• 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

Oh yeah it is always the fault of the liberals:roll:

Ok, tell us all the great things the Libbos have done to help win the war. I can't wait for this.
 
Ok, tell us all the great things the Libbos have done to help win the war. I can't wait for this.

I'm still waiting for the right wing to tell us what they have done after 8 years.
 
Oh yeah, that's right. PBO's czars are going to put an end to all that, huh?

Yeah right. Government decrease itself? Not bloody likely.
 
Ok, tell us all the great things the Libbos have done to help win the war. I can't wait for this.

So you think everyone that serves in the military is a conservative?

And as far as politicians go, they gave Bush everything he wanted.

The reason these "wars" aren't won, is because there are no armies to defeat.

Al Quaida, like terrorism, can move from country to country and we need to focus on intelligence, international cooperation, and yes, police work in eliminating it, not invading and nationbuilding.
 
Yeah right. Government decrease itself? Not bloody likely.

I meant that the czars are going to put an end to all the free press stuff. I was being sarcastic.
 
So you think everyone that serves in the military is a conservative?
Most are.

And as far as politicians go, they gave Bush everything he wanted.

The reason these "wars" aren't won, is because there are no armies to defeat.

Al Quaida, like terrorism, can move from country to country and we need to focus on intelligence, international cooperation, and yes, police work in eliminating it, not invading and nationbuilding.

There's an enemy to defeat. Just because he doesn't show up on the battlefield in the form of a conventional army, doesn't mean that he can't be defeated. It's that attitude that is the reason these wars aren't over.
 
So you think everyone that serves in the military is a conservative?

Most are.

I disagree. I've been in for over a decade and I'd say most in the military are oblivious to politics. The ones that are politically savvy lean conservative a bit; there are a lot more troops that vote Democrat than you think. Many of the intellectual class among officers are almost all liberals.

There's an enemy to defeat. Just because he doesn't show up on the battlefield in the form of a conventional army, doesn't mean that he can't be defeated. It's that attitude that is the reason these wars aren't over.

First sentence: true. Second sentence: False.

Iraq took so long because our leaders didn't have a plan until JAN 2007.

AFG has never really had a plan (at least not a coherent one)...thus there really hasn't been anything to judge "progress" by.

Military failures in Iraq and AFG are not the fault of dissenting liberals. Get real. The Surge was born out of political dissention to the lack of progress in Iraq. So, actually in that case, we should be thankful...otherwise we might still be "staying the course".

Is that really what you think? You do not stike me as being that stupid. But you do strike me as being insanely partisan...those lines can blur.
 
Last edited:
I disagree. I've been in for over a decade and I'd say most in the military are oblivious to politics. The ones that are politically savvy lean conservative a bit; there are a lot more troops that vote Democrat than you think. Many of the intellectual class among officers are almost all liberals.

Numbers, please, because that hasn't been my observation.



First sentence: true. Second sentence: False.

Iraq took so long because our leaders didn't have a plan until JAN 2007.

AFG has never really had a plan (at least not a coherent one)...thus there really haven't been anything to judge "progress" by.

Military failures in Iraq and AFG are not the fault of dissenting liberals. Get real. The Surge was born out of political dissention to the lack of progress in Iraq. So, actually in that case, we should be thankful...otherwise we might still be "staying the course".

Is that really what you think? You do not stike me as being that stupid. But you do strike me as being insanely partisan...those lines can blur.

I'm not saying that war dissenters are the problem, however they are a part of the problem and not a part of the solution. To suggest that we must thank anti-war Libbos for encouraging the surge is a real joke, indeed.

The reason for the surge, was GWB finally got his head out of his ass and started paying more attention to the guys in uniform instead of the guys in suits.

To say that our soldiers are unable to defeat an unconventional army is an insult to everyone that wears the uniform.
 
Numbers, please, because that hasn't been my observation.

I don't take statistics, it's just been my observation over the last decade. Sorry I didn't scientifically poll it before I presented to you, the all powerful OZ.

I'm still in and you are out. So who would know?


I'm not saying that war dissenters are the problem
,

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID:

It's that attitude that is the reason these wars aren't over.

To suggest that we must thank anti-war Libbos for encouraging the surge is a real joke, indeed.

It is not a joke. Anti-war fever was at an all time high when Bush finally decided to get it together. He was getting pressure from members of his own party to do something it got so bad. McCain was calling for a Surge almost a year before they finally did it and some Senators were going to the WH with their own plans. God you make it so hard to debate b/c you just don't know very much about what has gone on in these wars.

The reason for the surge, was GWB finally got his head out of his ass and started paying more attention to the guys in uniform instead of the guys in suits.

It wasn't guys in uniform that came up with the Surge. It was a retired General and Fred Kagan. Again...how do you not know that?

To say that our soldiers are unable to defeat an unconventional army is an insult to everyone that wears the uniform.

So I'm insulting myself? Please. The old "if you don't agree with me you are unpatriotic" defense is sooooooo pathetic. Nameless, faceless combatants who don't play by the rules are hard to beat. Remember Vietnam?

If you are so damn gung-ho and jingoistic, then why did you get out? Why don't you volunteer to go back over?
 
Last edited:
This is what happens you're losing a war.

Bin Laden wants to keep soldiers in Afghanistan as long as humanely possible. He doesn't care about causing casualties to American Civilians that's just American war propaganda Laden is most interested in draining our resources and he's doing a dam good job.
 
I don't take statistics, it's just been my observation over the last decade. Sorry I didn't scientifically poll it before I presented to you, the all powerful OZ.

I'm still in and you are out. So who would know?

So, we're just supposed to take your word for it? Somehow, I just can't see that happening.


,

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID:

Yah, we know what kind of track record you have with repeating others's comments, too.





It is not a joke. Anti-war fever was at an all time high when Bush finally decided to get it together. He was getting pressure from members of his own party to do something it got so bad. McCain was calling for a Surge almost a year before they finally did it and some Senators were going to the WH with their own plans. God you make it so hard to debate b/c you just don't know very much about what has gone on in these wars.

It's a joke if you think that the war dissenters are responsible for motivating the surge...LOL!!

It wasn't guys in uniform that came up with the Surge. It was a retired General and Fred Kagan. Again...how do you not know that?

So, General Patreaus didn't have **** to do with it? Nothing? The guys in uniform, General Batiste and all them never suggested that we needed more troops on the ground in Iraq?



So I'm insulting myself? Please. The old "if you don't agree with me you are unpatriotic" defense is sooooooo pathetic. Nameless, faceless combatants who don't play by the rules are hard to beat. Remember Vietnam?

But, not impossible to beat. We destroyed the Viet Cong in Vietnam. You should already know that.

If you are so damn gung-ho and jingoistic, then why did you get out? Why don't you volunteer to go back over?


The, "why don't you go fight", is even worse. I'm forty; I would probably just be in the way. But, hey, the 256th BCT is deploying to Afghanistan in January, so anything's possible.


So, now I'm a jingoist?...:rofl Gotta resort to some sorta attack, somewhere, somehow, huh? Can't help it, can you? Found out that you can't exactly call me a racist, but I pass all the time, so technically, you could. So, now you resort to calling me a jingoist. That's a race neutral accusation...:rofl
 
There was a defining moment that signaled exactly what America's will was in reguards to actually winning in Afghanistan and sent a clear message to the Taliban and Al Quaida that our intent was to get out of their way and let them regain strength in the area as they have. It is the soul reason why the situation is as it stands today.

CNN.com - White House pressed on 'mission accomplished' sign - Oct. 29, 2003
 
Yes Bush taught us all that cutting and running from the battle in Afghanistan was the smartest move he could make. To benfit us all.
 
So, we're just supposed to take your word for it? Somehow, I just can't see that happening.

You don't have to. You are very good at making all of your conversations very uncivil...generally a sign that someone knows they are out-witted.


Yah, we know what kind of track record you have with repeating others's comments, too.

I don't what this means.


It's a joke if you think that the war dissenters are responsible for motivating the surge...LOL!!

They absolutely are. I'm not talking about code pink, genious. I'm talking about prominent dems and some republicans becoming fed up with losing in Iraq. The political pressure on Bush forced him to find another way. Why is this so hard for you to accept? It's completely logical.



So, General Patreaus didn't have **** to do with it? Nothing? The guys in uniform, General Batiste and all them never suggested that we needed more troops on the ground in Iraq?

Petraeus (correct spelling) was not in on the planning of the Surge plan presented to Bush. He was commanding CAC at Leavenworth at the time and Gen. Jack Keane and Fred Kagan came up with the plan and had given it to MNC-I commander Odierno prior to Petraeus even taking command of MNF-I. Once Petraeus was put in place, he tweeked tactical elements of the strategy. Batiste? Former commander of 1st ID? No, he had nothing to do with it. In fact, he was in the infamous "gang of Generals" that protested the war after retirement. And who is "all of them"?





But, not impossible to beat. We destroyed the Viet Cong in Vietnam. You should already know that.

We lost the war.
 
Link


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.
These soldiers say absolutely nothing about anti war protestors or little eichmanns, yet you somehow think it's relevant?

There's really not a mystery here: they're in an 8 year long war that has been worsening for years now.
 
I disagree. I've been in for over a decade and I'd say most in the military are oblivious to politics. The ones that are politically savvy lean conservative a bit; there are a lot more troops that vote Democrat than you think. Many of the intellectual class among officers are almost all liberals.


I found most who were into politics, leaned conservative. Sorta hand that feeds you thinng. O's included. :shrug:
 
I found most who were into politics, leaned conservative. Sorta hand that feeds you thinng. O's included. :shrug:

And some of us where the exception. The fun on the day Clinton beat Bush was wonderful for the two of us who where liberals.
 
And some of us where the exception. The fun on the day Clinton beat Bush was wonderful for the two of us who where liberals.




Sure thing, few, very very few, were out and pround liberals.... Usually those chicks didn't have boyfriends either though... :ssst:


I kid I kid..... :2razz::2razz:
 
Sure thing, few, very very few, were out and pround liberals.... Usually those chicks didn't have boyfriends either though... :ssst:


I kid I kid..... :2razz::2razz:

My boot and your ass are about to have a meeting...:2razz:
 
I found most who were into politics, leaned conservative. Sorta hand that feeds you thinng. O's included. :shrug:

Yeah, you were in a different branch and it was ten years ago. Dynamics and culture has changed somewhat, especially since Iraq/AFG have about run their course. I still believe that most in the Army aren't to politically savvy. You'd be surprised by how many closet liberals there are, though; especially among officers.

I see your point on the hand that feeds you analogy.

Unless that hand is feeding you into an unecessary war of choice in Iraq.

Then I'd rather starve.
 
Last edited:
I know that there were reports such as this during the Vietnam War. Earlier some people had bad things to say about LBJ later on it was Nixon. I am sure that if someone had asked a group of soldiers or airmen maybe even Marines during the Korean War they may have heard a negative attitude from some fraction of troops. Hey the Air Force was not at all happy about the fact that they could not chase Commie Migs across the Yalu but did they lose heart ? Don't thing so !! I am sure that there were some who considered Truman a useless political schmuck and they maybe felt that MacArthur should have run the entire war from Japan. I am sure that there were fractions of troops in every war we fought who grumbled, at some point felt the feeling of "losing heart" or someone had interpreted that sentiment form the those troops.

It is very probable that during there were some troops on both sides during the Civil war who felt that Lincoln or Jeff Davis were just screwing up things royally.

I can just envision Continental troops and the short term volunteers saying that those buffoons in the Continental Congress were just flapping there gums while they were dying so why the hell don't they just home and get the fields plowed for the spring plantings.

If someone really looks for negativism and interprets by hearing what they want to hear I am sure that we can make just about any war seen as if the troops are ready to throw in the towel.

In Vietnam some troops especially in the Air Force said things like “Vietnam is like a big vacuum cleaner, it really sucks".

Well are we to conclude that the entire Seventh Air Force had "lost heart”?
 
From my experience it never mattered what opinion was outside the bubble of the unit. Fighting forces are that close knit and insular opinions from a far are of no relevance. Moral comes from within-from within yourself, and your close friends. Political-strategic initiatives bare little on your day to day schedule. You have a enough to occupy your mind, concentrating on your friends back and not letting down your section or platoon. The only orders or directives, that matter from above, are what comes your way via platoon commander, or if your unlucky you may bump into the commanding officer.

The Paras in 2006 whilst on one of the most brutal tours of Afghanistan were facing the possibility of being completely isolated and cut off from reinforcements. The attitude of the Men.....was bring it on!

I cant envisage it being much different in the American services.

Paul
 
I found most who were into politics, leaned conservative. Sorta hand that feeds you thinng. O's included. :shrug:

Just for the sake of clarity, I didn't say this.

Originally Posted by apdst

I disagree. I've been in for over a decade and I'd say most in the military are oblivious to politics. The ones that are politically savvy lean conservative a bit; there are a lot more troops that vote Democrat than you think. Many of the intellectual class among officers are almost all liberals.

Kansaswhig made that comment.
 
I said this:

I disagree. I've been in for over a decade and I'd say most in the military are oblivious to politics. The ones that are politically savvy lean conservative a bit; there are a lot more troops that vote Democrat than you think. Many of the intellectual class among officers are almost all liberals.


Hellhound said this:

I found most who were into politics, leaned conservative. Sorta hand that feeds you thinng. O's included.

I responded with this:

Yeah, you were in a different branch and it was ten years ago. Dynamics and culture has changed somewhat, especially since Iraq/AFG have about run their course. I still believe that most in the Army aren't to politically savvy. You'd be surprised by how many closet liberals there are, though; especially among officers.

I see your point on the hand that feeds you analogy.

Unless that hand is feeding you into an unecessary war of choice in Iraq.

Then I'd rather starve.

apdst said this:

Kansaswhig is a stud and a man I would follow into combat...

or at least you thought it...
 
Last edited:
Yeah, you were in a different branch and it was ten years ago. Dynamics and culture has changed somewhat, especially since Iraq/AFG have about run their course. I still believe that most in the Army aren't to politically savvy. You'd be surprised by how many closet liberals there are, though; especially among officers.


I am still in contact and close to people still serving. I do CQB training several times a year where I assist a well known school in instruction. I talk to many many vets, active duty, and contractors, and it's pretty obvious where they stand. YMMV... :shrug:

I see your point on the hand that feeds you analogy.

Unless that hand is feeding you into an unecessary war of choice in Iraq.

Then I'd rather starve.


Uhm, Problem is we are already over there. Would you rather have the hand that feeds, or the hand that fights funding, wont make a decision, calls you murderers, nazis, and war criminals?
 
Back
Top Bottom