Afghanistan death count: we're losing 466:1

[Jacob]

This is just astounding. Like many others, I've wanted to be out of Afghanistan for quite a while. But, in keeping with his campaign promises for once, Obama doubled down in that God-forsaken mess. And now that Afghan's are killing our people over some trumped up Koran burning episode, the press is finally starting to ask questions again. And this is what we learned:

Press Secretary Carney says to press:

What the President did when he reviewed U.S. policy in Afghanistan was insist that we focus our attention on what our absolute goals in the country should be, and prioritize them. And he made clear that the number-one priority, the reason why U.S. troops are in Afghanistan in the first place, is to disrupt, dismantle and ultimately defeat al Qaeda.

Finally, ABC’s Jake Tapper asked Carney when “is the last time US troops in Afghanistan killed anybody associated with Al Qaeda.” Carney didn’t have an answer, and referred Tapper to the Defense Department and NATO’s International Security Assistance Force.

Another reporter followed up on the question:

I queried those agencies Tuesday, and got an answer today. According to a Defense Department spokesman, the most recent operation that killed an al Qaeda fighter was in April 2011—ten months ago. However, there was an “al Qaeda foreign fighter” captured near Kabul in May 2011, and an “al Qaeda facilitator” captured in the Paktiya province on January 30 of this year.

By comparison, there have been 466 coalition fatalities since April 2011.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/166539...er-afghanistan

Of course we are mostly fighting the Taliban and others there now, but that is allegedly not the reason the President still has us stuck in the quagmire. This is just pathetic. Not sure how I can justify not voting for Ron Paul.

[SoCalCoug]

Bush supporters criticizing Obama for not getting out of Afghanistan quickly enough is amusing.

[Indy Coug]

Bush supporters criticizing Obama for not getting out of Afghanistan quickly enough is amusing.

Of course the situation in Afghanistan has remained completely static over the last 8 years.

[Uncle Ted]

Not sure how I can justify not voting for Ron Paul.

Welcome to the fold Brother Jacob.

I would agree to vote for Romney if he would agree to send his own sons to Afghanistan. Of course, he is more than willing to send our sons (and daughters) to Afghanistan in their place.

[Indy Coug]

Welcome to the fold Brother Jacob.

I would agree to vote for Romney if he would agree to send his own sons to Afghanistan. Of course, he is more than willing to send our sons (and daughters) to Afghanistan in their place.

Are his sons in the military?

[Uncle Ted]

Are his sons in the military?

I am sure the commander and chief of the military could make that happen.

[Indy Coug]

I am sure the commander and chief of the military could make that happen.

You mean selectively and forcibly causing a handful of people serve in the military against their will?

[Uncle Ted]

You mean selectively and forcibly causing a handful of people serve in the military against their will?

Why is it call the "selective service"?


[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_System"]Selective Service System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

[Indy Coug]

Why is it call the "selective service"?


Selective Service System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OK, so like I thought you are recommending we revive the draft. Maybe your wish for Romney's sons serving will be granted if their ping pong ball comes up with tens of thousands of other citizens.

Sounds like a great idea.

[Jacob]

Bush supporters criticizing Obama for not getting out of Afghanistan quickly enough is amusing.

Ignorant/irrelevant posting, not amusing. First, Obama escalated the war in Afghanistan and Bush hasn't commanded anyone in Aghanistan since January 2009. You have no idea whether I supported Bush or what my position on Aghanistan/Iraq over the past 4 years or so is. Second, you don't know to what extent I supported Bush's foreign entanglements or to what extent I have supported Obama's policies. Here's a sample:

http://cougaruteforum.com/showthread...ht=afghanistan

[Donuthole]

Bush supporters criticizing Obama for not getting out of Afghanistan quickly enough is amusing.

Almost as amusing as Obama supporters who skewered Bush for being in Afghanistan and Iraq, but now don't have as much of a problem with keeping our troops there.

[Uncle Ted]

OK, so like I thought you are recommending we revive the draft. Maybe your wish for Romney's sons serving will be granted if their ping pong ball comes up with tens of thousands of other citizens.

Sounds like a great idea.

If we keep on track of starting preemptive wars the draft will most likely be revived. When selective service is shut down because it will never be needed let me know.

Let's not forget who the people who have been there like to give their money to:



Money talks.

[Jacob]

Welcome to the fold Brother Jacob.

I would agree to vote for Romney if he would agree to send his own sons to Afghanistan. Of course, he is more than willing to send our sons (and daughters) to Afghanistan in their place.

He's never expressed any desire to send my sons, so I'm not sure I follow your logic. But I don't much care for his military posturing. It really annoys me. Last time around, I voted Libertarian, I'll probably do the same this time in the general and vote Ron Paul in the primary. But I'd probably still vote for Romney if I lived in a closely contested state.

[Goatnapper'96]

Bush supporters criticizing Obama for not getting out of Afghanistan quickly enough is amusing.

We never should have gone into Afghanastan other than on raids to disrupt the operations of Al Queada or the Taliban. Once we did that after the first 12 months we could have sent the preponderance of the ground troops out and just hit AQ or Taliban with violent mixtures of spec ops/attack Army air and Air Force close air support anytime they were getting organized enough to make us nervous. True this means that the region would have stayed an unorganized anarchic wasteland indefinitely and human suffering would have continued indefinitely, but the probability of some semblence of national political stability crystalizing was to low to justify the sacrifice we have made and are making. The only reason Afghanastan has borders is because the countries surrounding it needed to have geographical endings to their territory - that is all that region, as an independent nation-state, has ever had in common. From an ideological perspective it would be nice to build a lovey-dovey nation-state in Afghanastan, but it just doesn't appear to be happening.

In Iraq, I actually think they have a chance to do something with thier country. I am not convinced they will but there is a far greater chance the sacrifice there might at least accomplish something for the majority of the people. In Afghanastan we have improved our homeland's security position by disrupting AQ and the Taliban, but I don't think we can improve the average Yak herder's prospects for a better life. They need to come out of the dark ages themselves.

[Uncle Ted]

He's never expressed any desire to send my sons, so I'm not sure I follow your logic. But I don't much care for his military posturing. It really annoys me. Last time around, I voted Libertarian, I'll probably do the same this time in the general and vote Ron Paul in the primary. But I'd probably still vote for Romney if I lived in a closely contested state.

[YOUTUBE]CBTPZxRcD0I[/YOUTUBE]