|
Posted on 07/10/2010 6:27:42 AM PDT by tobyhill
Five American service members and at least a dozen civilians died in attacks Saturday in Afghanistan's volatile east and south, adding to a summer of escalating violence as Taliban militants push back against stepped-up operations by international and Afghan forces.
NATO said one U.S. service member died as a result of small-arms fire, another was killed by a roadside bombing and a third died during an insurgent attack in separate incidents in eastern Afghanistan. Two other U.S. troops died in separate roadside bombings in southern Afghanistan. Their deaths raised to 22 the number of American troops killed so far this month in the war.
Also, unknown gunmen killed 11 Pakistani Shia tribesmen in the east and at least one person died when a bomb planted on a motorbike exploded in Kandahar city in the south, officials said.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
how much more do people need in order to realize that Obama is inept and/or has evil intent than this: close to 600 battlefield deaths occured under 7 1/2 years, under Bush. 600 Battlefield deaths occurred under 18 months of Obama’s regime. That is absolutely INSANE!!!
 |
Are you telling me that MSNBC is reporting on the number of deaths of American service members in an overseas warzone with a Dem in white house? That’s racist!
That said, the article gives very few specifics on the particular circumstances of these deaths, and nothing whatsoever is said about the ROEs being a factor.
Are you privy to information not contained in the article? If not, the creative title can be considered misinformation.
Since Petraeus announced a study of the ROE with the intent to change them, we assume that O’s ROE continue to be in effect.
Are you privy to some information that the ROE has changed in the past few weeks?
Osama/Oblama doesn’t give a sh!t about US casualties.
In fact, it probably gives him a hard on. Goddamned muslim imposter.
No I'm not. In fact, I'm quite sure that the ROEs have not been changed yet in any official capacity.
That's not, however, what I was addressing in the above post. Let me put it another way, as either clarity on my part or reading comprehension on the part of others seems to be lacking.
The OP embellished the title by adding "Obama's Rules Of Engagement gets more US Troops killed." However, when one actually reads the article, there's nothing whatsoever in the it that indicates these U.S. troops were killed because of the ROEs.
While it's possible for that to be the case, it's also quite possible that these particular soldiers could have been killed in any number of ways having nothing whatsoever to do with the rules of engagement. Hence, the creative title is misleading and misinformative.
Am I being more clear here, or am I going to have to come back a third time and write a mini-novel just to make a simple point?
Let me be clear, the war was under control with Bush but along came an Obama who manages to ruin everything he touches.
The only thing I would change in the title,
“NATO reports 6 American troops killed in east, south Afghanistan”
This is reprehensible. It's only the 10th of the month.
I agree that we have no way of knowing if these particular deaths are the result of the current ROEs but they need to be changed in any case...
I wouldn’t say things were under control under Bush. It was low intensity and we weren’t really prosecuting it all that heavily. Obama added 30000 troops and intensified combat and conatct with the enemy so of course there are going to be more casualties. Just like casualties in Iraq spiked at the start of the surge. Look at casualties in Iraq in 2007 and for say March-August. If things still look like this in summer of next yr, ok. But things could look very different by then.
Also, the casualties in Afghanistan now are still far, far less than they were during the heyday of the Iraq War. On pace for 400 this yr compared to 900+ in 2007.
In any event, historically they are still very low. 400(or even 900) in a year is onthing compared to the totals in WW2, Vietnam, Korea, etc...
Agreed. I was just saying things weren’t exactly peaches and cream over there before Obama.
And as much as you don’t want to see any casualties, an avg of a little over 1 KIA a day over a course of a yr isn’t what I’d call heavy casualties.
If that’s going to be enough to sour the public and to end support then we as may as well pack up and leave.
I think a lot of it is the mindset and the media. If WW2 was fought under the current conditions we’d have withdrawn after the initial forays in North Africa the Germans would have won easily.
Indeed...
I still don’t want our troops restricted by current ROEs
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
