PDA

View Full Version : US casualties in Afghanistan hit 2000,



skuthorp
10-01-2012, 06:50 AM
and 17,600 odd wounded. Then there's the maimed, and the suicides back home, and the veterans mental problems, and the domestic violence knock on...................
http://bostonglobe.com/2012/09/30/afghan/900yaMfx4DBcyUXzd4hGTM/story.html

I'm a bit surprised that no one else has noted this, so I suppose it isn't impacting on the campaigns.

Kevin T
10-01-2012, 07:00 AM
It's not noticed because only the military fights wars. There is no shared sacrifice, people slap a yellow ribbon magnet or a "Support Our Troops" bumper sticker on their car and that's it as far as support goes.

Afghanistan , Iraq or anywhere else barely makes the nightly news. The burden is bore by soldiers and there families and not much of anyone else, it is deplorable. Bring em home TODAY!

pefjr
10-01-2012, 07:48 AM
Over 3000 Allied

LeeG
10-01-2012, 07:49 AM
It's not noticed because only the military fights wars. There is no shared sacrifice, people slap a yellow ribbon magnet or a "Support Our Troops" bumper sticker on their car and that's it as far as support goes.

Afghanistan , Iraq or anywhere else barely makes the nightly news. The burden is bore by soldiers and there families and not much of anyone else, it is deplorable. Bring em home TODAY!

Nope, you forgot all the quasi-private concerns tasked with implementing military doctrine. The contracted soldiers from all around the world and associated service personell are a footnote with a bigger footprint.
Many are sharing the sacrifice and reward.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/05/ap-house-panel-examingin-pentagon-food-for-toops-contract-supreme-food-service-052412/


http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Lend-Me-Your-Ears-US-Military-Turns-to-Contractor-Linguists-05934/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/world/asia/afghan-war-risks-are-shifting-to-contractors.html?ref=privatemilitarycompanies&_r=0

More contracted employees died than soldiers

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/15/AR2009121504850.html

Kevin T
10-01-2012, 08:21 AM
Lee. I absolutely agree, and I think that helps in making the war more of a non-issue. These paid guns are never talked about and certainly never seen on the campaign trail, the only time we actually see a soldier is passing through an airport, or when one of the two candidates stands in front of a group of soldiers and indicates that they have the support of the American people.

I guess more contracted "soldiers" die because there are more of them, and of course why wouldn't there be more of them when the contractors do a stint in the service and then jump over to a contractor and take a significant bump in pay. Tax payer dollars train em, and then tax payer dollars turn around and pay then at a handsome premium over military pay. Perfect system for draining the treasury.

Of course if one lives near a military base then running into military personnel is a far more frequent occurrence.

Syed
10-01-2012, 08:25 AM
... and the casualties on the other side are also the outcome of this war.

Kevin T
10-01-2012, 08:28 AM
Oh absolutely, and if someone invaded my country I suspect the response from Americans would be identical to what we see. Bring em HOME!

ucb4ume
10-01-2012, 09:16 AM
[QUOTE= ...I'm a bit surprised that no one else has noted this, so I suppose it isn't impacting on the campaigns.[/QUOTE]

It's not noted because it would hurt the Obama campaign.

Kevin T
10-01-2012, 09:24 AM
Has nothing to do with the Obama campaign, nobody cares. If it really would hurt the Obama campaign one would imagine that Mr. Romney at his own convention would make sure and have every other word that came out of his mouth include the words; casualties, Afghanistan, troops, etc.

How many times did he mention any of that? Zero

noddyone
10-01-2012, 09:52 AM
Can someone explain what are Americans in Afghanistan for?

pefjr
10-01-2012, 09:57 AM
... and the casualties on the other side are also the outcome of this war.Yes, somewhere over 200,000.

Syed
10-01-2012, 10:03 AM
Can someone explain what are Americans in Afghanistan for?

To prove that the lone superpower can not be exhausted by the poorest and most backward people of the world.

LeeG
10-01-2012, 10:10 AM
Can someone explain what are Americans in Afghanistan for?

What a question. We're there because we were there, and once we're there there are contracts for being there. Contracts for withdrawing from there and contracts subcontracting thereness.

LeeG
10-01-2012, 10:11 AM
To prove that the lone superpower can not be exhausted by the poorest and most backward people of the world.

Narrative maintenance

Osborne Russell
10-01-2012, 11:51 AM
To prove that the lone superpower can not be exhausted by the poorest and most backward people of the world.

Yes, and to prove it to themselves, above all. Like Lee says.

ucb4ume
10-01-2012, 02:47 PM
Has nothing to do with the Obama campaign, nobody cares. If it really would hurt the Obama campaign one would imagine that Mr. Romney at his own convention would make sure and have every other word that came out of his mouth include the words; casualties, Afghanistan, troops, etc.

How many times did he mention any of that? Zero

Nobody cares? Seriously? Try asking the faimlies who lost loved ones if they care.

Kevin T
10-01-2012, 03:03 PM
Yes, of course the families that lost loved ones care, and the truth of the matter is that they are such a small part of the electorate that neither party really seems to care about them or sees them as a viable voting block. That's not something I made up, thats just reality, but seriously, you couldn't see that from all of the previous posts?

Mr. Romney and all of his surrogates at the convention didn't mention them once, and it used to be that the military was the GOP's core voting block or have you forgotten about all of the talk relative to "cutting and running" that we heard from so many past GOP Presidential campaigns, now not even a passing reference in any convention speeches to the military.

So please tell me again how this would hurt either campaign or especially as you pointed out how it would hurt the Obama campaign, how does it hurt Mr. Obama's campaign?

The best thing either gentleman could do is get soldiers out of harms way, Mr. Obama did that in Iraq, they're out of there, and supossedly they come home from Afghanistan in a little under 27 months, what was Mr. Romney's plan for getting them out, everything I've heard him say is that setting a date certain is a mistake, sounds kind of open ended if you ask me. Of course wait a few minutes and Mr. Romney will likely take another side on his own position.

WX
10-01-2012, 03:28 PM
To prove that the lone superpower can not be exhausted by the poorest and most backward people of the world.
Oh so nicely put.:)

AndyG
10-01-2012, 05:00 PM
2000 is less than the average number of British killed, seriously wounded or taken prisoner during less than twelve hours of the Battle of Arras, 1917.

...Which, incidentally, went on for five weeks.

Makes me think, at least.

Andy

John Smith
10-01-2012, 06:14 PM
FOR THE RECORD, LET ME SAY LOUD AND CLEAR: I CARE.

I cared when Bush decided to invade Afghanistan. I still care. I'm also tired of the "back seat" Commanders in Chief. I wish Obama had ended this war already. I also know that the conservatives would refer to that as "cutting and running" and they would blame him for whatever hell broke lose upon our exit.

Meanwhile people are dying for no good reason. People we train kill us with guns we supplied them with, proving we can't tell who over there is friend or foe.

For those with short memories, the Republicans gave Obama a very hard time for getting our combat troops out of Iraq on Bush's schedule.

bamamick
10-01-2012, 07:10 PM
And now with this epidemic we are having of this new kind of 'friendly fire' casualties it is going to make these last months before withdrawl even more difficult. Just this afternoon I heard that many joint patrols were being suspended, and that the allied soldiers did not want to train the Afghans any more. An Aussie general said the other day that he had never seen military morale so poor, and who can blame them?

This is going to be terrible. We went in and created a government that will most likely not be able to support itself without help, and those people are going to suffer when (and if, I suppose) the extremists come along once we are gone. Sure, as someone said the other day, Karzai and his family will probably be in exile someplace cushy when the bottom falls out, but the guy like me who is a school teacher or an engineer who just wanted to make Afghanistan a better place for his children will pay for his idealism.

The older I get the more I come to realize that this is all just delaying the inevitable. Children willing to blow themselves up so that a handful of allied soldiers will die you can not fight. People who have eaten with you, fought with you, suffered with you, who will turn on you and murder you in cold blood we can not fight. We are not raised to understand such things, and nothing our military or our civil governments can do will ever prepare us to fight such things. We have two choices, essentially, blow them off the face of the earth...all of them, or get the hell away from them and build a wall so that they can't get in. And eventually they are going to find a way in.

Maybe one day someone will find a way towards peace. Muslims and Buddhists and Christians and Jews. The killing has to stop. The hatred has to stop. But who? Who can make this happen if not God? Is the whole world destined to burn before this is over?

Whew. Depressing, eh?

Mickey Lake

Duncan Gibbs
10-01-2012, 10:45 PM
Part two of a really good Documentary "Afghanistan: The Great Game" is on TV tonight (IIRC). Basically it paints a picture of a very proud people who drew inspiration from inflicting tremendous casualties on the British in the late 1800s. In a similar vein it reminds me of Bob McNamara talking in "The Fog Of War" about the Vietnamese reason for fighting: To expel foreign occupiers pure and simple.

Afghanistan needs a figure of hope; someone to unite the country and Karzai isn't it. The Soviets really started screwing the place over by supporting the Coup of 1973. It's all been pretty crappy from then on.

Interesting read:

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

Waddie
10-01-2012, 11:46 PM
These are the reasons why we should be absolutely sure war is the only solution and that there is wide public support for taking that action. Some young people will pay the ultimate price and others will suffer life long. Since WWll there hasn't been but a couple of wars that were necessary, and even they didn't really settle anything. I am much more of a pacifist now because I believe war to be counter-productive, and seldom does war have widespread public support.

regards,
Waddie

fishrswim
10-02-2012, 01:35 AM
Can someone explain what are Americans in Afghanistan for?

No. We have no strategy, and no definition of what winning in Afghanistan means. Apparently, we'll just hang around until the date specified in 2014 and then just leave. By then we'll probably lose another few hundred troops and a few hundred wounded, and a couple hundred more suicides.
Bring em home.

Curtism
10-02-2012, 02:38 AM
I'm a bit surprised that no one else has noted this, so I suppose it isn't impacting on the campaigns.

It's not impacting campaigns as much as it should by any means. One of our local represenatives, C.W.Bill ("get a job") Young is currently running for his 21st term and, after 40 consecutive years, is the longest serving member of congress. He's a former Charmain of Appropriations and still holds a seat on that commitee. He has supported every action/war since Viet Nam but aparently he has recently had a change of heart.

Dead Largo soldier's prescient email to Rep. C.W. Bill Young is read aloud on Capitol Hillhttp://www.tampabay.com/news/military/war/article1252658.ece

In the e-mail, 26 year old Army Staff Sgt. Matthew Sitton described the lousy conditions, some of which eventually lead to his demise during his third tour of duty. The soldier was from congressman Youngs district and had attended a school that was sponsored by Young's church, so this one hit a little close to home.

It's a shame it takes something like this to finally knock a war-hawk off his deadly bandwagon. And whether this move is purely political, as his current opponent suggests, or if he's truly seen the devastating effects his policies have had is anyone's guess. If it somehow leads to a gain in momentum that will stem some of this nonsense, this particular young soldiers death will have served a noble purpose IMO.

Osborne Russell
10-02-2012, 08:32 AM
Within Bilge memory this kind of talk was labeled treason.

LeeG
10-02-2012, 09:26 AM
Within Bilge memory this kind of talk was labeled treason.

That's when we had a War President and a GWOT going on. Something else is happening now.