US Casualties in Afghanistan Up 500% under Obama.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by madanthonywayne, Jun 23, 2011.

  1. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,255
    It's probably because the Taliban and Al Qaeda have been improving their tactics over the years.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    52,968
    Or Bush just didn't give a shit about Afghanistan. There are 30K more soldiers there now, that makes a big difference.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,882
    I cannot help but chuckle a bit, you are at it again Mad. The real reason is because the source you are citing is yet again one of those right wing sources masquerading as "legitimate news". You have used this "source" before. And other than changing their name from "Conservative News Service" to Cybercast News Service" nothing has changed. Gee, I wonder why they changed their name?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    CNS formerly known as the "Conservative News Service" was founded by private money and is owned by the Media Research Center - another right wing source intent on spreading misinformation in order to further Republican power.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybercast_News_Service

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Research_Center

    Average monthly casualties in Afghanistan have doubled since Obama became POTUS (if you look at the averages) and not the 500 percent your source is representing. And the reason casualiteis are up is because Obama has been focused on winning the war in Afghanistan. He is seeking out and engaging the enemy (e.g. Bin Ladin). Instead of sitting in forts waiting to be attacked, Obama is actively seeking out and engaging the enemy. Last year the year of the surge was a particularly bloody year in Afghanistan. Because Obama is not pussy footing around anymore like the George II administration did. If you look at the averages for this year, they are down signficantly.

    It looks like your source is comparing US casualties in 2001 (which was not a complete year) to 2010 which was a full year and in the midst of the surge. That is not a fair comparison. But that doesn't matter to a new source that makes its money my demagoguing, does it?
     
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,316
    Casualties in Iraq are way down under Obama.
     
  9. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Madant, I don't think you could really blame or credit Obama with either. The top has little enough to do with the bottom. Mind you, larger trends - improved tactics among the Taliban, decreased casualities in Iraq - might have something to do with the larger concerns of large-scale conflict. There's always this American trend to pronounce that the "buck stops here" and lop off heads of heads. But how does the head control all that? It's impractical.
     
  10. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Although, giving the link some credibility, if true those rules would be aboundingly stupid, although also seemingly unavoidable:

    I don't see Obama's hand in it though.
     
  11. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    Ha!

    At any rate, would not the casualties be higher because Obama finally took responsibility for our adventure in Afghanistan and did the whole "surge" thingamajoo?

    A bit unfathomable that we would send thousands of more troops, engage in more battles to suppress AQ/Taliban and somehow not experience more casualties.

    ~String
     
  12. Mr MacGillivray Banned Banned

    Messages:
    527
    Apparently the Taliban surrendered since Obama is pulling out a large part of the forces. And so are the French.
     
  13. Killjoy Propelling The Farce!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,238
    Nahhh... ...The election is coming up (well... over a year from now, but apparently that's "soon" according to the "new norm"), and he's just trying to pander to his psycho-lefty political support base. Then again, we are supposedly negotiating with some factions of the Taliban, so maybe the only guys still fighting are the bunch that blew up those ancient buddhist statues. You probably can't placate people who can't even look at the relics of another culture without thinking I just fucking HAVE TO blow that up - because it's goddam BLASPHEMOUS !!! (or the equivalent thereof).

    As for the French, no doubt they need all available forces for the soon-to-be-necessary-to-resolve-the-ongoing-cluster-fuck NATO invasion of Libya.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,882
    If he is pandering to his "psycho-lefty" base, then why are they not happy with his decision?
     
  15. Mr MacGillivray Banned Banned

    Messages:
    527
    The french are just retreating. Like normal.
     
  16. Killjoy Propelling The Farce!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,238
    Surely you realize that just 'cos you try something doesn't mean it automatically works as planned - even if you're The Ossiah.
     
  17. Killjoy Propelling The Farce!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,238
    Charles Martel is rolling over in his grave...
     
  18. Mr MacGillivray Banned Banned

    Messages:
    527
    Yes, but according to wikipedia he was "Frankish", which means he is west Germanic.

    That could explain the lack of retreats, although Hitler did the mother of all retreats of course.
     
  19. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,882
    Then again, you could be wrong.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Heh. Very good.
     
  21. Killjoy Propelling The Farce!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,238
    I did entertain the possibility that he was pandering to the centrists, since the withdrawal consisted of just the "SurgeForce".
    (Ourge ? I mean - shruB's was the Wurge, so we gotta call The Ossiah's something...)


    I even thought briefly that he might have been pandering to moderates in the Elephantitis Party, but then rembered that that's what the purpose of the attack on Lybia was.


    Damn it.

    I forgot about that whilst I was recalling that my first choice - Napoleon - was actually Italian.
    :shrug:
     
  22. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    So was Colombus. Monarchies are confusing like that...
     
  23. sikander Registered Member

    Messages:
    22
    Obama has been aggressive on the war front as there is pressure on him to end wars or bring them to an end . He also have to prove why he was given peace prize .
     

Share This Page