• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

31 American Troops Killed In NATO Helicopter Crash In Afghanistan

Top Cat

He's the most tip top
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Messages
32,770
Reaction score
14,377
Location
Near Seattle
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
KABUL, Afghanistan -- A military helicopter crashed in eastern Afghanistan, killing 31 U.S. special operation troops and seven Afghan commandos, the country's president said Saturday. An American official said it was apparently shot down, in the deadliest single incident for American forces in the decade-long war.


31 American Troops Killed In NATO Helicopter Crash In Afghanistan

God rest their souls.

We need to get the **** out of the ME once and for all.
 
Yes, we do. Every time an American soldier dies over there the terrorists win yet again.

What about every time a terrorist dies? We lose, or something?
 
What about every time a terrorist dies? We lose, or something?

Dude, these terrorists are beating the best army in history, they've been surviving for the past 10 years and don't seem to be going away anytime soon. What do you not understand out that?
 
What about every time a terrorist dies? We lose, or something?

Some of us still remember the waste of human life that was called Vietnam. Choose carefully before you decide to lecture me.
 
Poor guys died fighting an unwinnable war. RIP, Troops.
 
Dude, these terrorists are beating the best army in history, they've been surviving for the past 10 years and don't seem to be going away anytime soon. What do you not understand out that?

How are they beating us?
 
Some of us still remember the waste of human life that was called Vietnam. Choose carefully before you decide to lecture me.

We won Vietnam, too.
 
The economy called, it wants to know if this question was serious.

In other words, you can't answer the question, so you're going to bombard with talking points and hyperbole?
 
In other words, you can't answer the question, so you're going to bombard with talking points and hyperbole?

Your refusal to see a simple answer is no concern of mine.
 
It appears that you are either a complete fool or can't read.

You're wrong on both accounts. I know enough to know that the Taliban isn't, "beating", us. If anyone is losing, it's the defeatists here at home.
 
You're wrong on both accounts. I know enough to know that the Taliban isn't, "beating", us. If anyone is losing, it's the defeatists here at home.

I understand it may be a stretch, but that response was about Vietnam, can you at least try to keep up?

The one law that was immutable during America's long, bitter and costly involvement in Vietnam was Murphy's: Everything that could go wrong did. There is blame enough to go around, and Jeffrey Record spares no one in this brief but thoughtful examination of all the old arguments and all the old questions.

Where were civilian political leaders with a vision keen enough to recognize that Indochina made no real claim on America's national security interests? Where were military leaders of the caliber of Omar Bradley and Matthew B. Ridgeway who could argue convincingly against armed intervention when it wasn't warranted?

Record, who served a tour as a civilian State Department adviser in the Mekong Delta and was later a legislative assistant to Senators Sam Nunn and Lloyd Bentsen, declares at the outset that in his view the main causes of the American defeat in Vietnam were a misinterpretation of both the significance and nature of the struggle; an underestimation of the enemy's tenacity and fighting power; an overestimation of United States political stamina and military effectiveness; and the absence of a politically competitive South Vietnam.
 
I understand it may be a stretch, but that response was about Vietnam, can you at least try to keep up?

The one law that was immutable during America's long, bitter and costly involvement in Vietnam was Murphy's: Everything that could go wrong did. There is blame enough to go around, and Jeffrey Record spares no one in this brief but thoughtful examination of all the old arguments and all the old questions.

Where were civilian political leaders with a vision keen enough to recognize that Indochina made no real claim on America's national security interests? Where were military leaders of the caliber of Omar Bradley and Matthew B. Ridgeway who could argue convincingly against armed intervention when it wasn't warranted?

Record, who served a tour as a civilian State Department adviser in the Mekong Delta and was later a legislative assistant to Senators Sam Nunn and Lloyd Bentsen, declares at the outset that in his view the main causes of the American defeat in Vietnam were a misinterpretation of both the significance and nature of the struggle; an underestimation of the enemy's tenacity and fighting power; an overestimation of United States political stamina and military effectiveness; and the absence of a politically competitive South Vietnam.

We can discuss the need for being there, or we can discuss how we won while we were there. Which do you want?
 
We can discuss the need for being there, or we can discuss how we won while we were there. Which do you want?

If you persist in claiming that we won in Vietnam then you probably aren't worth having a conversation with.
 
If you persist in claiming that we won in Vietnam then you probably aren't worth having a conversation with.

Then, obviously you aren't knowledgable enough in history even debate the subject.
 
Then, obviously you aren't knowledgable enough in history even debate the subject.

I got out of the army in 1972, when did you get out?
 
Thank you for your service.

Doesn't take away from the fact that you're mistaken about Vietnam.

Son, I lived that history. We got our asses handed to us. We were run off the continent with our tail between our legs.
 
Thank you for your service.

Doesn't take away from the fact that you're mistaken about Vietnam.

The mistake is all yours, apdst. And the derailing of a thread about '31 American and Afghan military personnel' is also extremely disrespectful....

Paul
 
Son, I lived that history. We got our asses handed to us. We were run off the continent with our tail between our legs.

Care to point to the battles we lost; how they inflicted heavier casualties upon us with their overwhelming combat power? Who did we surrender to, Giap? When did the retreat take place?

I can't wait to hear your version of the history of the war.
 
Last edited:
The mistake is all yours, apdst. And the derailing of a thread about '31 American and Afghan military personnel' is also extremely disrespectful....

Paul

Using their deaths as proof that we're losing the war is even more disgusting. Did you read the OP?
 
Back
Top Bottom