http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/nato-helicopter-crash-in-afghanistan/19641909?icid=main%7Cmain%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%7C171846

Quote :

"Today's casualties make 2010 the deadliest year of the Afghan war since it began in late 2001. According to the nonprofit website icasualties.org, 529 foreign military personnel have died in Afghanistan this year -- eight more than in 2009. The spike in the number of deaths comes after President Barack Obama ordered a surge of some 30,000 more U.S. troops to the country, which has led to increasing combat with Taliban fighters, especially in the Afghan south where the chopper went down. "

9/21/2010 9:26:04 AM

9/21/2010 9:35:26 AM

holy crap, that's like 3 days of WWII

9/21/2010 11:20:34 AM

Perhaps the point of the OP is that if a Republican were president, many of you would be screaming bloody murder?

9/21/2010 11:35:07 AM

I'm gonna rise up, I'm gonna to kick a little ass, I'm gonna to kick some ass in the U.S.A., gonna climb a mountain, gonna sew a flag, gonna fly on an eagle. I'm gonna kick some butt, I'm gonna drive a big truck, I'm gonna rule this world, I'm gonna kick some ass, I'm gonna rise up, I'm gonna kick a little ass. ROCK, FLAG, and EAGLE!!

9/21/2010 11:39:08 AM

9/21/2010 11:39:52 AM

Quote :

"Perhaps the point of the OP is that if a Republican were president, many of you would be screaming bloody murder"

i don't think it is, but you're free to make that point i suppose

9/21/2010 12:15:58 PM

Well, I did pose it as a question.

But it is a valid point.

9/21/2010 12:19:36 PM

It's in no way relevant to the article posted. It's funny how you boil everything down to Republican vs. Democrat, when a majority of the people who post here are independent or libertarian.

9/21/2010 12:32:30 PM

^ Yes, and for about the millionth time, I'm one of them (independent)! I referred to "Republican" in the context of war protests against the previous Republican administration and the fact that neither an "independent" nor a "libertarian" are likely to occupy the White House anytime soon--but all this, of course, is self-evident.

And can we please have one fucking thread without hooksaw derangement syndrome?

[Edited on September 21, 2010 at 12:56 PM. Reason : I swear to fucking God! ]

9/21/2010 12:55:11 PM

Quote :

"Perhaps the point of the OP is that if a Republican were president, many of you would be screaming bloody murder?"

That was infact the point. During the past election everyone was up in arms over the war and our young men and women being killed in something they saw as a pointless war.

Obama campaigned on bringing the troops home, but instead has overseen even higher numbers of casualties.

While the previous president was in office there would have been countless news articles titled just like my topic - however with the current president you have to read half way through the article to even make that connection. It is certainly not in the heading or caption.

9/21/2010 1:02:09 PM

Pretty sure Obama campaigned on "My first order as Commander in Chief will be to end the war in Iraq and refocus our efforts on Afghanistan and our broader security interests"

9/21/2010 1:10:41 PM

^^ Good to know--I figured it was--but be warned. By confirming this, you just placed yourself in the impact zone. And some here will simply not allow themselves to accept the fact that I could possibly be right about anything ever.

^ The point is that, for many Democrats, political affiliation seems to have trumped any concerns they may have had over war generally or war casualties specifically. I mean, it was considered cool as shit to bash Bush over war and war casualties--not so much with Obama.

[Edited on September 21, 2010 at 1:21 PM. Reason : .]

9/21/2010 1:11:47 PM

Confirmation bias.

http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en#q=obama+afghanistan&hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&ei=geeYTJvtL4OKlwfgmtVM&ved=0CBQQpwU&source=lnt&tbs=nws%3A1%2Ccdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F2008%2Ccd_max%3A9%2F21%2F2010&fp=8bf75840e61e1ccf

http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en#q=bush+afghanistan&hl=en&safe=off&tbs=nws:1,cd_min:2003,cd_max:2009,cdr:1&source=lnt&fp=8bf75840e61e1ccf

9/21/2010 1:14:09 PM

^ Thanks for sharing. Will you admit that you were wrong now?

9/21/2010 1:20:42 PM

Wrong about what?

9/21/2010 1:21:07 PM

Just wow. NVM.

9/21/2010 1:44:48 PM

No, please, what was I wrong about? I'll gladly admit it.

9/21/2010 1:48:02 PM

I'm not sure what you are trying to connect either?

you did a search for bush/obama & afghanistan? what were you trying to show?

try doing a search for bush/obama & casualties

lots more negative press for bush - then only article i saw connecting obama was not even from us but from the afghan president with respect to civilian casualties

EDIT...
infact here is an article confirming...
http://blogs.wsj.com/capitaljournal/2010/09/13/despite-rising-casualties-in-afghanistan-obama-avoids-vietnam-comparison/

Quote :

"An axiom of American politics is that when the number of U.S. casualties increases in an overseas war, domestic support for the conflict deteriorates. Yet, at least at this point, that is not happening with the war in Afghanistan."

Quote :

"In the last few months, the number of U.S. service members killed and wounded has reached the highest level of the almost nine-year-old war. "

Quote :

"Although President Barack Obama says he will begin withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Afghanistan next summer, few think that the casualty rate will trend lower anytime soon."

Quote :

"Nonetheless, a new Quinnipiac University poll released last week finds that support for the president’s war policy remains solid"

[Edited on September 21, 2010 at 2:03 PM. Reason : article]

9/21/2010 1:57:36 PM

so who is allowed to support the war now?

9/21/2010 2:05:03 PM

Quote :

"I'm not sure what you are trying to connect either?"

It shows that there has been negative press for both presidents. I think you're grasping for a connection when there isn't one.

[Edited on September 21, 2010 at 2:07 PM. Reason : .]

9/21/2010 2:06:31 PM

so Norrin Radd does not support the surge in Afghanistan then. What's your recommended course of action at this point?

9/21/2010 2:19:15 PM

When Bush was in, you had people marching in the streets with "BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW" signs. Where are those people now? What happened to the anti-war left? Were they really that concerned about soldiers/civilians dying, or were they lambasting a Republican because it was convenient?

9/21/2010 2:23:16 PM

my guess...

people were upset with bush b/c his administration 1) bungled the war in afghanistan which is why we're still there now 2) went to war w/ iraq under false pretenses
people now are less upset with obama b/c his administration 1) is making progress getting us out of iraq 2) just started the afghanistan surge 3) there's a timetable for troops in afghanistan to start leaving.
not to mention, people at home seem to be more concerned with the economy right now



but if y'all want to take a break from republican vs democrats and talk about whether or not current afghanistan strategy is prudent, let's hear it

9/21/2010 2:28:57 PM

^

[Edited on September 21, 2010 at 2:44 PM. Reason : I said the same thing]

9/21/2010 2:43:01 PM

Quote :

"so Norrin Radd does not support the surge in Afghanistan then."

that's not the case at all...

I was just curious why the sky wasn't falling anymore now that Obama was in office.

From that prospective of not feeling like we've wasted the last 8-10 years, I would say that the prudent thing to do would be to continue to be a presence until the country is able to stand on it's own and not relapse in to it's previous state.

The question that has to be answered, though, is what that will mean for the US. Can we afford to do that without crippling ourselves?

Quote :

"It shows that there has been negative press for both presidents. I think you're grasping for a connection when there isn't one. "

I think you are missing the connection entirely - you did a search for something that wasn't the topic at hand. It's not about Afghanistan - but rather the public perception of casualties and how Obama seems to be getting a free pass.

I think qntmfred and adultswim are missing the forest because of the trees. The point of this topic was to complain about the surge or our purpose in afghanistan - but to show the discrepancy between the way the media and public react to "hot button topics" now that Obama is in office.

[Edited on September 21, 2010 at 3:01 PM. Reason : .]

9/21/2010 2:50:07 PM

i know exactly what you're doing - how about you make the point you want to make instead of trying to be clever with misleading thread titles




and like i said, obama's probably not getting bashed because

the iraq war routinely resulted in 50-100 monthly US casualties
people saw those iraq war sacrifices as not being associated with an overall successful mission

on the other hand, the afghanistan surge just started, and casualties in Afghanistan have just now broken the 50/month mark. people are hopeful that this surge will have similar success as in iraq


people bashed bush for fumbling through two wars
obama arguably hasn't done that, while simultaneously trying to achieve a few domestic goals

9/21/2010 3:06:37 PM

Quote :

"but if y'all want to take a break from republican vs democrats and talk about whether or not current afghanistan strategy is prudent, let's hear it"

No, it's not prudent. The solution now is the same as it was when Bush was running the show: get the troops out. We do not need to be in Iraq. We do not need to be in Afghanistan. We definitely do not need to establish a permanent military (call it non-combat, or whatever) in those countries. We can't even afford to pay for what we're doing in the country, we certainly can't afford these wars.

I'm not being partisan here. The point is that both parties support invasion, occupation, and killing when it seems politically expedient. When Bush was in office, many on the left were not talking about "transitioning to a non-combat capacity" they were talking about immediate withdrawal. That's what I'm talking about. I don't want to hear the excuse of, "Oh, well now Obama has to deal with the mess Bush made, and he's doing it responsibly, which means sending more troops to their death." No. I'm sorry, but it's not acceptable, and these people that claimed to be anti-war or non-interventionist, and are now staying silent for the sake of supporting their dear leader, are a disgrace.

9/21/2010 3:43:46 PM

now that's an argument i can give some consideration to

defense spending in this country is massive and should definitely be a target for budget-cutting



even despite the thousands of immediate job losses it would certainly result in. let's transition all those highly-trained service-people into private sector jobs where they can provide productive services and create innovative products. to do it responsibly would take years if not a decade or two, but hey i'm all for it

[Edited on September 21, 2010 at 4:00 PM. Reason : .]

9/21/2010 3:57:10 PM

Quote :

"the Afghan war"

9/21/2010 4:36:19 PM

I can see there being less howling for the present than before. Remember, when the Iraq surge was started, things had looked real shitty there and most folks thought failure was certain. Well, they learned that it isn't certain. So I can see how the protests would be less because while they think the increase in deaths really fucking sucks, we at least have a model that it is in fact worth it in the end.

Couple that with the fact that the economy wasn't in the pooper before and it's pretty easy to see why the protests aren't louder.

But hey, boil everything down to black and white if it helps your brain to process shit.

9/21/2010 5:53:00 PM

so, is that an admission that the surge in Iraq worked?

9/21/2010 6:48:44 PM

that does seem to be the popular consensus doesn't it

well, that combined with the sunni awakening

and without an Afghanistan equivalent, i have doubts the afghan surge will be as effective as the iraqi surge

9/21/2010 7:30:24 PM

The Iraq surge was only necessary because of the unfathomably monumental incompetence of the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war between 2003 and 2007. The Afghanistan surge is only necessary because the Bush administration devoted so much time, energy and resources to incompetently handling Iraq.

The irony of the whole thing is that the troop numbers Bush dedicated to Iraq during the surge were the same numbers that GEN Shinseki (among others) said would be required to occupy Iraq, a prediction which led to his forced retirement.


So fuck off if anyone thinks Bush deserves credit for anything in Iraq or Afghanistan.

9/21/2010 8:26:22 PM

Credit or blame something, something.

9/21/2010 8:40:37 PM