asinine to hamstring our own troops. They should be given every order and provision to protect themselves and to carry out their missions to the best of their ability.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
In Obama we trust.



;)
Click to expand...

This is why it is hard to take you seriously on the topic of Afghanistan. From your stupid complaints that Obama went on Leno, to claiming that the only reason why some don't agree with you is their blind love of Obama, to your exploiting the deaths of troops to make your political point. Right now, people like you are more harmful to the troops in Afghanistan that Obama could even be.
 
Zyphlin said:
Really. I keenly remember a great number of conservative giving Bush the benefit of the doubt about being privy to things we're not.

Seriously American, when slying trying to point out hypocracy its best to look in the mirror first.



No, I don't think he's decisive at all. And I think its great to point that out.

Let me be a bit more clear. If someone went:

"Look, its ridiculous he's waiting weeks to make a decision on this. The general is on the ground, he knows whats going on, and he requested troops. He needs to deal with this soon. He's got a history of being indecisive on important issues and this is NOT a situation where that can happen. Its as if he's afraid to take the WRONG action, but in this case taking delayed action IS the wrong action. Yes there may be other things he is or needs to be doing, but this is number one".

You're complaining about his indecision, you're complaining about him not listening to the general, you're complaining about his history of not taking action. You're going after him for not making this the number one priority. All the while, you're not focusing on, harping on, and pushing the notion that people keep claiming is hurting troop morale...stating that the olympics or leno specifically are higher priorities to him than dying troops in afghanistan. It also gets your point across without taking the troops, shoving your hand up their ass, and utilizing them as if they're prop puppets in a partisan attack job play you're doing.

My issue is not with the base argument of any of this that people are making. Even if I disagree with some of it, I don't have an issue with that. I have an issue with people using the troops as props to make their point seem more important. I have issue with people saying that this perception is hurting troop morale, and then immedietely focusing their arguments in a way that pushes that perception.
Click to expand...



Let me be straight again.


I am on this position from remembering how I felt with bush I, and how people I know feel now in Afghanistan. Anecdotal aside. I know what troops think when they don't know what the mission is. Its not good.
 
Redress said:
This is why it is hard to take you seriously on the topic of Afghanistan. From your stupid complaints that Obama went on Leno, to claiming that the only reason why some don't agree with you is their blind love of Obama, to your exploiting the deaths of troops to make your political point. Right now, people like you are more harmful to the troops in Afghanistan that Obama could even be.
Click to expand...




once again, you are out of line. Please avoid accusing me of accusing the troops or we will have serious issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom