60% of all military deaths in afghanistan have occured on barrys watch

[drobeski 3,061]

http://westforwestwing2012.com/2011/04/04/60-of-u-s-military-deaths-in-afghanistan-have-occurred-since-obama-took-office/

 

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Obama lied, people died.

[MTSkiBum 1,629]

America had a chance to win the iraq war. It would of taken a sustained presence for just over a decade but it was possible. There is not a chance in hell that we can win the war in afghanistan. Most the afgahni's do not even know that the al queda attacked us first. Pulling troops out of iraq just to put them in afgahnistan was incredibly stupid on obama's part.

[Mungwater 601]

Pulling troops out of iraq just to put them in afgahnistan was incredibly stupid on obama's part.

 

The Iraqi army is getting more self sufficient every day, we should be out of there soon.

 

I agree with the surge in afgahnistan

[GettnHuge 2]

The Iraqi army is getting more self sufficient every day, we should be out of there soon.

 

I agree with the surge in afgahnistan

 

but do you agree with the conditions of the surge

[MDC 8,223]

We should end both wars immediately - neither are winnable to a price (in dollars and soldiers) that Americans are willing to pay. It amazes me that a nation running massive deficits can afford to send tens of thousands of soldiers to fight in poorly defined conflicts overseas.

 

That said ... the OP and every other Republican in this thread is a hypocrite with no firm position on the wars other than defending them when The Great Decider was in office and crying about them daily now that the President is a Democrat.

 

hth

[Mungwater 601]

but do you agree with the conditions of the surge

 

Sure do. These aren't conventional wars where at the end you can have a ticker tape parade or put "mission accomplished", these are going to long and drawn out. The problem is that there isn't an uniformed army per se, just finding out who to fight is difficult. You know an Afgahni can walk around with an AK47 openly in public as long as they don't have 250 rounds on them, legally. Those are just the civilians, we needed more troops to get to the combatants, and its working. However, we pay a dear price for that.

[cyclone24 1,965]

We should end both wars immediately - neither are winnable to a price (in dollars and soldiers) that Americans are willing to pay. It amazes me that a nation running massive deficits can afford to send tens of thousands of soldiers to fight in poorly defined conflicts overseas.

 

That said ... the OP and every other Republican in this thread is a hypocrite with no firm position on the wars other than defending them when The Great Decider was in office and crying about them daily now that the President is a Democrat.

 

hth

 

 

Yeah its crazy that we dont support the Great Apologist and his half azzed stance on everything.

 

Again.....the two best ideas hes had were Bush's ideas.....that he had to go back to (Tax cut extension....Gitmo)

[Recliner Pilot 61]

We should end both wars immediately - neither are winnable to a price (in dollars and soldiers) that Americans are willing to pay. It amazes me that a nation running massive deficits can afford to send tens of thousands of soldiers to fight in poorly defined conflicts overseas.

 

That said ... the OP and every other Republican in this thread is a hypocrite with no firm position on the wars other than defending them when The Great Decider was in office and crying about them daily now that the President is a Democrat.

 

hth

 

Your Hero lied, people died.

[MDC 8,223]

Your Hero lied, people died.

 

RP welched, so he's still here.

[nikki2200 4]

I wish we could go back a few years to when we had a president that handled our foreign affairs in the middle east without flaw.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I wish we could go back a few years to when we had a president that handled our foreign affairs in the middle east without flaw.

 

Reagan!

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

This is a prime example of why knowing history is useful...

 

In the late 19th century, the British Empire attempted to occupy Afghanistan. (to provide a buffer between their Indian colony and Russia). The got pwned, and retreated in defeat.

 

In the 1980's, the Russians invaded Afghanistan. They, after a long bitter conflict, left in defeat.

 

This country is untamable. It is large, wild, mountainous, and populated by various bands of crazies who just don't give a fock about living or dying.

 

Pacifying Afghanistan will not happen. Even if it did, we'd have to stay there, in force, forever to keep it that way.

 

We need to do what GFIAFP's dad should have done years ago... pull the fock out.

[cyclone24 1,965]

Reagan!

 

 

He!! yes

[Mungwater 601]

We did pretty good in Rambo III, but of course we were supplying Al Qaeda.

 

[GettnHuge 2]

Sure do. These aren't conventional wars where at the end you can have a ticker tape parade or put "mission accomplished", these are going to long and drawn out. The problem is that there isn't an uniformed army per se, just finding out who to fight is difficult. You know an Afgahni can walk around with an AK47 openly in public as long as they don't have 250 rounds on them, legally. Those are just the civilians, we needed more troops to get to the combatants, and its working. However, we pay a dear price for that.

 

I'm talking about ridiculous ideas like not being able to fire unless fired upon first. And don't fire back if civilians are in the area, call for permission.

Or sorry, we can't send in any air support because you are too close to a village.

 

Time and Wash Ex

 

The standing Rules of engagement (ROE) begins with the orders of the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, goes in level of detail to theater specific rules of engagement (such as the tactical directive written by General McChrystal's staff), and are given context with modifiers and embellishments such as General McChrystal's statement, that "If you are in a situation where you are under fire from the enemy… if there is any chance of creating civilian casualties or if you don't know whether you will create civilian casualties, if you can withdraw from that situation without firing, then you must do so."

 

A couple of them wore faint grins. Like everyone else in Zhari, they claimed to be farmers, but platoon officers suspected that, based on their mien and location, they were militants. Because the men were not carrying weapons, however, there was nothing to be done but walk away — in strict compliance with the U.S. military’s rules of engagement. One soldier likened it to being “handcuffed.”

 

“If they use rockets to hit the [forward operating base] we can’t shoot back because they were within 500 meters of the village. If they shoot at us and drop their weapon in the process we can’t shoot back,” said Spc. Charles Brooks, 26, a U.S. Army medic with 1st Battalion, 4th Infantry Regiment, in Zabul province.

 

Word had come down the morning Brooks spoke to this reporter that watch towers surrounding the base were going to be dismantled because Afghan village elders, some sympathetic to the Taliban, complained they were invading their village privacy. “We have to take down our towers because it offends them and now the Taliban can set up mortars and we can’t see them,” Brooks added, with disgust.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If Hussein is gonna send in a surge of troops to Afghan, fine, let them completely fubar the enemy and win this thing. But they aren't being

 

allowed to, are gonna...and have died in much larger numbers, and certainly aren't going to win like this. Either play to win or leave

 

 

 

[nikki2200 4]

Then it would be all over wikileaks how US troops blew up a farm house of unarmed men. And outraged Arabs start killing journalists for revenge.

 

Can't win. Which is why we shouldn't even be there in the first place.

[Mungwater 601]

I'm talking about ridiculous ideas like not being able to fire unless fired upon first. And don't fire back if civilians are in the area, call for permission.

Or sorry, we can't send in any air support because you are too close to a village.

 

Time and Wash Ex

 

The standing Rules of engagement (ROE) begins with the orders of the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, goes in level of detail to theater specific rules of engagement (such as the tactical directive written by General McChrystal's staff), and are given context with modifiers and embellishments such as General McChrystal's statement, that "If you are in a situation where you are under fire from the enemy… if there is any chance of creating civilian casualties or if you don't know whether you will create civilian casualties, if you can withdraw from that situation without firing, then you must do so."

 

A couple of them wore faint grins. Like everyone else in Zhari, they claimed to be farmers, but platoon officers suspected that, based on their mien and location, they were militants. Because the men were not carrying weapons, however, there was nothing to be done but walk away — in strict compliance with the U.S. military’s rules of engagement. One soldier likened it to being “handcuffed.”

 

“If they use rockets to hit the [forward operating base] we can’t shoot back because they were within 500 meters of the village. If they shoot at us and drop their weapon in the process we can’t shoot back,” said Spc. Charles Brooks, 26, a U.S. Army medic with 1st Battalion, 4th Infantry Regiment, in Zabul province.

 

Word had come down the morning Brooks spoke to this reporter that watch towers surrounding the base were going to be dismantled because Afghan village elders, some sympathetic to the Taliban, complained they were invading their village privacy. “We have to take down our towers because it offends them and now the Taliban can set up mortars and we can’t see them,” Brooks added, with disgust.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If Hussein is gonna send in a surge of troops to Afghan, fine, let them completely fubar the enemy and win this thing. But they aren't being

 

allowed to, are gonna...and have died in much larger numbers, and certainly aren't going to win like this. Either play to win or leave

 

 

Yeah, that sucks. I remember being in Macedonia and we got fired upon pretty regularly, but we couldn't do anything back. Hell, we even had 100 mph tape over our magazines so someone doesn't chamber a round. Ever since Vietnam the world is pretty sensitive to that.

[IMMensaMind 462]

We should end both wars immediately - neither are winnable to a price (in dollars and soldiers) that Americans are willing to pay. It amazes me that a nation running massive deficits can afford to send tens of thousands of soldiers to fight in poorly defined conflicts overseas.

 

That said ... the OP and every other Republican in this thread is a hypocrite with no firm position on the wars other than defending them when The Great Decider was in office and crying about them daily now that the President is a Democrat.

 

hth

 

Have you considered that one of the reasons that the Bush Administration invaded Iraq instead of Afghanistan was due to the logistics? That a war in Iraq was winnable (I agree with MTSkiBum: good on you for saying something which with I agree, finally ); that invading Afghanistan - a move that all you lefties whined should have been done instead of invading Iraq - that you would have supported you all said, as a group () - wasn't winnable (the Soviets got beat up there due to the terrain/etc)?

 

That you lefties as a collective group couldn't strategize a game of Risk, much less an incredibly complicated dynamic like a Middle East war...and that's why you were wrong about invading Afghanistan then, as Obama is now? That winning peace and securing oil stability for the world economy, while simultaneously shunting the damage that jihad has wrought on the globe required stabilizing Iraq and Democratizing it, because it stood strategically smack dab in the middle of Wahhabist lands?

 

You may disagree with Bush; you may use the convenience of no WMD being found in Iraq as a tool to create a whipping boy.

 

But in the end, doesn't Obama's failure in Afghanistan - and the clearly increasing stability of Iraq (with support from the West) - prove that your side doesn't know sh!t about prosecuting this battle?

 

Now the left suddenly says end everything. That's funny, because years ago they said that we should have invaded Afghanistan instead.

 

[nikki2200 4]

IMM.... Why do you have to lump everyone together in a big puddle of common thought. Although the right wing nuts generally share a brain, most liberals I know are capable of independent thought. And from my experience were never in favor of any of these wars.

[drobeski 3,061]

IMM.... Why do you have to lump everyone together in a big puddle of common thought. Although the right wing nuts generally share a brain, most liberals I know are capable of independent thought. .

You made me laugh

[MDC 8,223]

Have you considered that one of the reasons that the Bush Administration invaded Iraq instead of Afghanistan was due to the logistics? That a war in Iraq was winnable (I agree with MTSkiBum: good on you for saying something which with I agree, finally ); that invading Afghanistan - a move that all you lefties whined should have been done instead of invading Iraq - that you would have supported you all said, as a group () - wasn't winnable (the Soviets got beat up there due to the terrain/etc)?

 

That you lefties as a collective group couldn't strategize a game of Risk, much less an incredibly complicated dynamic like a Middle East war...and that's why you were wrong about invading Afghanistan then, as Obama is now? That winning peace and securing oil stability for the world economy, while simultaneously shunting the damage that jihad has wrought on the globe required stabilizing Iraq and Democratizing it, because it stood strategically smack dab in the middle of Wahhabist lands?

 

You may disagree with Bush; you may use the convenience of no WMD being found in Iraq as a tool to create a whipping boy.

 

But in the end, doesn't Obama's failure in Afghanistan - and the clearly increasing stability of Iraq (with support from the West) - prove that your side doesn't know sh!t about prosecuting this battle?

 

Now the left suddenly says end everything. That's funny, because years ago they said that we should have invaded Afghanistan instead.

 

 

MensaClown:

 

Your "side" claimed the war in Iraq was intended to disarm Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction and that it would take a matter of weeks at a cost of about $30 billion, most of which would be recouped by oil revenues. Almost ten years later and it turns out there were no WMDs and the cost is nearly a trillion and counting. Oh, and our own national intelligence estimates say the war has actually made us less safe by creating more terrorists than it's stopped. This in addition to spreading our military dangerously thin and contributing greatly to the massive deficit you cry about on a daily basis.

 

 

Considering you're a freaking birther who's been wrong about everything from Iraq to creationism in the classroom, maybe it's time Mike FFToday changes your handle before you damage the reputation of MENSA any more?

[IMMensaMind 462]

IMM.... Why do you have to lump everyone together in a big puddle of common thought. Although the right wing nuts generally share a brain, most liberals I know are capable of independent thought. And from my experience were never in favor of any of these wars.

 

Please direct me to any place where you or anyone else in this discussion was vehemently disagreeing at the time with the common leftist screed that Bush should be in Afghanistan instead of Iraq, and I'll gladly remove you from that hive mind mentality that you claim doesn't exist with leftists while clearly being in evidence with the right.

 

I'll wait. Plenty of time.

[Phurfur 70]

IMM.... Why do you have to lump everyone together in a big puddle of common thought. Although the right wing nuts generally share a brain, most liberals I know are capable of independent thought. And from my experience were never in favor of any of these wars.

 

Indoctrination complete!

[Johnny B Good 0]

http://westforwestwing2012.com/2011/04/04/60-of-u-s-military-deaths-in-afghanistan-have-occurred-since-obama-took-office/

 

 

 

3000 civilians died when the towers fell on Bushe's watch, 4000 soldiers died in Iraq on Bush's watch, 40% of the casualties in Afghanistan died on Bush's watch.

[IMMensaMind 462]

MensaClown:

 

Your "side" claimed the war in Iraq was intended to disarm Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction and that it would take a matter of weeks at a cost of about $30 billion, most of which would be recouped by oil revenues. Almost ten years later and it turns out there were no WMDs and the cost is nearly a trillion and counting.

 

It wasn't just "our side". Do you need yet another review of the myriad leftists who also thought that Saddam had WMD, or are you going to continue to be dense and myopic in your ignorance of that truth?

 

Wars can have more than one reason for waging, btw. HTH. Glomming on to one tag line (WMD) is your failing; it doesn't mean that it was the only reason for removing Saddam. In fact, Saddam was a genocidist, and - while plenty of your lefty brethren have been whining about why we're not doing anything in Darfur (a war which would ostensibly also be waged for the same reasons: saving the lives of innocents), you seem incapable of consistency in this regard.

 

Oh, and our own national intelligence estimates say the war has actually made us less safe by creating more terrorists than it's stopped.

 

It's nice that you also glom on to convenient reports, considering that there are contrary reports which say otherwise, as well as reality, which as proven no attacks in 10 years. It's nice to have the insulation of a created reality - one where Al Qaeda's resources were redirected to the ME to fight us there - to make your claims that we are now not more safe, isn't it?

 

It's a great tactic by you lefties.

 

This in addition to spreading our military dangerously thin and contributing greatly to the massive deficit you cry about on a daily basis.

 

Dangerously thin? You'd not have us deployed at all. So just WTF do you care about "dangerously thin"? Red herring: that's what.

 

 

Considering you're a freaking birther who's been wrong about everything from Iraq to creationism in the classroom, maybe it's time Mike FFToday changes your handle before you damage the reputation of MENSA any more?

 

Ah - yep: cannot avoid throwing more nonsense about your personal opinion too, eh? You don't matter to me, Worm. I care that you think I'm incorrect only to the extent that hearing that indicates to me that I'm still on the correct track.

[nikki2200 4]

hY

Please direct me to any place where you or anyone else in this discussion was vehemently disagreeing at the time with the common leftist screed that Bush should be in Afghanistan instead of Iraq, and I'll gladly remove you from that hive mind mentality that you claim doesn't exist with leftists while clearly being in evidence with the right.

 

I'll wait. Plenty of time.

 

Ummmm considering this happened 9 years ago, about 7 years before you joined this forum.... Yea OK. But it shouldn't surprise me that you are claiming to read peoples minds again.

 

I actually supported the war in Iraq until I found out that Bush had been misinformed. After that I have always been a proponent if staying the fock away from the middle east including afghanistan and the most recent invasion of libya. I'll provide a link on this board about my feelings on libya if you wish.

[IMMensaMind 462]

3000 civilians died when the towers fell on Bushe's watch, 4000 soldiers died in Iraq on Bush's watch, 40% of the casualties in Afghanistan died on Bush's watch.

 

Another fine product from the Dem Bumper Sticker Factory.

 

Do they issue RMA's?

 

How exactly can you blame Bush, when he was in office only a short time when 9/11 took place? How can you hold Bush culpable when the Clinton Administration actually had bin Laden in custody, and let him go?

 

I'll not expect a response from another lefty drive-by poster though.

[Phurfur 70]

MensaClown:

 

Your "side" claimed the war in Iraq was intended to disarm Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction and that it would take a matter of weeks at a cost of about $30 billion, most of which would be recouped by oil revenues. Almost ten years later and it turns out there were no WMDs and the cost is nearly a trillion and counting. Oh, and our own national intelligence estimates say the war has actually made us less safe by creating more terrorists than it's stopped. This in addition to spreading our military dangerously thin and contributing greatly to the massive deficit you cry about on a daily basis.

 

 

Considering you're a freaking birther who's been wrong about everything from Iraq to creationism in the classroom, maybe it's time Mike FFToday changes your handle before you damage the reputation of MENSA any more?

 

 

 

Since you are taking sides, why don't you understand that attacking the other side does not make your side right? HTH

 

I guess this is the liberal independent thought Nikki was talking about.

[mobb_deep 921]

They're just not trying as hard now, cuz they're racist. That's why they die more. Duh.

[IMMensaMind 462]

hY

 

Ummmm considering this happened 9 years ago, about 7 years before you joined this forum.... Yea OK. But it shouldn't surprise me that you are claiming to read peoples minds again.

 

People revive old threads all the time. Won't stop a thing.

 

I actually supported the war in Iraq until I found out that Bush had been misinformed.

 

You have the correct view on this. He was misinformed. It was a failure of intel. That doesn't change the fact that there are other reasons for having prosecuted Desert Storm, and the Surge. Al-Qaeda chose to take on the US in Iraq after Bush was misinformed. At that point, it is irresponsible not to have engaged AlQinIraq.

 

In fact, that Al Qaeda chose to attack US troops in Iraq is a priori evidence that there were other valid reasons for invading Iraq, just as my earlier post explained.

 

After that I have always been a proponent if staying the fock away from the middle east including afghanistan and the most recent invasion of libya. I'll provide a link on this board about my feelings on libya if you wish.

 

I don't want your view on Libya; I wanted them on Afghanistan...and not just your view: the views of the vast majority of those who claim they were opposed to Bush's incursion into Iraq by claiming that Afghanistan was where we should be.

 

We all know that POV was emblematic of the typical lefty conscientious objector at the time. Now their POV is being exposed as hypocritical, which is the point of this exercise. Bush has done more for suppressing terrorism by stabilizing Iraq than anyone can do by invading Afghanistan. How Obama chose to remain in Afghanistan - and the manner in which he is waging that war - is asinine, and pointless.

 

And his actions in Libya likewise establish how over his head he truly is.

[nikki2200 4]

Since you are taking sides, why don't you understand that attacking the other side does not make your side right? HTH

 

I guess this is the liberal independent thought Nikki was talking about.

 

 

No. I was pretty much talking about the moderates and independents who are all labeled lefties now because they don't conform to the extreme right. hth.

[parrot 790]

Have you considered that one of the reasons that the Bush Administration invaded Iraq instead of Afghanistan was due to the logistics? That a war in Iraq was winnable (I agree with MTSkiBum: good on you for saying something which with I agree, finally ); that invading Afghanistan - a move that all you lefties whined should have been done instead of invading Iraq - that you would have supported you all said, as a group () - wasn't winnable (the Soviets got beat up there due to the terrain/etc)?

 

That you lefties as a collective group couldn't strategize a game of Risk, much less an incredibly complicated dynamic like a Middle East war...and that's why you were wrong about invading Afghanistan then, as Obama is now? That winning peace and securing oil stability for the world economy, while simultaneously shunting the damage that jihad has wrought on the globe required stabilizing Iraq and Democratizing it, because it stood strategically smack dab in the middle of Wahhabist lands?

 

You may disagree with Bush; you may use the convenience of no WMD being found in Iraq as a tool to create a whipping boy.

 

But in the end, doesn't Obama's failure in Afghanistan - and the clearly increasing stability of Iraq (with support from the West) - prove that your side doesn't know sh!t about prosecuting this battle?

 

Now the left suddenly says end everything. That's funny, because years ago they said that we should have invaded Afghanistan instead.

 

 

Yeah, it's awesome how we were able to win the peace in the Middle East secure all that oil stability for the world economy

[mighty_thor 115]

Have you considered that one of the reasons that the Bush Administration invaded Iraq instead of Afghanistan was due to the logistics?

 

Bush did invade Afghanistan. What are you talking about?

 

I was all for going into Afghanistan and killing terrorists. That was where they were supposively hanging out. I was against going into Iraq. That was pure neo-con Wolfowitz-Rumsfeld-Kristol New American Century bull. As for winning either war, its only possible if you defined what the mission was. We will never be able to leave either place with a nice democracy in place that will continue to function after we pull out.

 

I disagree with Obama's surge in Afghanistan. I think we should be handling Afghanistan/Pakistan with CIA field operatives, drones, jets, and missiles. Maybe keep some special forces on the ready if we locate a big pocket of terrorists but send the majority of troops home.

 

As for Iraq, we should send everyone home. Iraq was never a threat to the US.

[Mungwater 601]

As for Iraq, we should send everyone home. Iraq was never a threat to the US.

 

Aside from the WMD thing, it was also convenient that they are right next to Iran.

[drobeski 3,061]

Aside from the WMD thing, it was also convenient that they are right next to Iran.

Yes because having a military base next to a country bent on destroying one of our main allies in the region is a bad thing.

[Phurfur 70]

No. I was pretty much talking about the moderates and independents who are all labeled lefties now because they don't conform to the extreme right. hth.

 

Wow, the extreme left labels them righties, go figure. What a crazy world we live in.

[mighty_thor 115]

Aside from the WMD thing, it was also convenient that they are right next to Iran.

 

Unfortunately, with Saddam out of the picture, Iran is ready to exert more influence over Iraq. I do think the Iranian people are really ready for a revolution of their own. Iran probably would have been a better target for the neo-cons than Iraq. The people of Iran would welcome democracy and would not have had the inter-factional-fighting of Iraq.

[nikki2200 4]

Also IMM, it's 40%, not 10%.

 

Your comprehension of percentages is worrying me about your body fat.

[Mungwater 601]

Yes because having a military base next to a country bent on destroying one of our main allies in the region is a bad thing.

 

That was my point, need to have a strong hold in the area. Now we have Iraq and dijibouti, it should help deter some of these bastards.