• 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!

US Deaths Double In Afghanistan As Troops Pour In

Boo Radley said:
Do you have any evidence they do? Or is this another you just know deal?
Click to expand...

It's a common sense deal.........:roll:

• No night or surprise searches.

• Villagers have to be warned prior to searches.

• ANA or ANP must accompany U.S. units on searches.

• U.S. soldiers may not fire at the enemy unless the enemy is preparing to fire first.

Please, it's like calling the cops to tell them your on your way to rob a bank....:doh
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
are you saying these absurd ROE's have absolutley nothing to do with the higher body count?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant to Erods idiotic notion that having more troops in a place does not factor in, in some fashion, to the increase in deaths.

Lets say on average only 1% of our troops die in an area die per month, be it from fire or from freak accidents.

If you up it from 100 troops to 1000 simply by the increased number yo'ure likely to see more deaths as you have a larger group size for the same situations to occur to.

Is it the ONLy reason? No. But its incredibly ignorant to assume and state that it has NO affect on it.

None of which touches on the notion that Erod, and you to a lesser extent (after giving a half hearted scolding that immedietely went into the "but but but liberals did it!" reaction), are once again using troop deaths and totals to push your political agenda under the notion that its "for the troops". Bull****, its due to the hatred people have for this President and the desire to get after him at every moment, or to give him faint praise when he does well and immedietely find something to complain about in such situations.

Using troop deaths for politican gains is disgusting, right or left, no matter your reasons. You have a problem with his rules of engagement, there are numerous ways to speak your issues with that instead of trying to take the emotional ploy, using the troops as PROPS, by weeping about the "unnecessary deaths" to try and bolster your point.

Erod, and to a lesser extent you in your continued defense against him, are no better than Code Pink when it comes to pathetic manipulation of the troops as props.
 
Boo Radley said:
OK. You don't. Would be easier if you would just admit it. ;)
Click to expand...

Erod said:
God help us all.:roll:

Doesn't it just kind of make sense? If you kill the people before they have a chance to shoot you, does that not increase your chances?

This ain't rocket science, pardon the pun.

Read these again:

• No night or surprise searches.

• Villagers have to be warned prior to searches.

• ANA or ANP must accompany U.S. units on searches.

• U.S. soldiers may not fire at the enemy unless the enemy is preparing to fire first.

• U.S. forces cannot engage the enemy if civilians are present.

• Only women can search women.

• Troops can fire at an insurgent if they catch him placing an IED but not if insurgents are walking away from an area where explosives have been laid.
Click to expand...
Here's the admission.
 
Zyphlin said:
Irrelevant to Erods idiotic notion that having more troops in a place does not factor in, in some fashion, to the increase in deaths.

Lets say on average only 1% of our troops die in an area die per month, be it from fire or from freak accidents.

If you up it from 100 troops to 1000 simply by the increased number yo'ure likely to see more deaths as you have a larger group size for the same situations to occur to.

Is it the ONLy reason? No. But its incredibly ignorant to assume and state that it has NO affect on it.

None of which touches on the notion that Erod, and you to a lesser extent (after giving a half hearted scolding that immedietely went into the "but but but liberals did it!" reaction), are once again using troop deaths and totals to push your political agenda under the notion that its "for the troops". Bull****, its due to the hatred people have for this President and the desire to get after him at every moment, or to give him faint praise when he does well and immedietely find something to complain about in such situations.

Using troop deaths for politican gains is disgusting, right or left, no matter your reasons. You have a problem with his rules of engagement, there are numerous ways to speak your issues with that instead of trying to take the emotional ploy, using the troops as PROPS, by weeping about the "unnecessary deaths" to try and bolster your point.

Erod, and to a lesser extent you in your continued defense against him, are no better than Code Pink when it comes to pathetic manipulation of the troops as props.
Click to expand...
Neither Rev nor Erod started this thread.
 
Erod said:
Obama's New Rules for Engagement
Click to expand...

From the brief research on the subject, most of those rules appear to have already been in place. The major change is ordering soldiers to withdraw if able when civilians are placed in danger during an engagement, and stricter rules on approving airstrikes when civilians are in danger.

In any case, drawing a direct link between a change in ROE and doubling of casualties is ludicrous. Exploiting dead troops for political gain is sickening.
 
Deuce said:
From the brief research on the subject, most of those rules appear to have already been in place.
Click to expand...

No, they weren't. Certainly not in practice.
 
Zyphlin said:
Irrelevant to Erods idiotic notion that having more troops in a place does not factor in, in some fashion, to the increase in deaths.

Lets say on average only 1% of our troops die in an area die per month, be it from fire or from freak accidents.

If you up it from 100 troops to 1000 simply by the increased number yo'ure likely to see more deaths as you have a larger group size for the same situations to occur to.

Is it the ONLy reason? No. But its incredibly ignorant to assume and state that it has NO affect on it.

None of which touches on the notion that Erod, and you to a lesser extent (after giving a half hearted scolding that immedietely went into the "but but but liberals did it!" reaction), are once again using troop deaths and totals to push your political agenda under the notion that its "for the troops". Bull****, its due to the hatred people have for this President and the desire to get after him at every moment, or to give him faint praise when he does well and immedietely find something to complain about in such situations.

Using troop deaths for politican gains is disgusting, right or left, no matter your reasons. You have a problem with his rules of engagement, there are numerous ways to speak your issues with that instead of trying to take the emotional ploy, using the troops as PROPS, by weeping about the "unnecessary deaths" to try and bolster your point.

Erod, and to a lesser extent you in your continued defense against him, are no better than Code Pink when it comes to pathetic manipulation of the troops as props.
Click to expand...




nope.... you misunderstand me. as one who suffered under super restrictive ROE i can attest to how much it sucks for my brothers and sisters in harms way when this level of ROE is applied.

It directly leads to soldiers deaths......



This is my position, i don't agree with erod that troop level increases have no effect, even if that is his opinion, what i do agree with however is these political roe's are irresponsible. whether it was a republican in charge, or a democrat.....


how this makes me the same as those treasonous bitches at code pink, i am sorry zyph, i do not get how you arrived at that conclusion.
 
Deuce said:
From the brief research on the subject, most of those rules appear to have already been in place. The major change is ordering soldiers to withdraw if able when civilians are placed in danger during an engagement, and stricter rules on approving airstrikes when civilians are in danger.

In any case, drawing a direct link between a change in ROE and doubling of casualties is ludicrous. Exploiting dead troops for political gain is sickening.
Click to expand...




I don't believe they were, do you have a link? furthermore, if they were, then Bush is equally culpable for a political roe endangering troops. thouh this will be the 1st i heard this....:shrug:
 
Erod said:
No, they weren't. Certainly not in practice.
Click to expand...

That link doesn't say that's a list of new ROE, merely a list of ROEs. Other articles I can find focus solely on the civilian danger rule, not even mentioning any other changes.
 
Zyphlin said:
Erod, and to a lesser extent you in your continued defense against him, are no better than Code Pink when it comes to pathetic manipulation of the troops as props.
Click to expand...

Absolute bullsh; I did nothing of the sort.

The only thing I contributed was to list the rules of engagement changes Obama employed, and I pointed out the disgust of the troops over it.

Read the list. Does that not disturb you? How'd you like to be over there fighting with those limitations?

It's as if these soldiers' lives mean nothing. That is EXACTLY the point I'm trying to make, so don't come with the weak Code Pink nonsense.
 
Partisan said:
It's a common sense deal.........:roll:

• No night or surprise searches.

• Villagers have to be warned prior to searches.

• ANA or ANP must accompany U.S. units on searches.

• U.S. soldiers may not fire at the enemy unless the enemy is preparing to fire first.

Please, it's like calling the cops to tell them your on your way to rob a bank....:doh
Click to expand...

There's very little common about good sense, but that aid, you do have to show that it contributes. No matter what you assume, it is still just an assumption until you prove it.

Cops, btw, follow a good many rules and still manage to their job most the time.
 
Erod said:
Absolute bullsh; I did nothing of the sort.

The only thing I contributed was to list the rules of engagement changes Obama employed, and I pointed out the disgust of the troops over it.
Click to expand...

Really, that's all you contributed to this thread? I must've imagined this part.

Erod said:
The point is, Obama's rules of engagement are incredibly unpopular among the troops, and it's getting soldiers needlessly killed.
Click to expand...

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
100% agree......
Click to expand...

What's that? Oh, its you using a thread about body counts of American Troops to push your political agenda through emotional cries of its getting them "Needlessly killed" as if they troops are nothing but worthless props, and Rev coming being saying he 100% agree's with everything you just said.

As I said, you're no different in this than Code Pink, using the troops and their deaths as political props to push your partisan agenda and Rev's there clapping you every step of the way.

Or to put it another way, we could just take your early words and say they may as well be speaking about yourself

Erod said:
It is truly pathetic what he's doing to these troops for political reasons.
Click to expand...

ANYONE that uses troop deaths for political gain, treating them like props, does those men and women a disservice.

I don't like the ROE under Obama in the least, but I'm not going to use a thread designed to use our troops deaths for a political agenda to speak about it nor am I going to bother speaking about it with people who continue said thread while continuing to use said troops as props.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
What's that? Oh, its you using a thread about body counts of American Troops to push your political agenda through emotional cries of its getting them "Needlessly killed" as if they troops are nothing but worthless props, and Rev coming being saying he 100% agree's with everything you just said.

As I said, you're no different in this than Code Pink, using the troops and their deaths as political props to push your partisan agenda and Rev's there clapping you every step of the way.

Or to put it another way, we could just take your early words and say they may as well be speaking about yourself
.
Click to expand...




I stand behind exactly what i said. Was his hyperbolic used "needlesly killed" words that I would have used? nope. I would have said "put them at more risk" which they absolutley do... :shrug:


As one who has dealt with ROE's that were restrictive. I speak from a little more experience here...'


If Bush had these same ROE's then I'd hold the same position. So lets drop this bellyaching code pink nonsens and discuss this rationally. ok?
 
Zyphlin said:
And of course now that Republicans are claiming people are "needlessly getting cared" (a statement that illicited calls of "Using the troops for political gain" and "You don't support then" in the past) its obviously true and therefore completely acceptable, but when the Dem's did it then they hated the troops, american, and apple pie.

:roll:
Click to expand...

Here is my problem with Obama's strategy:

It is well known that I was against the war in Iraq, but if we were going to fight it, we should have made a bigger commitment in regard to boots on the ground. I believe troops died needlessly because the Bush administration chose to wage a war "on the cheap", without asking Americans for a little sacrifice. Bush told us to "go shopping". Towards the end of his administration, Bush saw the war on the cheap was not working, so he implemented the troops surge, which has done quite a bit to stabilize the bad situation over there. I did not support the surge, but I was wrong. Bush did a good job with it.

With Obama, it is the same thing, but only worse. He is conducting a surge of sorts, but it is not nearly enough. While Iraq has a lot of flat plains, Afghanistan is very mountainous, making this war much more difficult. Obama plans to ramp up troops to about 100,000, but this is a nation that not only defeated the British, but also defeated Russia, which put more than half a million men into Afghanistan. The Mujahadeen successfully waged a war of attrition that defeated the Soviets, not with any major military victory, but by inflicting thousands of "small cuts".

IMHO, Obama's strategy is not enough. And here is where decision time comes in. We are going to need many more boots on the ground, and to win this war, Obama is going to have to ask Americans to make some sacrifices. I don't see any other way.
 
^---- Is a way to to make the argument with actual facts and without trying to manipulate emotions by using the troops as props.

Rev, sorry if you don't think its "rational" or you want to nuance it, but when you "agree 100%" with someone people tend to think you mean that you agree "100%" with them, not "I agree mostly with them but there's some things I don't agree with". Erod plainly and fully, piggy backing off Prof's thread, used the troops deaths as a political prop and you "agreed 100%" with it. Rather than admit your error you've done nothing but try to excuse it or explain it away while complaining for being called out for exactly what you did.

Dana, I agree he's going to have to ask American's to sacrifice. Its something I actually wish Bush would've done. At the same itme, like I felt under Bush, I don't think we need to be using the troops as political props nor having a rolling death count thrown out there all the time. In the years since the American people were last in a serious war the society, for the most part, have gotten soft. We lived in the Nintendo age where war was watching a plane fly over, drop some bombs, make some lights, and that was the end. Death was as likely to occur by an accident on a carrier than it was in combat for much of the 90's.

With the amount of coverage of deaths seeming to severely become reduced when Obama has came into office has made it clear the intent of the constant body count coverage during the Bush years. It had nothing to do with "caring about the troops" and everything to do with weakening the spirit and resolve of the American people in hopes of them supporting the Democrats agenda when it came to the war effort. Once the swap in power came about the need to weaken resolve went away, as that would cause problems for the current Administration that is continuing the wars. That said, seeing the damage it did in the past years now those on the right are using the same, pathetic, dishonorable, disrespectful tactic to do the same to Obama.

Its wrong, completely and utterly.

People die in War. Its not PC to say that. Its not considered empathetic to say that. But they do. That's the sad dirty fact. We don't need to constantly have the general population hearing how much it is each and every day or week or month. That does not mean we can not, or should not, question the strategies and actions by our government when it comes to wars. However, when one uses the deaths of troops to make an argument that can be made without that portion of the discussion then you are doing nothing but utilizing the blood, the death, of our men and women to push your political ends. If you can't make your argument without attempting to make the emotional plea than frankly your argument is weak.
 
Some American and Afghan troops say they're fighting the latest offensive in Afghanistan with a handicap — strict rules that routinely force them to hold their fire.

"I understand the reason behind it, but it's so hard to fight a war like this," said Lance Cpl. Travis Anderson, 20, of Altoona, Iowa. "They're using our rules of engagement against us," he said, adding that his platoon had repeatedly seen men drop their guns into ditches and walk away to blend in with civilians.

If a man emerges from a Taliban hideout after shooting erupts, U.S. troops say they cannot fire at him if he is not seen carrying a weapon — or if they did not personally watch him drop one.

What this means, some contend, is that a militant can fire at them, then set aside his weapon and walk freely out of a compound, possibly toward a weapons cache in another location. It was unclear how often this has happened. In another example, Marines pinned down by a barrage of insurgent bullets say they can't count on quick air support because it takes time to positively identify shooters.

"This is difficult," Lance Cpl. Michael Andrejczuk, 20, of Knoxville, Tenn., said Monday. "We are trained like when we see something, we obliterate it. But here, we have to see them and when we do, they don't have guns."

NATO and Afghan military officials say killing militants is not the goal of a 3-day-old attack to take control of this Taliban stronghold in southern Afghanistan. More important is to win public support.

They acknowledge that the rules entail risk to its troops, but maintain that civilian casualties or destruction of property can alienate the population and lead to more insurgent recruits, more homemade bombs and a prolonged conflict.
Click to expand...

Troops: Strict war rules slow Afghan offensive
 
Zyphlin said:
^---- Is a way to to make the argument with actual facts and without trying to manipulate emotions by using the troops as props.

Rev, sorry if you don't think its "rational" or you want to nuance it, but when you "agree 100%" with someone people tend to think you mean that you agree "100%" with them, not "I agree mostly with them but there's some things I don't agree with". Erod plainly and fully, piggy backing off Prof's thread, used the troops deaths as a political prop and you "agreed 100%" with it. Rather than admit your error you've done nothing but try to excuse it or explain it away while complaining for being called out for exactly what you did.
Click to expand...




My bad, I agree with him 75% jeesh.... :doh



I made what i agreed with clear in subsequent posts. I'm sorry you would rather stick to this small "gotcha" debate style to incorrectly typecast me as "using troops as political fodder" when you know, if you look at what i have said and alawys say in these threads, clearly show what my position is regarding restrictive ROE's and thier effect on those of us who are serving or have served.


:shrug:
 
The Prof said:
Troops: Strict war rules slow Afghan offensive
Click to expand...

Good effort. Though I note: Some say.

But more important is the mission:

NATO and Afghan military officials say killing militants is not the goal of a 3-day-old attack to take control of this Taliban stronghold in southern Afghanistan. More important is to win public support.
Click to expand...

You can't accomplish the mission if you lose the people.

However, if a fighter puts down a weapon and walks away, this has not caused more casualties. If you see one plant a bomb, that bomb isn't likely to kill anyone, so not shooting them doesn't cause more casualties. Nothing I can see about the rules leads directly to more casualties, so while making things more difficult may be true, or not, it has to be seen in the context of the mission.
 
The Prof said:
the mission...

FOXNews.com - Petraeus: Al Qaeda No Longer Operating in Afghanistan

aq's in pakistan
Click to expand...

Yes, they've always been in Pakistan. Which is why I would say our nation building mission is misplaced right now. The concern is Al Qaeda and such groups. Controlling them, not Afghanistan, should be the mission.

But if you are going to nation build, interfere in a nations civil strife, you have to win the hearts and minds of people. This requires you don't kill the innocent.
 
Boo Radley said:
However, if a fighter puts down a weapon and walks away, this has not caused more casualties. If you see one plant a bomb, that bomb isn't likely to kill anyone, so not shooting them doesn't cause more casualties.
Click to expand...

You realize the only way this logic works is if you assume that 100% of people who put down their weapons or walk away after planting a bomb are not likely to raise up a gun again or manage to plant a bomb unseen at a later time.

An assumption that's amazingly idiotic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom