Afghanistan

trrenter_IHB

trrenter_IHB

New member
<a href="http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/world/afghan-war-will-exceed-cost-of-iraq-say-experts-20090809-ee60.html">Afghan war will exceed cost of Iraq, say experts</a>



If you are inclined please read the article.



I saw an article this weekend about this and I forgot where I read it. So I did a google search using the search paramaters "cost of afghanistan war".



Not many main stream "news" organizations are giving this bit of information much airtime or printspace.



Let me start of by bashing myself and the right for actually posting this article.



Bush and Cheney invading Iraq and all of the money we spent there is the issue here.

Oh you right wing, faux news, hawk, luddites want war when Bush is the President but when the Dem admin wants to drop bombs and spend money you are up in arms.

The Afghan conflict is a just conflict compared to what we did in Iraq.

You guys started this war. The O admin is just fixing all the wrong stuff Bush and Cheney did here.



I might have missed some of the reasons so please pile on.



So my question is "Why is this info so hard to find and why is the main stream media not drilling down on this?"



I know Faux News isn't where people should be running to get the news but any information that may be derogatory seems to get footnoted.
 
I supported both the Afganistan and Iraq campaigns. My only criticizm of W as they went to Iraq "on the cheap" which caused them to make a number of tactical decisions that would up impeding the missions. Later I found out I was lied to, but whatever. Just becacuse we started that fight for the wrong reasons doesn't mean we should pack up and quit.



[quote author="trrenter" date=1249950016]So my question is "Why is this info so hard to find and why is the main stream media not drilling down on this?" </blockquote>


I have no idea. I know this -the father of two of my Godchildren is getting sent off on his third tour - two to Iraq, now to Afganistan. If you're against this campaign, you are against my Godchildren (not to mention my country) and you'll have a fight on your hands from me.



What is the point of your post, and was this the sort of response are you trying to get?
 
[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1249950395]I supported both the Afganistan and Iraq campaigns. My only criticizm of W as they went to Iraq "on the cheap" which caused them to make a number of tactical decisions that would up impeding the missions. Later I found out I was lied to, but whatever. Just becacuse we started that fight for the wrong reasons doesn't mean we should pack up and quit.



[quote author="trrenter" date=1249950016]So my question is "Why is this info so hard to find and why is the main stream media not drilling down on this?" </blockquote>


I have no idea. I know this -the father of two of my Godchildren is getting sent off on his third tour - two to Iraq, now to Afganistan. If you're against this campaign, you are against my Godchildren (not to mention my country) and you'll have a fight on your hands from me.



What is the point of your post, and was this the sort of response are you trying to get?</blockquote>


I am not trying to get any response really. I always support our troops no matter what the conflict so I don't think we have a fight there.



Now if I am for or against a campaign is a different topic all together, I don't think they are one and the same.



I do however support both the Iraq and Afgahnistan campaign.



What I find disturbing is that more money is being spent, more lives are being lost and unless you do some research you rarely hear about it.



I am trying to figure out why the media is really not spending the adequate time on this truly news worthy issue.
 
[quote author="trrenter" date=1249952176]I am trying to figure out why the media is really not spending the adequate time on this truly news worthy issue.</blockquote>


Because Birthers, screaming hissy-fits at healthcare town hall meetings, and Sarah Palin make more sensational headlines?



The OC Register has the same problem. They do a really expensive, in depth article on mortgage fraud or something pithy and it gets like 300 hits. They run a story about Octomom and they get 50,000 no sweat.
 
[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1249955650][quote author="trrenter" date=1249952176]I am trying to figure out why the media is really not spending the adequate time on this truly news worthy issue.</blockquote>


Because Birthers, screaming hissy-fits at healthcare town hall meetings, and Sarah Palin make more sensational headlines?



The OC Register has the same problem. They do a really expensive, in depth article on mortgage fraud or something pithy and it gets like 300 hits. They run a story about Octomom and they get 50,000 no sweat.</blockquote>


I think this is a prime example of left wing bias by the media. Losing troops in the middle east does not benefit the President.



Every time a troop died in Iraq during the Bush presidency it made the news. Rightfully so. It is wrong, in my opinion, that the soldiers in Afgahnastan do not receive the same recognition. The only thing I can think is that reporting this would cast O in a bad light.



I think the media is being completley and totaly disrepsectful to our troops in Afgahnastan. I did see on Faux news the other day a montage for our most recent fallen soldiers in Afgahnastan other then that I really have not seen anything.
 
[quote author="trrenter" date=1249960193][quote author="no_vaseline" date=1249955650][quote author="trrenter" date=1249952176]I am trying to figure out why the media is really not spending the adequate time on this truly news worthy issue.</blockquote>


Because Birthers, screaming hissy-fits at healthcare town hall meetings, and Sarah Palin make more sensational headlines?



The OC Register has the same problem. They do a really expensive, in depth article on mortgage fraud or something pithy and it gets like 300 hits. They run a story about Octomom and they get 50,000 no sweat.</blockquote>


I think this is a prime example of left wing bias by the media. Losing troops in the middle east does not benefit the President.



Every time a troop died in Iraq during the Bush presidency it made the news. Rightfully so. It is wrong, in my opinion, that the soldiers in Afgahnastan do not receive the same recognition. The only thing I can think is that reporting this would cast O in a bad light.



I think the media is being completley and totaly disrepsectful to our troops in Afgahnastan. I did see on Faux news the other day a montage for our most recent fallen soldiers in Afgahnastan other then that I really have not seen anything.</blockquote>


Fox is pulling at thier demographics. In an effort to get - ratings, and get this - sell advertisment.



I used to work in radio. Rush has been the #1 media buy (and virtually sold out) in every market for 20 years. Ever wonder why? Dittoheads are fiercly loyal to him, and buy product he hawks. Rush and Rush alone made Snapple a nationwide brand. He's done it with other stuff.



If you can't sell ad space, you fail as a news organization. They are not running a charity, they are running a business. Jessica Simpson in bad pants makes ratings, and ratings sell ad space. Dead soldiers, sadly, do not.
 
[quote author="trrenter" date=1249960193][quote author="no_vaseline" date=1249955650][quote author="trrenter" date=1249952176]I am trying to figure out why the media is really not spending the adequate time on this truly news worthy issue.</blockquote>


Because Birthers, screaming hissy-fits at healthcare town hall meetings, and Sarah Palin make more sensational headlines?



The OC Register has the same problem. They do a really expensive, in depth article on mortgage fraud or something pithy and it gets like 300 hits. They run a story about Octomom and they get 50,000 no sweat.</blockquote>


I think this is a prime example of left wing bias by the media. Losing troops in the middle east does not benefit the President.



Every time a troop died in Iraq during the Bush presidency it made the news. Rightfully so. It is wrong, in my opinion, that the soldiers in Afgahnastan do not receive the same recognition. The only thing I can think is that reporting this would cast O in a bad light.



I think the media is being completley and totaly disrepsectful to our troops in Afgahnastan. I did see on Faux news the other day a montage for our most recent fallen soldiers in Afgahnastan other then that I really have not seen anything.</blockquote>


Why do you have to go and characterize the whole media as left wing biased with a baseless accusations like this? When Bush was in charge, there was a similar level of desensitization that only faded during months of heavy casualties. It is quite an exaggeration to claim that "every time a troop died" it made the news back when Bush was president and now this kind of reporting would "cast Obama in a bad light". If you read some of those wacky left wing loon news outlets like the LA Times, you will find that they do cover EVERY SINGLE Californian that was a casualty in war. <a href="http://projects.latimes.com/wardead/">LA Times</a>.



Should this be front page material? Not at all in my opinion - but it comes down on what is considered "daily news". The media is totally complicit in sterilizing the human cost of war. You will hear very little about the human & social cost of committing so many people in wars. This is a disservice the media does as a whole - not a left wing bias conspiracy as you phrase it.
 
We are going to make the same mistake the Russians did in Afghanistan. Fighting a prolonged war in a far off land just does not work.



"There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare"

Sun Tzu 544?496 BCE



We need to make peace with the Taliban. All we will do is expend Treasure and Blood once again. This part of the world is very unkind to any occupation army in all of recorded history. Thinking our technology is the end all be all is another foolish mistake as well.
 
[quote author="green_cactus" date=1249964306][quote author="trrenter" date=1249960193][quote author="no_vaseline" date=1249955650][quote author="trrenter" date=1249952176]I am trying to figure out why the media is really not spending the adequate time on this truly news worthy issue.</blockquote>


Because Birthers, screaming hissy-fits at healthcare town hall meetings, and Sarah Palin make more sensational headlines?



The OC Register has the same problem. They do a really expensive, in depth article on mortgage fraud or something pithy and it gets like 300 hits. They run a story about Octomom and they get 50,000 no sweat.</blockquote>


I think this is a prime example of left wing bias by the media. Losing troops in the middle east does not benefit the President.



Every time a troop died in Iraq during the Bush presidency it made the news. Rightfully so. It is wrong, in my opinion, that the soldiers in Afgahnastan do not receive the same recognition. The only thing I can think is that reporting this would cast O in a bad light.



I think the media is being completley and totaly disrepsectful to our troops in Afgahnastan. I did see on Faux news the other day a montage for our most recent fallen soldiers in Afgahnastan other then that I really have not seen anything.</blockquote>


Why do you have to go and characterize the whole media as left wing biased with a baseless accusations like this? When Bush was in charge, there was a similar level of desensitization that only faded during months of heavy casualties. It is quite an exaggeration to claim that "every time a troop died" it made the news back when Bush was president and now this kind of reporting would "cast Obama in a bad light". If you read some of those wacky left wing loon news outlets like the LA Times, you will find that they do cover EVERY SINGLE Californian that was a casualty in war. <a href="http://projects.latimes.com/wardead/">LA Times</a>.



Should this be front page material? Not at all in my opinion - but it comes down on what is considered "daily news". The media is totally complicit in sterilizing the human cost of war. You will hear very little about the human & social cost of committing so many people in wars. This is a disservice the media does as a whole - not a left wing bias conspiracy as you phrase it.</blockquote>


What is the baseless accusation? The media is left wing biased. <a href="http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx">Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist</a>



<strong>"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left,"</strong>



There are several types of media Bias and one is Bias by omission I believe the coverage that this is getting is bias by omission.



I do remember quite frankly the tally on almost every major broadcast when we lost troops in Iraq. Today we lost 3 troops in Iraq bringing the total to ...



Good for the LA times to report it in their paper every day. Don't downplay the fact with your bias that this is not newsworthy. It is just as newsworthy as Iraq.
 
[quote author="bltserv" date=1249964439]We are going to make the same mistake the Russians did in Afghanistan. Fighting a prolonged war in a far off land just does not work.



"There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare"

Sun Tzu 544?496 BCE



We need to make peace with the Taliban. All we will do is expend Treasure and Blood once again. This part of the world is very unkind to any occupation army in all of recorded history. Thinking our technology is the end all be all is another foolish mistake as well.</blockquote>


It always boggles my mind when the war supporters talk about "winning".. ....."Win" what? What?



There just is NOTHING there to win...... unless you call having yet another puppet government in place that creates even more hatred for this country a "win". Way to go! High Five!
 
[quote author="trrenter" date=1249972399][quote author="green_cactus" date=1249964306][quote author="trrenter" date=1249960193][quote author="no_vaseline" date=1249955650][quote author="trrenter" date=1249952176]I am trying to figure out why the media is really not spending the adequate time on this truly news worthy issue.</blockquote>


Because Birthers, screaming hissy-fits at healthcare town hall meetings, and Sarah Palin make more sensational headlines?



The OC Register has the same problem. They do a really expensive, in depth article on mortgage fraud or something pithy and it gets like 300 hits. They run a story about Octomom and they get 50,000 no sweat.</blockquote>


I think this is a prime example of left wing bias by the media. Losing troops in the middle east does not benefit the President.



Every time a troop died in Iraq during the Bush presidency it made the news. Rightfully so. It is wrong, in my opinion, that the soldiers in Afgahnastan do not receive the same recognition. The only thing I can think is that reporting this would cast O in a bad light.



I think the media is being completley and totaly disrepsectful to our troops in Afgahnastan. I did see on Faux news the other day a montage for our most recent fallen soldiers in Afgahnastan other then that I really have not seen anything.</blockquote>


Why do you have to go and characterize the whole media as left wing biased with a baseless accusations like this? When Bush was in charge, there was a similar level of desensitization that only faded during months of heavy casualties. It is quite an exaggeration to claim that "every time a troop died" it made the news back when Bush was president and now this kind of reporting would "cast Obama in a bad light". If you read some of those wacky left wing loon news outlets like the LA Times, you will find that they do cover EVERY SINGLE Californian that was a casualty in war. <a href="http://projects.latimes.com/wardead/">LA Times</a>.



Should this be front page material? Not at all in my opinion - but it comes down on what is considered "daily news". The media is totally complicit in sterilizing the human cost of war. You will hear very little about the human & social cost of committing so many people in wars. This is a disservice the media does as a whole - not a left wing bias conspiracy as you phrase it.</blockquote>


What is the baseless accusation? The media is left wing biased. <a href="http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx">Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist</a>



<strong>"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left,"</strong>



There are several types of media Bias and one is Bias by omission I believe the coverage that this is getting is bias by omission.



I do remember quite frankly the tally on almost every major broadcast when we lost troops in Iraq. Today we lost 3 troops in Iraq bringing the total to ...



Good for the LA times to report it in their paper every day. Don't downplay the fact with your bias that this is not newsworthy. It is just as newsworthy as Iraq.</blockquote>


Omission was not a measure they used to attribute bias in this study. "They tallied the number of times each media outlet referred to think tanks and policy groups, such as the left-leaning NAACP or the right-leaning Heritage Foundation." This, by the way, only shows the bias when dealing with think-tanks; it does not include academic experts and other guests. On top of that, some think tanks can't clearly be labeled to lean one way or the other. A few years back FAIR did a similar study and found that NPR was, of all things, right of center.



As is the case with any of these studies, you can pick the right one to avoid cognitive dissonance. Having <strong>one</strong> entity do <strong>one</strong> study about an abstract concept such as media bias does not make it fact.
 
I personally believe it is bias through omission. I did not say the study did.



I coach youth baseball and there are games where the umpire was either biased or their calls certainly favored the other team.



Sometimes I am lucky and the calls favor my team and somethimes unfortunatley they don't.



I always find it refreshing to talk to a fellow coach who will say, "Boy the calls sure went our way today." That is what I do by the way.



If the media was right wing biased and someone called it I would laugh and say "got that right". I would probably throw in a comment like "because they area all smart."
 
Happy Birthday to the Afghanistan War. 8 years and counting.



<a href="http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf">www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf </a>



"If the Administration?s FY2009 Supplemental request is enacted, total war-related funding would

reach $941 billion, including $684 billion for Iraq, $223 billion for Afghanistan, $28 billion for

enhanced security, and $5 billion that cannot be allocated. Of this cumulative total, 73% would

be for Iraq, 24% for Afghanistan, and 3% for enhanced security. If Congress approves the

FY2010 war request, war funding since the 9/11 attacks would total over $1 trillion."



You would think we would have learned something from Viet Nam.



I wish President Obama would send our troops home NOW.
 
Watching Charlie Rose last night, the guest made the observation the prolonged deployments were taking a huge toll on senior field personel. He noted the skyrocketing divorce rate and observed "How many deployments can a marriage take?"



In my personal case, it's three. My highschool buddy has PTSD and refuses to get help, won't go to counciling for his marriage, and has effectively given up. He's still in theater and my godchildren don't even know about it yet. As much as I want to fault the neocons for this I'm entirely too sad to hate on somebody for this awful state of affairs.



That said, I'm with McCrystal - flood the joint with US troops, give the government a chance, and then walk out with your head held high like in Iraq.
 
[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1249950395]

I have no idea. I know this -the father of two of my Godchildren is getting sent off on his third tour - two to Iraq, now to Afganistan. <strong> If you're against this campaign, you are against my Godchildren</strong> (not to mention my country) and you'll have a fight on your hands from me.

</blockquote>


This is the kind of illogical, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man">straw man</a> argument that is like a cancer on the political discussions in modern society. Its just pompous, self-serving, and does not add anything to a meaningful discussion on the topic at hand. No one gives a damn about your godchildren in the practical discussion of the war.



Guess what, I am both AGAINST the Afghanistan campaign and NOT AGAINST your godchildren. Can you comprehend that? Someone can disagree with the reasons for war and want the troops immediately pulled out, but still wish no specific harm to your godkids.



In my opinion, supporting the troops means being against the ongoing wars and BRINGING THEM HOME. Can you wrap you head around that? Do you know how many soldiers are severely wounded but not killed? (thanks to modern battlefield meds). Do you know how many soldiers sustain permanent brain injuries and heightened chance of age-onset dementia from proximity to blasts - which will not manifest for another 10 years? Supporting them by supporting the campaign? Give me a break.



In fact, I think one would be more in favor of your godkids if their dad wasnt oversees and potentially dying or sustain life-altering PTSD and brain trauma.
 
It's not a strawman argument when I say what I mean and I mean what I say - and buddy, I mean it. I'll fight.



Let me ask this question:



It is obvious you do not support this campaign, but do you also not support the troops?
 
I still recall my Father who was discharged as an E9 in the Army after 20 years.

He was a Ranger and general bad azz conservative.



We would get in some incredible arguments over Viet Nam back when I was young.

"The Communists would take over Australia if we dont stop them in Asia" Dad was fond of saying.

He would just go insane when I openly went to Anti War events.



Funny thing. One day almost 20 years later. Dad and I are out playing Golf.

Out of nowhere he looks at me and says. "You were right about Viet Nam son"

"I cant believe how stupid it was for us to fight that war. What a waste of lives"



Dad started to become a liberal in his old age. It was wonderful to watch him finally grow up.
 
Actually, it is a text-book definition of a strawman argument. You are misrepresenting your opponents position by restating it or oversimplifying it in a way that situates your argument in a position of undue advantage. Please see the included hyperlink over "straw man" in the original post.



To answer your question, I do support the troops. My younger brother is in the armed forces and I believe he will likely be seeing action in his semi-near future. I simply reject the premise that I MUST be FOR the campaign or the cause to be for "the troops". They are not mutually dependent. My idea of supporting the troops is bringing them home.



"Supporting the troops" is such an intangible and malleable concept that it has truly come to mean <em>nothing at all</em> these days. For many years it was a blind cry by the right wing to support the "war on terror". People who stopped and thought a little more about it, however, realize that another agenda was being pressed under the banner of the war on terror.



I would wager that virtually everyone on both sides of the argument, no matter how extreme, has no specific desire to see an American troop killed, inadequately support or supplied, etc.
 
[quote author="MojoJD" date=1255134516]

To answer your question, I do support the troops. </blockquote>


Then your issue is with policy, and we have no beef between the two of us.
 
[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1255135885][quote author="MojoJD" date=1255134516]

To answer your question, I do support the troops. </blockquote>


Then your issue is with policy, and we have no beef between the two of us.</blockquote>


Just to add fire to the flames (and this is an interesting thread):



NoVas - you are no longer standing behind you statement: <strong> If you?re against this campaign, you are against my Godchildren</strong>. Because Mojo is obviously against the campaign but not against the troops and not against your Godchildren
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top