Bloodiest month ever in Afghanistan for US soldiers

MonsterMark

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
9,225
Reaction score
3
Location
United States
Where's the NY Times front page death count now that Obama is in office.

Obama changed generals who then changed the strategy and now Americans are dying in record numbers.

Where's the outrage from the Left?

Why are so many Americans needlessly dying?

Why are there so many bombings in Iraq now?

Why is this President losing two wars simultaneously?
 
Say what you will about her, Cindy Sheehan is protesting Obama during his 'vacation.' Though it's not leading the evening news anymore either.
 
Where's the NY Times front page death count now that Obama is in office.



Obama changed generals who then changed the strategy and now Americans are dying in record numbers.

Gen McChrystal was given a horrible situation. I dont know how it was when you were there, but while I was there we weren't getting killed, because we were only going in good areas, we were making them come find us. Check Gen. McChrystal's resume, He commanded Special Forces, what more can you ask for? Iraq took a turn for the worst just before it got a whole lot better.

Where's the outrage from the Left?

Why are so many Americans needlessly dying?
Americans are dying because Afghanistan is where the terrorist are, NOT IRAQ, Iraq was just a side project for both sides of the house.
Why are there so many bombings in Iraq now??
They have picked up bombing because Americans are no longer leading the fight for their country, we created a mess by invading Iraq, we should have just left Saddam in place, he had his people under control.

Why is this President losing two wars simultaneously?
We are waiting for you to sign up for the Army, want to join?
 
Wrong on all fronts.

This should simplify things for you...


War Fighting The Liberal Way

NorCal Blogs reminds us that right after Obama selected a new general to manage the war in Afghanistan casualties began to creep upward as leading military officials said the Taliban presence is growing and the situation in Afghanistan is seriously deteriorating.

In response to the increasing threat, Obama's new man, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, laid down stricter rules of engagement in a tactical directive sent to all foreign forces in Afghanistan. The US Army spokesman in Afghanistan, Col. Greg Julian, said, "The guidance to the troops clarifies that citizens are the centre of gravity and that we should do everything to gain their support and we must do everything to avoid civilian casualties...." He assured reporters this is absolutely not a repeat of the huge mistake we made in Iraq before General Petreaus introduced the SURGE and wiped out nests of enemy fighters and gained the trust of the locals by a show of force. This time taking the softer, kinder approach is different somehow, we're not sure exactly how it's different, but that's their story and they are sticking to it.

The new policy has already seen a strong cut back in precision bombing of high value targets due to a concern about possible non-combatant collateral damage. General McChrystal felt the trade-off from grateful civilians verses killing enemy leaders would be well worth any American causalities this might cause. Already, this may be working as Taliban soldiers moving caravans of guns and ammo have expressed their deepest appreciation for the lull in aerial bombings.

Soldiers may not fire upon anyone unless fired upon. Then if the enemy combatants flee in the direction of civilians, they may not be fired upon at all in order to avoid civilian casualties. Again, General McChrystal made it clear soldiers should consider themselves as good will ambassadors first and soldiers second. This outreach of concern and friendship should help the Taliban moderate their religious and political views, at least according to the new Obama/Army policy and then eventually we can talk them out of being evil, murderous thugs and we'll all live happily ever after.

The Unofficial US Army spokespeople responded to this and said:

"Obama is F#@$%!#@ nuts and so's his punk General! We are fightin' and dyin' over here against a determined, fanatical F^#$ing enemy who has NO F@%#ing rules whatsoever and he's telling us to F@*&%$%& cut back on the bombing in areas we can't reach any other way? Holy SH--! He's also telling us to check fire until we're shot at before engaging the enemy? And not to fire at all if there is one F#@#$%^& civilian in the area? You want us to check the civilians references first or what? Give us a break! We're here to fight a war -- we only know one way to do that and this ain't it!

Meanwhile these Muth#%F#$%&%* Huns are running free all over the countryside, terrorizing the civilian populace, planting bombs, planning ambushes and killing soldiers right and left! What kind of A F%$#@&%% way is this to win a war? This is so F &^%$%$&#@# unbelievably stupid, and we know it's coming right out of the White House from this stupid F@#^%&*&%$ dope smokin', drug takin', liberal puke who has never spent one day in a uniform. This F#@#$%^ As#@*&* is getting us killed over here and it's going to get a lot worse... thanks to this F@%^&$#in idiot Obama!

You will never win sh## until the Taliban are taken out (dead) and the locals can finally feel safe. If this is the stupid F#@#@$%^ way we're supposed to fight you people back home might as well pull us out now and give it back to the F'n Taliban!

NOTE: The Mainstream Media and the White House did not authorize the publication of the unofficial response.
 
Wrong on all fronts.

This should simplify things for you...


War Fighting The Liberal Way

NorCal Blogs reminds us that right after Obama selected a new general to manage the war in Afghanistan casualties began to creep upward as leading military officials said the Taliban presence is growing and the situation in Afghanistan is seriously deteriorating.

In response to the increasing threat, Obama's new man, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, laid down stricter rules of engagement in a tactical directive sent to all foreign forces in Afghanistan. The US Army spokesman in Afghanistan, Col. Greg Julian, said, "The guidance to the troops clarifies that citizens are the centre of gravity and that we should do everything to gain their support and we must do everything to avoid civilian casualties...." He assured reporters this is absolutely not a repeat of the huge mistake we made in Iraq before General Petreaus introduced the SURGE and wiped out nests of enemy fighters and gained the trust of the locals by a show of force. This time taking the softer, kinder approach is different somehow, we're not sure exactly how it's different, but that's their story and they are sticking to it.

The new policy has already seen a strong cut back in precision bombing of high value targets due to a concern about possible non-combatant collateral damage. General McChrystal felt the trade-off from grateful civilians verses killing enemy leaders would be well worth any American causalities this might cause. Already, this may be working as Taliban soldiers moving caravans of guns and ammo have expressed their deepest appreciation for the lull in aerial bombings.

Soldiers may not fire upon anyone unless fired upon. Then if the enemy combatants flee in the direction of civilians, they may not be fired upon at all in order to avoid civilian casualties. Again, General McChrystal made it clear soldiers should consider themselves as good will ambassadors first and soldiers second. This outreach of concern and friendship should help the Taliban moderate their religious and political views, at least according to the new Obama/Army policy and then eventually we can talk them out of being evil, murderous thugs and we'll all live happily ever after.

The Unofficial US Army spokespeople responded to this and said:

"Obama is F#@$%!#@ nuts and so's his punk General! We are fightin' and dyin' over here against a determined, fanatical F^#$ing enemy who has NO F@%#ing rules whatsoever and he's telling us to F@*&%$%& cut back on the bombing in areas we can't reach any other way? Holy SH--! He's also telling us to check fire until we're shot at before engaging the enemy? And not to fire at all if there is one F#@#$%^& civilian in the area? You want us to check the civilians references first or what? Give us a break! We're here to fight a war -- we only know one way to do that and this ain't it!

Meanwhile these Muth#%F#$%&%* Huns are running free all over the countryside, terrorizing the civilian populace, planting bombs, planning ambushes and killing soldiers right and left! What kind of A F%$#@&%% way is this to win a war? This is so F &^%$%$&#@# unbelievably stupid, and we know it's coming right out of the White House from this stupid F@#^%&*&%$ dope smokin', drug takin', liberal puke who has never spent one day in a uniform. This F#@#$%^ As#@*&* is getting us killed over here and it's going to get a lot worse... thanks to this F@%^&$#in idiot Obama!

You will never win sh## until the Taliban are taken out (dead) and the locals can finally feel safe. If this is the stupid F#@#@$%^ way we're supposed to fight you people back home might as well pull us out now and give it back to the F'n Taliban!

NOTE: The Mainstream Media and the White House did not authorize the publication of the unofficial response.

Show me this soldiers resume, SF is all I have to say! Bush issued the same guidelines in Iraq, we have to go by the Geneva Convention, i Know it sucks, but thats what we signed up for.
 
Show me this soldiers resume, SF is all I have to say!
But he answers to a civilian leadership.
One that has contempt for the military.

Here's an excerpt from an AP story in June.
" The U.S. commander in Afghanistan will soon order U.S. and NATO forces to break away from fights with militants hiding among villagers, an official said Monday, announcing one of the strongest measures yet to protect Afghan civilians.

The most contentious civilian casualty cases in recent years occurred during battles in Afghan villages when U.S. airstrikes aimed at militants also killed civilians. American commanders say such deaths hurt their mission because they turn average Afghans against the government and international forces …

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who took command of international forces in Afghanistan this month, has said his measure of effectiveness will be the “number of Afghans shielded from violence” — not the number of militants killed.

McChrystal will issue orders within days saying troops may attack insurgents hiding in Afghan houses if U.S. or NATO forces are in imminent danger, said U.S. military spokesman Rear Adm. Greg Smith.

“But if there is a compound they’re taking fire from and they can remove themselves from the area safely, without any undue danger to the forces, then that’s the option they should take,” Smith said. “Because in these compounds we know there are often civilians kept captive by the Taliban.”


That doesn't sound like the same policy employed during the Iraqi Surge. Isn't it the similar to the policies in Somalia and Iraq when the U.S. was taking heavier losses?
 
That doesn't sound like the same policy employed during the Iraqi Surge. Isn't it the similar to the policies in Somalia and Iraq when the U.S. was taking heavier losses?

Obama and McChrystal feel that an Afgani's life is more important than an American life. End of Story.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top