• 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!

Afghan War Debate Endangers U.S. Troops - Veterans

Joe1991 said:
Nobody is sitting and waiting.

McCrystals new plan involves putting 40k troops inside of cities, so any troops fighting now would still be fighting.

Troops in Iraq or Afg are by their very nature "in harm's way", so unless you are for complete withdrawal, they are carrying out the same mission McChrystal laid out in June.

Your disingenuous posts are the reason normal conservatives ignore these rants. ...You can do better.
Click to expand...

That's your excuse for under-manning our army in Afghanistan? "It's already dangerous, so what's a little more danger going to hurt"?
 
Joe1991 said:
go reread, I said six years




No, Obama said he'd "finish the job", (although my personal choice is to bring the troops home yesterday.)
Click to expand...

We all know the Libbos support an immediate retreat.
 
apdst said:
That's your excuse for under-manning our army in Afghanistan? "It's already dangerous, so what's a little more danger going to hurt"?
Click to expand...

You misunderstand what McChrystal wants to do, these troops (although always in danger) wouldn't be fighting on the front lines. Go read the plan please.

And I doubt you could find a general in history that didn't desire more troops.
 
apdst said:
We all know the Libbos support an immediate retreat.
Click to expand...

Only from misguided and unnecessary wars.

If I thought for one minute Afg or Iraq would have been real threats to America, I'd volunteer myself.
 
Joe1991 said:
From the time we went into Iraq until the "Surge" strategy was decided on.
Click to expand...

And, here, I just called you honest. You need to do some research and connect a few dates. When you do, you'll notice that the surge began in 2007 and the war didn't hit it's sixth year, until after Bush was out of office.
 
Joe1991 said:
Only from misguided and unnecessary wars.

If I thought for one minute Afg or Iraq would have been real threats to America, I'd volunteer myself.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I bet you would...:rofl
 
j-mac said:
Meanwhile Obama has removed the ability to return fire until a command authority is given. Hell, how long should we wait for the decision?

I say if this is how Obama plans on running things, just pull em'


j-mac
Click to expand...

Source?

(10 characters)
 
Gibberish said:
1. Don't drop bombs on civilians.
2. Don't participate in a fire battle when civilians may become casualties.

So our troops can only succeed if they are allowed to openly kill civilians?
Click to expand...




L so if they hide among civillians you would prefer dead americans?
 
Gibberish said:
1. Don't drop bombs on civilians.
2. Don't participate in a fire battle when civilians may become casualties.

So our troops can only succeed if they are allowed to openly kill civilians?
Click to expand...


I agree that we shouldn't openly target civilians, that's just common sense. However, we can't refuse to engage the enemy everytime there is a chance that there may be civilian casualties. To do that is inviting failure and death upon our soldiers...just some more common sense.
 
apdst said:
I agree that we shouldn't openly target civilians, that's just common sense. However, we can't refuse to engage the enemy everytime there is a chance that there may be civilian casualties. To do that is inviting failure and death upon our soldiers...just some more common sense.
Click to expand...

I can't seem to find the exact Rules of Engagement so I don't know what the proper response is in every instace. From what I got from what I did read we shouldn't bomb places we know civilians are present and we shouldn't conduct fire fights in the middle of a market place. Which seems to me would be pretty standard operating procedures for urban warfare.

I highly doubt we would enforce a full retreat if a single civilian was present.

I just don't buy the dramatization that soldiers are increasingly dieing and the war is being lost because American soldiers aren't allowed to kill civilians.
 
Last edited:
Gibberish said:
How would there be dead Americans if no fighting occurs?
Click to expand...

If the enemy shoots and our troops don't, American soldiers will die and the enemy will not. Not only that, but it will conserve the enemy's combat power and boosting his morale, for the next battle, where American troops will die. You can't fight a war with one hand tied around your balls.


Gibberish said:
I can't seem to find the exact Rules of Engagement so I don't know what the proper response is in every instace. From what I got from what I did read we shouldn't bomb places we know civilians are present and we shouldn't conduct fire fights in the middle of a market place. Which seems to me would be pretty standard operating procedures for urban warfare.
Click to expand...

Firefights aren't conducted, they just happen and as is the nature of war, you have little control over when and where they happen. When the enemy initiates contact, you have zero control.



I just don't buy the dramatization that soldiers are increasingly dieing and the war is being lost because American soldiers aren't allowed to kill civilians.
Click to expand...

If American soldiers are prohibited from engaging the enemy, just because there may be civilian casualties, then yes, American soldiers will die in increased numbers.

It's alerady been proven that if we go head-to-head with the enemy, there will be a 10:1, or better, kill ratio--1 of ours for 10 of their's. If that ratio drops, then something is wrong.
 
rathi said:
The "tone" of the post was a over-compensating internet tough guy trying to show how badass he is. Do you agree with the tone because you hold a similar mindset?
Click to expand...

Listen sir, I am no internet tough guy. I am a SOLDIER. I do not condone the wasting of my brothers fighting around the world, while you sit in the safety and freedom of your home, even debating the cause. You either support the military or you are an enemy of it. If you are an enemy, then you should just make like a tree and leave. Obama is a puke like Bush in my opinion, but at least Bush had a pair of balls, and the brains to listen to his military leaders. Obama has neither.
I certainly believe that the USA would be a better place with people who loved it. The rest of you would be better served gone or dust. If you honestly think I come onto a website to show how badass I am, then you are certainly a PINHEAD. I couldn't care less about debating America Haters, but you just happened to fart my way.
 
CAPTDASH said:
Listen sir, I am no internet tough guy. I am a SOLDIER. I do not condone the wasting of my brothers fighting around the world, while you sit in the safety and freedom of your home, even debating the cause.
Click to expand...

Then that is unfortunate for you, because that is exactly what a soldier fights for.

CAPTDASH said:
You either support the military or you are an enemy of it.
Click to expand...

Does that include the commander in Chief?

CAPTDASH said:
at least Bush had a pair of balls, and the brains to listen to his military leaders. Obama has neither.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't blame the military for Bushes massive blunders.

CAPTDASH said:
I certainly believe that the USA would be a better place with people who loved it.
Click to expand...

I guess that means only people who agree with you? :(
 
Joe1991 said:
I guess that means only people who agree with you? :(
Click to expand...

It's been my experience, that alotta folks that tend to not agree with me, tend to be less prouder than most to be Americans. Those are the, "fair weather patriots", I frequently speak of. Folks who are dyed in the wool Americans when things are going their way, but embarressed to be Americans when they're not. While all Librulz aren't like that, all fair weather patriots are Librulz. You're a fair weather patriot. You're all about serving in the military, as long as there's something in it for you. If not, then you say, "****'em". I just can't imagine how sad it is to live a life by that mantra. I'm about to cry just thinking about it. I feel so sorry for you.
 
Joe1991 said:
Then that is unfortunate for you, because that is exactly what a soldier fights for.



Does that include the commander in Chief?



I wouldn't blame the military for Bushes massive blunders.



I guess that means only people who agree with you? :(
Click to expand...
If you had taken reading comprehension in school instead of spending your time baking cookies with the girls in home ec, you would be able to understand I said LOVE AMERICA not LOVE CAPTDASH. There are millions of people who think differently than I do, but they love America. If I happen to think of a libral that fits into those millions, I will let you know, so hold your breath.
 
APDST, I just wanted to say the soldiers of the 1st CAV are some of my most favorite heroes. While the 82nd & 101st are probably the most notorious to many people inside & out of the military, there is no finer division than the 1st
CAV. I would add the Big Red1 is a close/close 2nd.
 
CAPTDASH said:
APDST, I just wanted to say the soldiers of the 1st CAV are some of my most favorite heroes. While the 82nd & 101st are probably the most notorious to many people inside & out of the military, there is no finer division than the 1st
CAV. I would add the Big Red1 is a close/close 2nd.
Click to expand...

I served in all them units, accept the 82nd. My combat patch is 1st Cav, obviously that's my fav, besides, it's a family tradition to live the legend; my pop and I are authorized the same combat colors. He was in 1/7 and I was in 1/8. One of my gg-grandfathers served in the 10th Cavalry; a real live Buffalo Soldier.
 
cheney is to make a blockbuster speech tonite

everytime the VEEP talks obama's butt gets badly beat

when's the last time you heard the administration or anyone in the media mention the special prosecution of the cia?

darth cheney is to reveal this evening that, at the admin's private preference, last october and november, the bush admin conducted a top-to-bottom review of the situation in afghanistan that was comprehensive in its outlook

also at obama's quiet request, cheney will say that he and his former team kept the communication and its contents confidential

obama relied almost entirely on the bush/cheney report to flesh out his now famous "new, comprehensive strategy for afghanistan," announced march 27

march 27 is a very memorable date for close obama observers

The White House - Blog Post - A New Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan

the 3-27 strategy announcement, echoing largely advice received from the previous white house, mirrors mcchrystal's secret assessment, delivered to obama august 1 and leaked to the electorate sept 21 by the post's bob woodward, the day after obama blitzed five sunday talks and dissembled that he had not yet been briefed, that he had not yet been asked for reinforcements

Gen. McChrystal Calls for More Troops in Afghanistan in Secret Assessment Sent to Obama - ABC News

the cheney cabal is reportedly furious that rahm the ram would go on cnn last sunday and suggest that the current white house had to "start from scratch" when it comes to activities in the mountains over the moon

had obama read cheney's summary more closely, heck, had the CHIN even subscribed to the ny times (or the post), he wouldn't be so sucker punched with shock that karzai's suddenly no shirley temple

indeed, in august obama called afghanistan a "war of necessity," not "a war of choice"

Obama calls Afghan war 'fundamental' to U.S. defense

this was on the eve of karzai's corrupt reelection, and richard holbrook was there all along watching for the white house

"the drumbeat of defeatism" cheney will decry

meanwhile, obama struggles to establish a timeline for deciding whether or not to give mcchrystal what he recommends, to give his hand picked commander the numbers the in-the-field expert calls out as bottom line necessary to avoid defeat

indecisive even over his indecisiveness appears our over-his-head commander in chief

it just gets worse and worse for this woebegone white house

obama can't do a darned thing right
 
Last edited:
CAPTDASH said:
If you had taken reading comprehension in school instead of spending your time baking cookies with the girls in home ec, you would be able to understand I said LOVE AMERICA not LOVE CAPTDASH. There are millions of people who think differently than I do, but they love America. If I happen to think of a libral that fits into those millions, I will let you know, so hold your breath.
Click to expand...

I'd settle for you making a coherent point. :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom