PDA

View Full Version : 8 U.S. soldiers killed in Afghanistan




RonPaulFanInGA
10-27-2009, 02:35 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/10/27/afghan.deaths/index.html


Kabul, Afghanistan (CNN) -- The U.S. military suffered another day of heavy losses in Afghanistan on Tuesday as roadside bombs killed eight soldiers, two military officials told CNN.

Sandman33
10-27-2009, 02:45 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/10/27/afghan.deaths/index.html


This is horrible. We should leave. Now.

Bruno
10-27-2009, 02:46 PM
This will surely make it the deadliest month in the 8 year war.

How many of us would have thought nine years ago that we would be in our 8th year of war and on two fronts?

HOLLYWOOD
10-27-2009, 02:52 PM
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hvWEqwq3CrRvaQCmt21MfoYhjZJQD9BJIAU80


The deaths bring to 55 the total number of American troops killed in October in Afghanistan with 5 days to go in the month. I'm sure orders are to lay low AND let's see if Obozo and his Zombie staff mask/censor/block more coverage.


Code Pink?
Nancy Pelosi?
Dumbocrats?
Anti-War lefties?
...MIA

We already know the GOP NEOCON's outlook on this mess... THIS ALL PROVES the HYPOCRISY and LIES of the US Federal Governments Imperial Duopoly Totalitarian ruling class.

The previous high occurred in August, when 51 U.S. soldiers died and the troubled nation held the first round of its presidential election amid a wave of Taliban insurgent attacks.

The deadliest month of the Iraq conflict for U.S. forces was November 2004, when 137 Americans were killed during the assault to clear insurgents from the city of Fallujah.



"A loss like this is extremely difficult for the families as well as for those who served alongside these brave service members," said Navy Capt. Jane Campbell, a military spokeswoman. "Our thoughts and prayers are with the families and friends who mourn their loss."
The loss of life followed one of the worst days of the war for U.S. forces in Afghanistan since they launched air strikes in 2001 to oust the Taliban from power.
On Monday, a U.S. military helicopter crashed returning from the scene of a firefight with suspected Taliban drug traffickers in western Afghanistan, killing 10 Americans including three DEA agents. In a separate crash the same day, four more U.S. troops were killed when two helicopters collided over southern Afghanistan.
U.S. military officials insisted neither crash was the result of hostile fire, although the Taliban claimed they shot down a U.S. helicopter in the western province of Badghis. The U.S. did not say where in western Afghanistan its helicopter went down, and no other aircraft were reported missing.

manny229
10-27-2009, 02:56 PM
This will surely make it the deadliest month in the 8 year war.

How many of us would have thought nine years ago that we would be in our 8th year of war and on two fronts?


Almost as long as the Soviets....

Bruno
10-27-2009, 02:59 PM
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hvWEqwq3CrRvaQCmt21MfoYhjZJQD9BJIAU80


The deaths bring to 55 the total number of American troops killed in October in Afghanistan with 5 days to go in the month. I'm sure orders are to lay low AND let's see if Obozo and his Zombie staff mask/censor/block more coverage.


Code Pink?
Nancy Pelosi?
Dumbocrats?
Anti-War lefties?

We already know the GOP NEOCON's outlook on this mess... THIS ALL PROVES the HYPOCRISY and LIES of the US Federal Governments Imperial Duopoly Totalitarian ruling class.

The previous high occurred in August, when 51 U.S. soldiers died and the troubled nation held the first round of its presidential election amid a wave of Taliban insurgent attacks.

The deadliest month of the Iraq conflict for U.S. forces was November 2004, when 137 Americans were killed during the assault to clear insurgents from the city of Fallujah.


Good post.

Also - where is Keith Olbermann on this? "blankety-blank days since the declaration of Mission Accomplished...."

phill4paul
10-27-2009, 02:59 PM
How many of us would have thought nine years ago that we would be in our 8th year of war and on two fronts?

(Raises hand.) When they labeled the military action as a "War on Terrorism" I immediately equated it w/ the "War on Drugs". A perpetual war and one that increases the coffers of the ones w/ blood on their hands that no soap could ever scrub clean.

phill4paul
10-27-2009, 03:01 PM
THIS ALL PROVES the HYPOCRISY and LIES of the US Federal Governments Imperial Duopoly Totalitarian ruling class.[/B].

QFT! Hammer meets nail head. In the coffin of our youth.

Bruno
10-27-2009, 03:04 PM
(Raises hand.) When they labeled the military action as a "War on Terrorism" I immediately equated it w/ the "War on Drugs". A perpetual war and one that increases the coffers of the ones w/ blood on their hands that no soap could ever scrub clean.

Good answer. Wish more people would have known then what we all know now - we're not getting out for a long, long time since our definition for victory is "when Americans are safe and they stop killing us"

My serious doubts on Bush's going into Iraq for "weapons of mass destruction" were confirmed the 1st day of the war when we called it "Operation Iraqi Freedom".

cheapseats
10-27-2009, 03:06 PM
.
.
MindOfMo It is Not Okay to languish at War, steadily killing others elsewhere, then carry on with discretionary commerce as though nothing is Wrong.
about 5 hours ago from web
.
.
MindOfMo Worldwide animosity toward AND AMONG Americans mounts as Bad Guys are bailed out and Good Guys are sent off to die in "troubled" countries.
about 5 hours ago from web
.
.
MindOfMo The wars drag on precisely because we INCORPORATE a backdrop of perpetual war into Business As Usual. It's unconscionable. STARVE THE BEAST.
about 3 hours ago from web
.
.

idirtify
10-27-2009, 03:29 PM
Good post.

Also - where is Keith Olbermann on this? "blankety-blank days since the declaration of Mission Accomplished...."

You mean he doesn't sign off with that anymore - even though Obama has continued and escalted the war?? (I don't watch it any more.)

Bruno
10-27-2009, 03:34 PM
You mean he doesn't sign off with that anymore - even though Obama has continued and escalted the war?? (I don't watch it any more.)

Sorry, I am only assuming that he does not (I know where that can get me) as I don't watch any more, either.

Tonight I might tune in, though, just to see how he spins it, or if he chooses to completely ignore the deadliest month in the war and talk about some less important crap of his partisan choosing.

idirtify
10-27-2009, 03:40 PM
THIS ALL PROVES the HYPOCRISY and LIES of the US Federal Governments Imperial Duopoly Totalitarian ruling class.


Apparently you haven’t heard the latest. Obama is using this to prove [you guessed it] that MORE troops should be sent to [but you won't guess this one] protect the OTHER troops from the IEDs. Now I’m not sure, but I think a giant logical fallacy (much stupidity) is being shown here. Maybe I’m mistaken, but wouldn’t more troops only serve as MORE TARGETS?

olehounddog
10-27-2009, 04:18 PM
I think it's called creating a target rich environment. Then we send more soldiers to help those.

Pericles
10-27-2009, 09:00 PM
Apparently you haven’t heard the latest. Obama is using this to prove [you guessed it] that MORE troops should be sent to [but you won't guess this one] protect the OTHER troops from the IEDs. Now I’m not sure, but I think a giant logical fallacy (much stupidity) is being shown here. Maybe I’m mistaken, but wouldn’t more troops only serve as MORE TARGETS?

That was the Rumsfeld strategy - more troops = more losses. Many things in the military sphere are counter-intuitive. One of the principles of war is mass. Think of it this way, if I send one guy after you, you might fight thinking that you have a fair chance of success, if I send 3 after you, you still might fight if you think you might get lucky, if I send 10 after you, we know what the result will be, it is just a question of if you will fight, knowing that you are going to lose.

If you are one of the guys being sent, look at what happens to your odds of getting hit - they decrease as more mass is applied to the problem, and if sufficient mass is applied, even the absolute number of losses may decrease. In no case, does the cost of victory go up by applying more mass.

fj45lvr
10-27-2009, 09:20 PM
Good answer. Wish more people would have known then what we all know now - we're not getting out for a long, long time since our definition for victory is "when Americans are safe and they stop killing us".

The Americans are learning the play straight of the Israeli playbook....

create conditions bad enough that you have perpetual war and take what you want claiming the "higher ground" (aka blow smoke up the ignorant public's azz)

ClayTrainor
10-27-2009, 09:53 PM
I guess we can expect to see more of this from now on...