• 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

sawyerloggingon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
14,697
Reaction score
5,704
Location
Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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.
 
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 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 think if Romney is elected president you will see the msm immediately place a great emphasis on the war again and the daily death counts will be restarted. In addition to the press trying to protect Obama by ignoring military casualties another reason the war has faded from prominence is because the republicans by and large have stood in solidarity with Obama. There is no republican equivalent of Harry Reid teling the country and the world that the war has been lost. Or a Senator Clinton calling our top military commander a liar or a Senator Durbin comparing US trops to Nazis or Congressman Murtha calling US Marines cold hearted murderers.
The republicans have not used the war in Afhanistan or the deteriorating condiitions in Iraq to score cheap political points. If Obama loses the left will go back to attacking the war in an effort to destroy Romney.
 
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.

It's nothing to do with obama. they were just as bad when bush was president. Why do you always try to put a partisan post to everything you write?
 
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.

It is sad when you think of the 4500 Iraq war deaths and how every one of them could have been prevented.
Obama did not start that war in Afghanistan But he is at least going to finish it.
 
I think if Romney is elected president you will see the msm immediately place a great emphasis on the war again and the daily death counts will be restarted. In addition to the press trying to protect Obama by ignoring military casualties another reason the war has faded from prominence is because the republicans by and large have stood in solidarity with Obama. There is no republican equivalent of Harry Reid teling the country and the world that the war has been lost. Or a Senator Clinton calling our top military commander a liar or a Senator Durbin comparing US trops to Nazis or Congressman Murtha calling US Marines cold hearted murderers.
The republicans have not used the war in Afhanistan or the deteriorating condiitions in Iraq to score cheap political points. If Obama loses the left will go back to attacking the war in an effort to destroy Romney.


Nay, the military industrial complex runs this country, not the press or president or even congress. They are all lap dogs. There are big bucks being made by the war mongers.
 
It is sad when you think of the 4500 Iraq war deaths and how every one of them could have been prevented.
Obama did not start that war in Afghanistan But he is at least going to finish it.

sadly think it will never end.
 
It is sad when you think of the 4500 Iraq war deaths and how every one of them could have been prevented.
Obama did not start that war in Afghanistan But he is at least going to finish it.



Well that was the promise he made now wasn't it. Though he's about four years late in keeping it. What makes you think he'd do so if he had another four years? Nixon managed to do it in about a year.
 
Well that was the promise he made now wasn't it. Though he's about four years late in keeping it. What makes you think he'd do so if he had another four years? Nixon managed to do it in about a year.

that was then, this is now. Nixon had no choice after his secret bombings of cambodia.
 
that was then, this is now. Nixon had no choice after his secret bombings of cambodia.

That isn't so. Nixon began withdrawing troops and setting up for an end to hostilities the moment he took office. He didn't just want to, because he knew he couldn't politically, just DiDi out of there. He had to set the stage. And I apologise, it took him three years to end that conflict, not one. Have you forgotten, Nixon was a quaker.
 
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.

God, I hope we're not numb. I think we may actually be more aware of our troops' sacrifices than in any other war since WWII. That's a good thing. What I think we miss out on is just focusing on deaths. Men and women are coming home sans arms and legs, with brain damage . . . people whose lives will be forever altered . . . coming back with PTSD. At least we recognize PTSD now and try to help, but do we do enough?

I hope we never-ever-EVER get involved in another war where we don't/can't bring down the full force of our military might on our enemy. WTF good does it do to have all these weapons of war when we can't use them? If we can't use them? Let's just stay home. K?
 
That isn't so. Nixon began withdrawing troops and setting up for an end to hostilities the moment he took office. He didn't just want to, because he knew he couldn't politically, just DiDi out of there. He had to set the stage. And I apologise, it took him three years to end that conflict, not one. Have you forgotten, Nixon was a quaker.

Yes, and he was trustworthy and never lied.:roll:
 
Yes, and he was trustworthy and never lied.:roll:

Your view of the man and his veracity doesn't counter the facts that he started troop withdrawl upon taking office. He did his best to not strand the rest as he worked to end that conflict. There's a lot to hate about Nixon, but there's a lot to love too.

But none of that should take the light off the original point - that Obama made a promise he didn't keep, still hasn't kept and dreaming that he may keep it in the future is just that, a dream. Especially since he'd be a second termer who is under NO political obligation to keep ANY promise.
 
That isn't so. Nixon began withdrawing troops and setting up for an end to hostilities the moment he took office. He didn't just want to, because he knew he couldn't politically, just DiDi out of there. He had to set the stage. And I apologise, it took him three years to end that conflict, not one. Have you forgotten, Nixon was a quaker.

I wouldn't attribute his and Kissinger's negotiation strategy to Quakerism.
 
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.


I think most people just understand that troop casualties are something that happens in war.
 
People are too disconnected from the war.

Hell, I don't even know anyone personally that has even gone to Iraq/Afghanistan period. Just an old classmate's dad I never actually met. The closest way I've been connected to a casualty is apparently someone who went to my old high school that was killed in Iraq.
 
People are too disconnected from the war.

Hell, I don't even know anyone personally that has even gone to Iraq/Afghanistan period. Just an old classmate's dad I never actually met. The closest way I've been connected to a casualty is apparently someone who went to my old high school that was killed in Iraq.

we were pretty connected when the media was actually reporting on it.... they stopped focusing on the war(s) about 3 years ago.
 
I think most people just understand that troop casualties are something that happens in war.

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.
 
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.
Yes and no.

We have become numb in the sense that we hear new numbers everyday and likely don't feel the same amount of emotion as we did at the beginning. In fact, I don't think it would be healthy to be emotionally invested in every report of troop deaths anymore than it would be to be so for all the other types of death that happen every day. The world would be miserable and live would be a waste.

We haven't become numb in the sense that hearing about people dying is still something that affects us and that we don't want to happen. We also haven't become numb in the sense that if we focus how many people have died instead going about our day, it would probably be painful, especially if we're focused on a single person's life, family and general story. I also think most people would prefer that the remaining troops could come home alive as soon as possible which means that people certainly still care a lot.
 
God, I hope we're not numb. I think we may actually be more aware of our troops' sacrifices than in any other war since WWII. That's a good thing. What I think we miss out on is just focusing on deaths. Men and women are coming home sans arms and legs, with brain damage . . . people whose lives will be forever altered . . . coming back with PTSD. At least we recognize PTSD now and try to help, but do we do enough?

I hope we never-ever-EVER get involved in another war where we don't/can't bring down the full force of our military might on our enemy. WTF good does it do to have all these weapons of war when we can't use them? If we can't use them? Let's just stay home. K?

Good point.
 
:confused:
Your view of the man and his veracity doesn't counter the facts that he started troop withdrawl upon taking office. He did his best to not strand the rest as he worked to end that conflict. There's a lot to hate about Nixon, but there's a lot to love too.

But none of that should take the light off the original point - that Obama made a promise he didn't keep, still hasn't kept and dreaming that he may keep it in the future is just that, a dream. Especially since he'd be a second termer who is under NO political obligation to keep ANY promise.

ok it's obama's fault. everything is obamas fault. you have convinced just because you said so.:roll:
 
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.

yeah we'll have to impeach him for that, shoot the vp and then bohner can take over and run against romney.:roll:
 
Yes and no.

We have become numb in the sense that we hear new numbers everyday and likely don't feel the same amount of emotion as we did at the beginning. In fact, I don't think it would be healthy to be emotionally invested in every report of troop deaths anymore than it would be to be so for all the other types of death that happen every day. The world would be miserable and live would be a waste.

We haven't become numb in the sense that hearing about people dying is still something that affects us and that we don't want to happen. We also haven't become numb in the sense that if we focus how many people have died instead going about our day, it would probably be painful, especially if we're focused on a single person's life, family and general story. I also think most people would prefer that the remaining troops could come home alive as soon as possible which means that people certainly still care a lot.

that all might be true.... if it was true we hear about this stuff every day, but we don't

the media shifted it's focus away from he war, in general, a few years ago.

as for why they shifted their focus... well, i'm sure folks will insert whatever reason they dream up.
 
that all might be true.... if it was true we hear about this stuff every day, but we don't

the media shifted it's focus away from he war, in general, a few years ago.

as for why they shifted their focus... well, i'm sure folks will insert whatever reason they dream up.
I don't know if it's everyday, but I hear and read about it pretty often. It's not something that's out of the news for very long.
 
It is sad when you think of the 4500 Iraq war deaths and how every one of them could have been prevented.
Obama did not start that war in Afghanistan But he is at least going to finish it.
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom