Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 88

Thread: US Deaths Double In Afghanistan As Troops Pour In

  1. #61
    Sage
    Erod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Last Seen
    12-16-17 @ 11:47 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,073

    Re: US Deaths Double In Afghanistan As Troops Pour In

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    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.
    Absolute bullsh; I did nothing of the sort.

    The only thing I contributed was to list the rules of engagement changes Obama employed, and I pointed out the disgust of the troops over it.

    Read the list. Does that not disturb you? How'd you like to be over there fighting with those limitations?

    It's as if these soldiers' lives mean nothing. That is EXACTLY the point I'm trying to make, so don't come with the weak Code Pink nonsense.

  2. #62
    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 Partisan View Post
    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....
    There's very little common about good sense, but that aid, you do have to show that it contributes. No matter what you assume, it is still just an assumption until you prove it.

    Cops, btw, follow a good many rules and still manage to their job most the time.

  3. #63
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,764

    Re: US Deaths Double In Afghanistan As Troops Pour In

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post

    Cops, btw, follow a good many rules and still manage to their job most the time.




    Did he really just compare cops to soldiers????
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  4. #64
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,013

    Re: US Deaths Double In Afghanistan As Troops Pour In

    Quote Originally Posted by Erod View Post
    Absolute bullsh; I did nothing of the sort.

    The only thing I contributed was to list the rules of engagement changes Obama employed, and I pointed out the disgust of the troops over it.
    Really, that's all you contributed to this thread? I must've imagined this part.

    Quote Originally Posted by Erod View Post
    The point is, Obama's rules of engagement are incredibly unpopular among the troops, and it's getting soldiers needlessly killed.
    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    100% agree......
    What's that? Oh, its you using a thread about body counts of American Troops to push your political agenda through emotional cries of its getting them "Needlessly killed" as if they troops are nothing but worthless props, and Rev coming being saying he 100% agree's with everything you just said.

    As I said, you're no different in this than Code Pink, using the troops and their deaths as political props to push your partisan agenda and Rev's there clapping you every step of the way.

    Or to put it another way, we could just take your early words and say they may as well be speaking about yourself

    Quote Originally Posted by Erod View Post
    It is truly pathetic what he's doing to these troops for political reasons.
    ANYONE that uses troop deaths for political gain, treating them like props, does those men and women a disservice.

    I don't like the ROE under Obama in the least, but I'm not going to use a thread designed to use our troops deaths for a political agenda to speak about it nor am I going to bother speaking about it with people who continue said thread while continuing to use said troops as props.

  5. #65
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,764

    Re: US Deaths Double In Afghanistan As Troops Pour In

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    What's that? Oh, its you using a thread about body counts of American Troops to push your political agenda through emotional cries of its getting them "Needlessly killed" as if they troops are nothing but worthless props, and Rev coming being saying he 100% agree's with everything you just said.

    As I said, you're no different in this than Code Pink, using the troops and their deaths as political props to push your partisan agenda and Rev's there clapping you every step of the way.

    Or to put it another way, we could just take your early words and say they may as well be speaking about yourself
    .



    I stand behind exactly what i said. Was his hyperbolic used "needlesly killed" words that I would have used? nope. I would have said "put them at more risk" which they absolutley do...


    As one who has dealt with ROE's that were restrictive. I speak from a little more experience here...'


    If Bush had these same ROE's then I'd hold the same position. So lets drop this bellyaching code pink nonsens and discuss this rationally. ok?
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  6. #66
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,764

    Re: US Deaths Double In Afghanistan As Troops Pour In

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    And of course now that Republicans are claiming people are "needlessly getting cared" (a statement that illicited calls of "Using the troops for political gain" and "You don't support then" in the past) its obviously true and therefore completely acceptable, but when the Dem's did it then they hated the troops, american, and apple pie.

    Here is my problem with Obama's strategy:

    It is well known that I was against the war in Iraq, but if we were going to fight it, we should have made a bigger commitment in regard to boots on the ground. I believe troops died needlessly because the Bush administration chose to wage a war "on the cheap", without asking Americans for a little sacrifice. Bush told us to "go shopping". Towards the end of his administration, Bush saw the war on the cheap was not working, so he implemented the troops surge, which has done quite a bit to stabilize the bad situation over there. I did not support the surge, but I was wrong. Bush did a good job with it.

    With Obama, it is the same thing, but only worse. He is conducting a surge of sorts, but it is not nearly enough. While Iraq has a lot of flat plains, Afghanistan is very mountainous, making this war much more difficult. Obama plans to ramp up troops to about 100,000, but this is a nation that not only defeated the British, but also defeated Russia, which put more than half a million men into Afghanistan. The Mujahadeen successfully waged a war of attrition that defeated the Soviets, not with any major military victory, but by inflicting thousands of "small cuts".

    IMHO, Obama's strategy is not enough. And here is where decision time comes in. We are going to need many more boots on the ground, and to win this war, Obama is going to have to ask Americans to make some sacrifices. I don't see any other way.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  7. #67
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,013

    Re: US Deaths Double In Afghanistan As Troops Pour In

    ^---- Is a way to to make the argument with actual facts and without trying to manipulate emotions by using the troops as props.

    Rev, sorry if you don't think its "rational" or you want to nuance it, but when you "agree 100%" with someone people tend to think you mean that you agree "100%" with them, not "I agree mostly with them but there's some things I don't agree with". Erod plainly and fully, piggy backing off Prof's thread, used the troops deaths as a political prop and you "agreed 100%" with it. Rather than admit your error you've done nothing but try to excuse it or explain it away while complaining for being called out for exactly what you did.

    Dana, I agree he's going to have to ask American's to sacrifice. Its something I actually wish Bush would've done. At the same itme, like I felt under Bush, I don't think we need to be using the troops as political props nor having a rolling death count thrown out there all the time. In the years since the American people were last in a serious war the society, for the most part, have gotten soft. We lived in the Nintendo age where war was watching a plane fly over, drop some bombs, make some lights, and that was the end. Death was as likely to occur by an accident on a carrier than it was in combat for much of the 90's.

    With the amount of coverage of deaths seeming to severely become reduced when Obama has came into office has made it clear the intent of the constant body count coverage during the Bush years. It had nothing to do with "caring about the troops" and everything to do with weakening the spirit and resolve of the American people in hopes of them supporting the Democrats agenda when it came to the war effort. Once the swap in power came about the need to weaken resolve went away, as that would cause problems for the current Administration that is continuing the wars. That said, seeing the damage it did in the past years now those on the right are using the same, pathetic, dishonorable, disrespectful tactic to do the same to Obama.

    Its wrong, completely and utterly.

    People die in War. Its not PC to say that. Its not considered empathetic to say that. But they do. That's the sad dirty fact. We don't need to constantly have the general population hearing how much it is each and every day or week or month. That does not mean we can not, or should not, question the strategies and actions by our government when it comes to wars. However, when one uses the deaths of troops to make an argument that can be made without that portion of the discussion then you are doing nothing but utilizing the blood, the death, of our men and women to push your political ends. If you can't make your argument without attempting to make the emotional plea than frankly your argument is weak.

  8. #68
    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
    Did he really just compare cops to soldiers????
    No. Answered a comparison of cops to soldiers:

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

    But skip the point to be silly if you must.

  9. #69
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: US Deaths Double In Afghanistan As Troops Pour In

    Some American and Afghan troops say they're fighting the latest offensive in Afghanistan with a handicap strict rules that routinely force them to hold their fire.

    "I understand the reason behind it, but it's so hard to fight a war like this," said Lance Cpl. Travis Anderson, 20, of Altoona, Iowa. "They're using our rules of engagement against us," he said, adding that his platoon had repeatedly seen men drop their guns into ditches and walk away to blend in with civilians.

    If a man emerges from a Taliban hideout after shooting erupts, U.S. troops say they cannot fire at him if he is not seen carrying a weapon or if they did not personally watch him drop one.

    What this means, some contend, is that a militant can fire at them, then set aside his weapon and walk freely out of a compound, possibly toward a weapons cache in another location. It was unclear how often this has happened. In another example, Marines pinned down by a barrage of insurgent bullets say they can't count on quick air support because it takes time to positively identify shooters.

    "This is difficult," Lance Cpl. Michael Andrejczuk, 20, of Knoxville, Tenn., said Monday. "We are trained like when we see something, we obliterate it. But here, we have to see them and when we do, they don't have guns."

    NATO and Afghan military officials say killing militants is not the goal of a 3-day-old attack to take control of this Taliban stronghold in southern Afghanistan. More important is to win public support.

    They acknowledge that the rules entail risk to its troops, but maintain that civilian casualties or destruction of property can alienate the population and lead to more insurgent recruits, more homemade bombs and a prolonged conflict.
    Troops: Strict war rules slow Afghan offensive

  10. #70
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,764

    Re: US Deaths Double In Afghanistan As Troops Pour In

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    ^---- Is a way to to make the argument with actual facts and without trying to manipulate emotions by using the troops as props.

    Rev, sorry if you don't think its "rational" or you want to nuance it, but when you "agree 100%" with someone people tend to think you mean that you agree "100%" with them, not "I agree mostly with them but there's some things I don't agree with". Erod plainly and fully, piggy backing off Prof's thread, used the troops deaths as a political prop and you "agreed 100%" with it. Rather than admit your error you've done nothing but try to excuse it or explain it away while complaining for being called out for exactly what you did.



    My bad, I agree with him 75% jeesh....



    I made what i agreed with clear in subsequent posts. I'm sorry you would rather stick to this small "gotcha" debate style to incorrectly typecast me as "using troops as political fodder" when you know, if you look at what i have said and alawys say in these threads, clearly show what my position is regarding restrictive ROE's and thier effect on those of us who are serving or have served.


    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 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
  •