Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 88

Thread: US Deaths Double In Afghanistan As Troops Pour In

  1. #51
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: US Deaths Double In Afghanistan As Troops Pour In

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    not going to even waste my time with you.
    OK. You don't. Would be easier if you would just admit it.

  2. #52
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    LIBTARDISTAN
    Last Seen
    05-01-10 @ 11:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,629

    Re: US Deaths Double In Afghanistan As Troops Pour In

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Do you have any evidence they do? Or is this another you just know deal?
    It's a common sense deal.........

    • No night or surprise searches.

    • Villagers have to be warned prior to searches.

    • ANA or ANP must accompany U.S. units on searches.

    • U.S. soldiers may not fire at the enemy unless the enemy is preparing to fire first.

    Please, it's like calling the cops to tell them your on your way to rob a bank....

  3. #53
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,993

    Re: US Deaths Double In Afghanistan As Troops Pour In

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    are you saying these absurd ROE's have absolutley nothing to do with the higher body count?
    Irrelevant to Erods idiotic notion that having more troops in a place does not factor in, in some fashion, to the increase in deaths.

    Lets say on average only 1% of our troops die in an area die per month, be it from fire or from freak accidents.

    If you up it from 100 troops to 1000 simply by the increased number yo'ure likely to see more deaths as you have a larger group size for the same situations to occur to.

    Is it the ONLy reason? No. But its incredibly ignorant to assume and state that it has NO affect on it.

    None of which touches on the notion that Erod, and you to a lesser extent (after giving a half hearted scolding that immedietely went into the "but but but liberals did it!" reaction), are once again using troop deaths and totals to push your political agenda under the notion that its "for the troops". Bull****, its due to the hatred people have for this President and the desire to get after him at every moment, or to give him faint praise when he does well and immedietely find something to complain about in such situations.

    Using troop deaths for politican gains is disgusting, right or left, no matter your reasons. You have a problem with his rules of engagement, there are numerous ways to speak your issues with that instead of trying to take the emotional ploy, using the troops as PROPS, by weeping about the "unnecessary deaths" to try and bolster your point.

    Erod, and to a lesser extent you in your continued defense against him, are no better than Code Pink when it comes to pathetic manipulation of the troops as props.

  4. #54
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: US Deaths Double In Afghanistan As Troops Pour In

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    OK. You don't. Would be easier if you would just admit it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Erod View Post
    God help us all.

    Doesn't it just kind of make sense? If you kill the people before they have a chance to shoot you, does that not increase your chances?

    This ain't rocket science, pardon the pun.

    Read these again:

    • No night or surprise searches.

    • Villagers have to be warned prior to searches.

    • ANA or ANP must accompany U.S. units on searches.

    • U.S. soldiers may not fire at the enemy unless the enemy is preparing to fire first.

    • U.S. forces cannot engage the enemy if civilians are present.

    • Only women can search women.

    • Troops can fire at an insurgent if they catch him placing an IED but not if insurgents are walking away from an area where explosives have been laid.
    Here's the admission.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  5. #55
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: US Deaths Double In Afghanistan As Troops Pour In

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Irrelevant to Erods idiotic notion that having more troops in a place does not factor in, in some fashion, to the increase in deaths.

    Lets say on average only 1% of our troops die in an area die per month, be it from fire or from freak accidents.

    If you up it from 100 troops to 1000 simply by the increased number yo'ure likely to see more deaths as you have a larger group size for the same situations to occur to.

    Is it the ONLy reason? No. But its incredibly ignorant to assume and state that it has NO affect on it.

    None of which touches on the notion that Erod, and you to a lesser extent (after giving a half hearted scolding that immedietely went into the "but but but liberals did it!" reaction), are once again using troop deaths and totals to push your political agenda under the notion that its "for the troops". Bull****, its due to the hatred people have for this President and the desire to get after him at every moment, or to give him faint praise when he does well and immedietely find something to complain about in such situations.

    Using troop deaths for politican gains is disgusting, right or left, no matter your reasons. You have a problem with his rules of engagement, there are numerous ways to speak your issues with that instead of trying to take the emotional ploy, using the troops as PROPS, by weeping about the "unnecessary deaths" to try and bolster your point.

    Erod, and to a lesser extent you in your continued defense against him, are no better than Code Pink when it comes to pathetic manipulation of the troops as props.
    Neither Rev nor Erod started this thread.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  6. #56
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,825

    Re: US Deaths Double In Afghanistan As Troops Pour In

    Quote Originally Posted by Erod View Post
    From the brief research on the subject, most of those rules appear to have already been in place. The major change is ordering soldiers to withdraw if able when civilians are placed in danger during an engagement, and stricter rules on approving airstrikes when civilians are in danger.

    In any case, drawing a direct link between a change in ROE and doubling of casualties is ludicrous. Exploiting dead troops for political gain is sickening.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  7. #57
    Sage
    Erod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:53 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,072

    Re: US Deaths Double In Afghanistan As Troops Pour In

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    From the brief research on the subject, most of those rules appear to have already been in place.
    No, they weren't. Certainly not in practice.

  8. #58
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,719

    Re: US Deaths Double In Afghanistan As Troops Pour In

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Irrelevant to Erods idiotic notion that having more troops in a place does not factor in, in some fashion, to the increase in deaths.

    Lets say on average only 1% of our troops die in an area die per month, be it from fire or from freak accidents.

    If you up it from 100 troops to 1000 simply by the increased number yo'ure likely to see more deaths as you have a larger group size for the same situations to occur to.

    Is it the ONLy reason? No. But its incredibly ignorant to assume and state that it has NO affect on it.

    None of which touches on the notion that Erod, and you to a lesser extent (after giving a half hearted scolding that immedietely went into the "but but but liberals did it!" reaction), are once again using troop deaths and totals to push your political agenda under the notion that its "for the troops". Bull****, its due to the hatred people have for this President and the desire to get after him at every moment, or to give him faint praise when he does well and immedietely find something to complain about in such situations.

    Using troop deaths for politican gains is disgusting, right or left, no matter your reasons. You have a problem with his rules of engagement, there are numerous ways to speak your issues with that instead of trying to take the emotional ploy, using the troops as PROPS, by weeping about the "unnecessary deaths" to try and bolster your point.

    Erod, and to a lesser extent you in your continued defense against him, are no better than Code Pink when it comes to pathetic manipulation of the troops as props.



    nope.... you misunderstand me. as one who suffered under super restrictive ROE i can attest to how much it sucks for my brothers and sisters in harms way when this level of ROE is applied.

    It directly leads to soldiers deaths......



    This is my position, i don't agree with erod that troop level increases have no effect, even if that is his opinion, what i do agree with however is these political roe's are irresponsible. whether it was a republican in charge, or a democrat.....


    how this makes me the same as those treasonous bitches at code pink, i am sorry zyph, i do not get how you arrived at that conclusion.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  9. #59
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,719

    Re: US Deaths Double In Afghanistan As Troops Pour In

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    From the brief research on the subject, most of those rules appear to have already been in place. The major change is ordering soldiers to withdraw if able when civilians are placed in danger during an engagement, and stricter rules on approving airstrikes when civilians are in danger.

    In any case, drawing a direct link between a change in ROE and doubling of casualties is ludicrous. Exploiting dead troops for political gain is sickening.



    I don't believe they were, do you have a link? furthermore, if they were, then Bush is equally culpable for a political roe endangering troops. thouh this will be the 1st i heard this....
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  10. #60
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,825

    Re: US Deaths Double In Afghanistan As Troops Pour In

    Quote Originally Posted by Erod View Post
    No, they weren't. Certainly not in practice.
    That link doesn't say that's a list of new ROE, merely a list of ROEs. Other articles I can find focus solely on the civilian danger rule, not even mentioning any other changes.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •