Attack on remote Afghan outposts kills 8 US troops

Re: Attack on remote Afghan outposts kills 8 US troops

PostBy: ErikLaurence On: Mon Oct 05, 2009 8:46 am

coalkirk wrote:
Everything is different now that the great military genius Obama is the CIC. Where are all the pictures of coffins coming into Dover AFB that were so critical for all to see when GWB was the CIC? Remember Obama said the Afhan war was the necessary war? Suddenly when he starts to take heat from the left wing nuts, he's not so sure. If Afghanistan falls back to the Taliban, Pakistan will be next along with all of their nukes. I think general Obama was right the first time. This is a necessary war. Every American hates to hear of casualties of our troops. Only the Westboro baptist church and Michael Moore types take any glee in them. But war is a dangerous business and people get killed. Many in this country have gone soft in the head. In WWII we lost thousands in one day many many times and people didn't lose their will to defeat the enemy. Fortunatley with the state of war today that is highly unlikkley. It is likely however that we could lose thousands or tens of thousands of civilians in a day if we don't succeed in this war on islamic extremeists.


Agree with most of the content, if not the tone of your post.

Afghanistan has been spiraling out of control since we invaded Iraq. It's really not an issue of "falling back", the Taliban were never defeated. Winning in Afghanistan is and has always been, important.

But since 2002 the country that scares the crap out of me is Pakistan. While we waste time with Iraq and Iran, Al Quaeda is one well placed car bomb away from having functional nukes in Pakistan now not 10 years from now.
ErikLaurence
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Reading Lehigh
Stove/Furnace Model: LL Hyfire II w/heat jacket

Re: Attack on remote Afghan outposts kills 8 US troops

PostBy: samhill On: Mon Oct 05, 2009 7:38 pm

Guess I`m gonna put in my two cents, first any general worthy of his stars would never do or say anything about his wants or needs outside the chain of comand. This outpost should have never been on low ground, I thought everyone knew that. I would think that most of the deaths happened at the beginning of the well planned attack( probably with inside help) I would not put too much trust in any Afgan. The coffins can be photographed unless the families express otherwise. Viet Nam & this war are also simular in that you don`t know who the enemy is, they can just blend right back into the population. The country should never have been put on the back burner while we invaded a country for no reason. The Afgan people will never back us(IMO) simply because they know that we will be gone one day, the people have never been treated well even by their own gov. when they had one. And very correctly we must be very careful with Pakistan & its nuke, for that reason alone we should have never left our guard down. We have been left a mess there with no easy solution. As for the base being overrun, it never was. Air support is still largely dependent on weather & logistics, in close intense fighting your limited to what kind of support you can give. God bless each & everyone of our brave men & women.
samhill
 
Hot Air Coal Stoker Furnace: keystoker 160
Hand Fed Coal Stove: hitzer 75 in garage
Stove/Furnace Make: keystoker/hitzer
Stove/Furnace Model: koker 160/ hitzer 75

Re: Attack on remote Afghan outposts kills 8 US troops

PostBy: mikeandgerry On: Mon Oct 05, 2009 8:45 pm

ErikLaurence wrote:So you're accusing a US officer of being mealy mouthed and deceptive.

The Afghan war is a tragedy now because it was initially prosecuted under the idiotic doctrine spelled out by Rumsfeld and Cheney. Sadly Bush valued loyalty more than competence so we were stuck with the very loyal but totally incompetent Rumsfeld as he mismanaged us into the hole we're in now. We're getting out of that hole in Iraq. But the Rumsfeld told Bush we won the war in Afghanistan in 2002, so the situation there decayed from 2003 until now.

Did you this violently attack the administration when Gen Eric Shinseki was forced out for telling the SecDef that it would take several hundred thousand soldiers to neutralize and stabilize Iraq? You realize the surge was proposed (under the name "clear and hold") prior to the 04 election but shot down for political reasons? Do you think the timing of the 2nd batlle of Fallujah (3 days after the 04 election) was not political? The insurgents had 6 extra months to fortify the city. How many extra American soldiers died in Fallujah because George Bush didn't want to take casualties before the election in 2004? How was that not politicians telling generals how to do their jobs?


Absolutely the spokesman for the military white washed the situation. They were embarassed. They should not have been but the president should have been extremely embarassed. He should have given the 40000 requested troops immediately upon request especially after the success of the surge in Iraq.

Your comment last night assumed facts not in evidence, namely that we had a victory in battle. You are wrong and calling me fallacious in my logic!? The fallacious logic of the left is that somehow the war in Iraq was unnecessary while the war in Afghanistan is critical to the US. To paraphrase the lefty protesters, "Afghanistan never attacked the US"

You are still blaming Rumsfeld? Please. Grow up. Rummy has been gone for three years. Did you notice the rebuke given to McChrystal by the Obama admin for lobbying in public for more troops...so this recent debacle could be avoided? Do you think that Obama is any different in his political positioning? It really is time to grow up, Erik. Seriously.

I would say the same to all the political fools in the press as well. Where are the protests and body counts and embedded reporters now that it's your war? Just remember that Bush had to prosecute a three front war: Afghanistan, Iraq and the left wing loons in the press.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091005/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_us_afghanistan
This link is broken, either the page no longer exists or there is some other issue like a typo.
mikeandgerry
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Axeman-Anderson Anthratube 130-M


Re: Attack on remote Afghan outposts kills 8 US troops

PostBy: mikeandgerry On: Mon Oct 05, 2009 9:14 pm

samhill wrote:Guess I`m gonna put in my two cents, first any general worthy of his stars would never do or say anything about his wants or needs outside the chain of comand. This outpost should have never been on low ground, I thought everyone knew that. I would think that most of the deaths happened at the beginning of the well planned attack( probably with inside help) I would not put too much trust in any Afgan. The coffins can be photographed unless the families express otherwise. Viet Nam & this war are also simular in that you don`t know who the enemy is, they can just blend right back into the population. The country should never have been put on the back burner while we invaded a country for no reason. The Afgan people will never back us(IMO) simply because they know that we will be gone one day, the people have never been treated well even by their own gov. when they had one. And very correctly we must be very careful with Pakistan & its nuke, for that reason alone we should have never left our guard down. We have been left a mess there with no easy solution. As for the base being overrun, it never was. Air support is still largely dependent on weather & logistics, in close intense fighting your limited to what kind of support you can give. God bless each & everyone of our brave men & women.


Teddy Roosevelt lobbied outside the chain of command. Ninety years later received the Medal of Honor that they denied him as a rebuke.

BTW, the outpost was near the summit according to the first report.

Why was the reason for invading Afghanistan any better than the one for invading Iraq?

We are in both nations for one reason. National security. Without a foothold and influence in the region the growing threat from Islamists would continue threatening our security and that of the rest of the world with regard to oil and nuclear weapons. It was the reason then. It is the reason now.

Afghanistan is an isolated backwater and our chances for success there are minimal. Iraq was strategically more important and a better candidate for stability in the aftermath of a war. Sadly, Bush had to establish blame in a known and visible enemy threat in order to sell a war against radical islamists to the public. Afghanistan would never be viewed as a threat or as strategically important by the people.

As you said, samhill, this is an unconventional "war", even more so than Viet Nam. Reasonable people knew the purpose of the war. We are at war with another culture, not another nation. Radical Islamism is a culture that spans several nations and is expanding rapidly in the west due to demographic difference and multiculturalism. Nations and cultures that are similar are sympathetic to the Islamists. Islamists collectively hate the west. That is the problem.
Last edited by mikeandgerry on Mon Oct 05, 2009 9:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
mikeandgerry
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Axeman-Anderson Anthratube 130-M

Re: Attack on remote Afghan outposts kills 8 US troops

PostBy: ErikLaurence On: Mon Oct 05, 2009 9:17 pm

mikeandgerry wrote:
ErikLaurence wrote:So you're accusing a US officer of being mealy mouthed and deceptive.

The Afghan war is a tragedy now because it was initially prosecuted under the idiotic doctrine spelled out by Rumsfeld and Cheney. Sadly Bush valued loyalty more than competence so we were stuck with the very loyal but totally incompetent Rumsfeld as he mismanaged us into the hole we're in now. We're getting out of that hole in Iraq. But the Rumsfeld told Bush we won the war in Afghanistan in 2002, so the situation there decayed from 2003 until now.

Did you this violently attack the administration when Gen Eric Shinseki was forced out for telling the SecDef that it would take several hundred thousand soldiers to neutralize and stabilize Iraq? You realize the surge was proposed (under the name "clear and hold") prior to the 04 election but shot down for political reasons? Do you think the timing of the 2nd batlle of Fallujah (3 days after the 04 election) was not political? The insurgents had 6 extra months to fortify the city. How many extra American soldiers died in Fallujah because George Bush didn't want to take casualties before the election in 2004? How was that not politicians telling generals how to do their jobs?


Absolutely the spokesman for the military white washed the situation. They were embarassed. They should not have been but the president should have been extremely embarassed. He should have given the 40000 requested troops immediately upon request especially after the success of the surge in Iraq.

Your comment last night assumed facts not in evidence, namely that we had a victory in battle. You are wrong and calling me fallacious in my logic!? The fallacious logic of the left is that somehow the war in Iraq was unnecessary while the war in Afghanistan is critical to the US.

You are still blaming Rumsfeld? Please. Grow up. Rummy has been gone for three years. Did you notice the rebuke given to McChrystal by the Obama admin for lobbying in public for more troops...so this recent debacle could be avoided? Do you think that Obama is any different in his political positioning? It really is time to grow up, Erik. Seriously.

I would say the same to all the political fools in the press as well. Where are the protests and body counts and embedded reporters now that it's your war? Just remember that Bush had to prosecute a three front war: Afghanistan, Iraq and the left wing loons in the press.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091005/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_us_afghanistan
This link is broken, either the page no longer exists or there is some other issue like a typo.


You seem to be under the impression I am defending Obama's prosecution of the war in Afghanistan. But nowhere in my post am I doing that (there's that pesky logical fallacy again). I am saying the Obama administration is up until now prosecuting the war in EXACTLY the same way the Bush administration did. That is unacceptable.

In July 2008, under the previous administration pretty much exactly the same thing happened in exactly the same area.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/world ... wanted=all

Please point me to your post from last summer where you thought the previous administration and President Bush should have been embarrassed. You didn't make such a post? How odd. Your failure to do so is very curious. You seem to care far more about making the GOP look good and the Democrats look bad than the success or failure of the mission.

The idiocy of invading Iraq (and the blithering incompetence of the handling of that invasion by the politicians in charge) is a conversation for another evening. I only brought it up because there too you seem strangely silent in not attacking politicians who let political expediency put our troops in additional danger (when those politicians are Republicans).
ErikLaurence
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Reading Lehigh
Stove/Furnace Model: LL Hyfire II w/heat jacket

Re: Attack on remote Afghan outposts kills 8 US troops

PostBy: mikeandgerry On: Mon Oct 05, 2009 9:29 pm

ErikLaurence wrote:
mikeandgerry wrote:
ErikLaurence wrote:So you're accusing a US officer of being mealy mouthed and deceptive.

The Afghan war is a tragedy now because it was initially prosecuted under the idiotic doctrine spelled out by Rumsfeld and Cheney. Sadly Bush valued loyalty more than competence so we were stuck with the very loyal but totally incompetent Rumsfeld as he mismanaged us into the hole we're in now. We're getting out of that hole in Iraq. But the Rumsfeld told Bush we won the war in Afghanistan in 2002, so the situation there decayed from 2003 until now.

Did you this violently attack the administration when Gen Eric Shinseki was forced out for telling the SecDef that it would take several hundred thousand soldiers to neutralize and stabilize Iraq? You realize the surge was proposed (under the name "clear and hold") prior to the 04 election but shot down for political reasons? Do you think the timing of the 2nd batlle of Fallujah (3 days after the 04 election) was not political? The insurgents had 6 extra months to fortify the city. How many extra American soldiers died in Fallujah because George Bush didn't want to take casualties before the election in 2004? How was that not politicians telling generals how to do their jobs?


Absolutely the spokesman for the military white washed the situation. They were embarassed. They should not have been but the president should have been extremely embarassed. He should have given the 40000 requested troops immediately upon request especially after the success of the surge in Iraq.

Your comment last night assumed facts not in evidence, namely that we had a victory in battle. You are wrong and calling me fallacious in my logic!? The fallacious logic of the left is that somehow the war in Iraq was unnecessary while the war in Afghanistan is critical to the US.

You are still blaming Rumsfeld? Please. Grow up. Rummy has been gone for three years. Did you notice the rebuke given to McChrystal by the Obama admin for lobbying in public for more troops...so this recent debacle could be avoided? Do you think that Obama is any different in his political positioning? It really is time to grow up, Erik. Seriously.

I would say the same to all the political fools in the press as well. Where are the protests and body counts and embedded reporters now that it's your war? Just remember that Bush had to prosecute a three front war: Afghanistan, Iraq and the left wing loons in the press.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091005/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_us_afghanistan
This link is broken, either the page no longer exists or there is some other issue like a typo.


You seem to be under the impression I am defending Obama's prosecution of the war in Afghanistan. But nowhere in my post am I doing that (there's that pesky logical fallacy again). I am saying the Obama administration is up until now prosecuting the war in EXACTLY the same way the Bush administration did. That is unacceptable.

In July 2008, under the previous administration pretty much exactly the same thing happened in exactly the same area.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/world ... wanted=all

Please point me to your post from last summer where you thought the previous administration and President Bush should have been embarrassed. You didn't make such a post? How odd. Your failure to do so is very curious. You seem to care far more about making the GOP look good and the Democrats look bad than the success or failure of the mission.

The idiocy of invading Iraq (and the blithering incompetence of the handling of that invasion by the politicians in charge) is a conversation for another evening. I only brought it up because there too you seem strangely silent in not attacking politicians who let political expediency put our troops in additional danger (when those politicians are Republicans).


I am saying you are being as political as any Republican in both your remarks, and your fallacious logic. Your party since 2000 has had it in for Republicans in a "scortched earth" policy. That is problem, Erik. Now that the left is in power, why are we still in Iraq? Why are we getting out? Why is Afghanistan important and Iraq not? These are the questions Obama has to answer and so do you.

Bush has NOTHING to be embarassed about. He was defending this nation. The war was run well in the beginning but that was the conventional part. Yes there was trouble later in the war but by the time Rummy was out (a good move) it was improving as we learned what to do. What is Obama doing? He's playing to the home team bleachers by not adding troops in one action and running Rummy's Afghan war in another according to you. If that's not politics, I don't know what is.

Please explain the idiocy of invading Iraq. Explain the idiocy of invading Afghanistan. And please do so in the context of your heartfelt concern over Pakistani nukes and the stable price of oil now at $70/bbl.

Next, lets talk about why Obama would make the logical mistake of prosecuting the Afghan war exactly as Bush did while nixing the Iraq war.

Ok?
mikeandgerry
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Axeman-Anderson Anthratube 130-M

Re: Attack on remote Afghan outposts kills 8 US troops

PostBy: samhill On: Tue Oct 06, 2009 7:04 am

We are in Afghanistan because that is where the attack on 9-11 came from, not the country but the terrorist training camps. We never bombed the heck out of every city or what little modern improvements that they had. We went to war with Iraq because of made up info but I believe that the real reaso was that bad man Hussain had put a contract out on G.W.s daddy. I still don`t see why we leveled a lot of Iraq except to award a no-bid contract to Dicks bubs Haliburton. Not to fotget blackwater securities & the list goes on . When was the last time this country invaded another without just cause of having been attacked, asked to help allies or protect American people? If you use the well we thought they had nukes answer then why haven`t we attacked Iran, N. Korea, India, Pakistan & whoever else might have developed them? Also why do we as a nation have to rebuild anything that was destroyed in a war? I have never been able to figure that one out, some here raise heck over someone trying to repair things in this country but I didn`t hear any questions asked about where all the money for the wars & no-bid contracts is coming from, there are more contractors in Iraq than there are U.S. forces. There was no funding for any of that.
samhill
 
Hot Air Coal Stoker Furnace: keystoker 160
Hand Fed Coal Stove: hitzer 75 in garage
Stove/Furnace Make: keystoker/hitzer
Stove/Furnace Model: koker 160/ hitzer 75

Re: Attack on remote Afghan outposts kills 8 US troops

PostBy: ErikLaurence On: Tue Oct 06, 2009 7:16 am

mikeandgerry wrote:Bush has NOTHING to be embarassed about. He was defending this nation.


Two nearly identical incidents took place in Afghanistan 15 months apart, one under Bush, one under Obama. Same region, same tactics, same results, same root causes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/world ... wanted=all

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/world ... ack&st=cse

In both cases Generals on the ground were asking for more resources, in both cases they didn't get them.

You say Obama should be embarrassed by this but Bush has nothing to be embarrassed about.



I'll start another thread outlining the differences between Afghanistan and Iraq later, but in short Afghanistan under the Taliban was a theocracy and Iraq under Saddam was a secular dictatorship.
ErikLaurence
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Reading Lehigh
Stove/Furnace Model: LL Hyfire II w/heat jacket

Re: Attack on remote Afghan outposts kills 8 US troops

PostBy: Black_And_Blue On: Tue Oct 06, 2009 6:01 pm

It says something about the CIC when the administration is more interested in punishing his hand picked General for getting around the obstacles in his way.
Black_And_Blue
 
Hot Air Coal Stoker Stove: Alaska 140

Re: Attack on remote Afghan outposts kills 8 US troops

PostBy: whistlenut On: Tue Oct 06, 2009 6:17 pm

Sometimes, when you are up to your eyeballs in alligators, it is hard to remember that your main object was to drain the swamp.....

Painful way to wage war.....let the trained folks do their best work and support them in any way they require. Right F...ing now! Talk is cheap; stop 'shaving your legs' Washington, make an intelligent, albeit painful decision.



BTW: Does anyone know if Lama dung can be fed into a stoker?
whistlenut
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: AA130's,260's, AHS130&260's,EFM900,GJ&VanWert
Hand Fed Coal Boiler: Franks Boiler,Itasca415,NYer130,Van Wert
Hot Air Coal Stoker Furnace: Yellow Flame
Hot Air Coal Stoker Stove: Alaska-4,Keystoker-2,
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Alaska,Gibraltor,Keystone,Vc Vigilant 2
Hand Fed Coal Furnace: Van Wert, NYer's, Ford,Jensen.
Coal Size/Type: Rice,Buck,Pea,Nut&Stove
Other Heating: Oil HWBB

Re: Attack on remote Afghan outposts kills 8 US troops

PostBy: ken On: Wed Oct 07, 2009 8:53 am

USA took out Iraq because saddam was trading oil for euro's , not the dollar. Same is going to happen in Iran , soon. As far as the outpost. Wasn't it kinda dumb to put it next to a mountain. duh.
ken
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Keystoker - Rice Coal
Stove/Furnace Model: 75K - Bay Window - Direct Vent

Re: Attack on remote Afghan outposts kills 8 US troops

PostBy: tvb On: Wed Oct 07, 2009 9:20 am

Where are all the pictures of coffins coming into Dover AFB that were so critical for all to see when GWB was the CIC?


Maybe Faux News didn't show them but I saw pictures of 6 caskets being off-loaded in Dover yesterday on several other networks. All six were part of the eight killed on Sunday.
tvb
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Alaska
Stove/Furnace Model: Channing III

Re: Attack on remote Afghan outposts kills 8 US troops

PostBy: coalkirk On: Wed Oct 07, 2009 9:30 am

Well I guess they read my post. That should have the weak kneed libs running for the exits.
coalkirk
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Harman VF3000
Coal Size/Type: antrhcite/rice coal

Re: Attack on remote Afghan outposts kills 8 US troops

PostBy: Black_And_Blue On: Sun Oct 11, 2009 4:41 pm

CNN footage of that base from August 2009

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2009/08/18/walsh.afghan.embed.itn?iref=videosearch

After action footage :



Black_And_Blue
 
Hot Air Coal Stoker Stove: Alaska 140

Re: Attack on remote Afghan outposts kills 8 US troops

PostBy: Poconoeagle On: Sun Oct 11, 2009 6:27 pm

the M4 sucks. weapon jam, failure has caused more deaths then need be.


http://news.aol.com/article/m4-carbine-rifles-failed-us-troops-in/712817
This link is broken, either the page no longer exists or there is some other issue like a typo.
Poconoeagle
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Buckwalter & Co. , EFM520
Stove/Furnace Model: No. 28 Glenwood 1880, Alaska