Official: 13 American troops killed in Kabul attack

CNN ^

[Perdogg]

At least 13 U.S. troops were killed in Kabul on Saturday when a suicide bomber struck a vehicle in a NATO military convoy, a U.S. military official said.

NATO's International Security Assistance Force confirmed 13 deaths within its force, but did not specify their nationalities.

[Dengar01]

Yes, many good points but don't you think our soldiers should be given every tactical advantage possible?

Truman used the nuclear bomb on Japan twice knowing damn well that thousands of innocents would die, but he'd rather see them die than the estimated 1 million Allied casualties expected had we invaded Japan in a land invasions.

At that time the Japanese like the Afghanis were very similar in thinking. They armed every man, woman and child to kill the invaders just like what is occurring in Afghanistan. They don't fear death, they don't value life.

This is the difference between our troops and Afghanistan. We were taught from birth to value life (unless you work for Planned Parenthood), these vermin were taught to sacrifice yourself for the good of Allah. They sincerely believe they'll get 72 virgins, and think about it, for living in crap they'd take that than their current situation.

If you don't know about these weapons, if you own cable, National Geo, Science Channel and Military Channel regularly shows specials on the various weapons we have that are state of the art that could end this war in 3 days but the leaders fail to lead.

This is turning into World War I where we think we can just throw more people at them realizing that 9 out of 10 will die but that's better than getting Anderson Cooper upset.

[Marie]

Thank you FSE. You get it.

We had a good purpose. The problem is that Afghanistan was a half-hearted effort until this last year. I’ve been disgusted with this whole situation until recently.

Now I’m frustrated because we’ve finally got the surge going and everybody’s too exhausted to continue. Our military is not, and never has been, equipped for nation-building. The system is designed for fighting, not this. So it’s slow, inefficient and time-consuming.

Now everybody wants to give up. NOW it’s a friggin’ waste.

[Dengar01]

And where has Code Pink, ANSWER and the other anti-war groups gone? They have gone into hiding since Zero was elected!!!

Why? They are now advising the Administration!!! I don't see Cindy Sheehan camped outside 1600 Pennsylvania Ave...

Why? Their guy is CIC, so it's now a "good" war. As long as we don't use 21st Century weapons and rely on check points and kissing the sandals of filth with bombs strapped to their chests!!!

Everyone here should be pissed and screaming with rage as to what is going on!!! What is on TV? Missing kid in Missouri, World Series, filth bags protesting Wall Street now claiming they are the reincarnation of the troops at Valley Forge (not making that one up...), other non stories.

Had 13 troops died under Bush, had those Navy Seals died under Bush we'd never hear the end of it. But because Obama is CIC, 300 of our troops could get blown up tomorrow and the MSM would still focus on the Michael Jackson trial and any missing person case.

[MEG33]

Marie is the name of the freeper..not Maria..

[Dengar01]

Excuse my confusion, maybe because I had a psychotic ex-girlfriend named Marie that it was Freudian slip.

[Marie]

I don’t disagree with you that our CIC and our congress are seriously messed up.

But just this year, we FINALLY got the surge funding for Afghanistan. Obama AND Bush treated Afghanistan like an afterthought.

Petraeus finally got support for this war and we’ve only been going at it seriously for seven freakin’ months - not ten years. Even Hillary Clinton is starting to see the light. The State department is just this year getting their act together in that region.

Now things are starting to turn around. Is now the time to cut and run?

If we ditch now the Taliban will retake that country within a year. Terrorists who’ve been dislocated from Iraq will flood into the unsecured area. Afghanistan will become the terrorist hot-bed of the world.

And if we ever have to back in to clean it up again, the locals who *did* put their faith in us will never make that mistake again. At that point, we WILL have to nuke the entire region to regain control.

Why not finish what we’ve started and do it RIGHT?

Let’s hold out until we can retake congress and the white house next year. Then we can end this correctly and not let the loss of lives and treasure be in vain.

[MEG33]

Figures

[MEG33]

Amen

[Marie]

Thank you. (I love your home page!)

:-)

[Future Snake Eater]

killed in Kabul attack, Dengar01 wrote: First of all read all three of my posts I never used the word "kool-aid" you have me confused with some other poster.

You replied to my reply which was a reply about someone calling Marie a "kool-aid drinker." I know it wasn't you, but you were responding as if in defense of his comment. Therefore, you face the wrath. Know the posting history before you get involved.

You're demanding we, in the words of Ann Coulter, "invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity." Nothing would make me happier, but we live in the Real World, where political reality is always at play. I don't play hypothetical games where I demand all known realism to change at the drop of a hat. NO political will to do any such thing exists, nor would it. Therefore, the military does not execute in that manner. It's that simple. Yes, there are PC tools who have stars on their shoulders (GEN Casey being the most recent egregious example), but a General's not going to go against national policy if he wants to have a job for longer than 24 hours.

We do the best we can with what we have. Your notion that a couple of tactical nukes "would have ended this thing" is nonsense. It would've kicked Iraq even further back, but Afghanistan is already in the Stone Age. You can't bomb them any further back. We could do things like concentrate on destroying the poppy fields (that really draws out the Taliban), but consideration must be made for locals and their income. Destroying the Taliban in that case would likely harm the average Afghani. Stupid, but that's how it is over there.

Your friend knew what he was doing when he joined up. He could've gone to college, but he chose to join instead. He wasn't lied to, he wanted to do something, and that's fine. Don't denigrate his actions by claiming he's some kind of patsy for the military-industrial complex.

[Siena Dreaming]

At the same time, the troops are exhausted. They feel the fatigue more than any of us.

And what would probably energize the troops the most would be if they knew they had an American public that supported them.

It's disgusting how the MSM has fooled the public into thinking this is a pointless war. Shameful.

The fury I felt during the Bush years when the MSM attacked Bush and the WOT day after day after day knew no bounds. Well, the media got what they wanted...a public which has forgotten why it went to war. The pictures of the WTC falling have all but disappeared from our TV screens and very little information is given about other atrocities the terrorists have committed.

I lived in that backward region of the world for years and I know that what the US is doing is worthwhile. People complain about the stone age those people live in, yet they don't want to do what it takes to advance them and bring them closer to the modern age. Did they think an advance would take place in a couple of years. Really?

Tough goals mean tough fights. I'm amazed how this thread shows so many Freepers as having swallowed the MSM Koolaid.

God bless your family, Marie. You have the exact right perspective. God bless your husband and thanks for hanging in there.

[Marie]

Good post and great points.

[dforest]

The media always announces these deaths as “NATO” troops. We all know they are most always Americans.

Americans that never get their due and honor because the miserable and dishonest Obama admin hides behind NATO for obvious reasons.

The truth needs to be blurted loud and clear, but it won’t be, will it?

[Future Snake Eater]

Counter-insurgencies are very, very manpower- and time-intensive. That’s why I don’t like the “stay until it’s done” notion. I don’t want to spend 5-10 years in Afghanistan trying to show those idiots how a toilet works. Our work there needs to be far more enemy-focused.

[frog in a pot]

Have read your posts on this thread and we substantially agree. Although my approach is to occupy an area until the evolution of the desired results: a stable self-government with as many democratic principals as appropriate (as in Japan and Germany). Yes, that requires the defeat of Sharia law but perhaps not necessarily Islam itself.

Let me add two thoughts: we did indeed hesitate to bomb Monte Casino and the bombing did not help us avoid a bloody assault or really help us very much (cost/benefit/time) to finally dislodge the Germans, with some arguing the bombing did not help at all.

Suppose we “nuke the hell” out of Afghanistan, will that bring about a declaration of peace? If so, by whom, how enforceable and for how long?

Will the non-uniformed brethren in areas not nuked seek reprisal in ways that challenge our domestic defense capability and materially change the fabric of our lifestyle (haven’t they seemed to already)?

When Washington talked about “foreign entanglements” was it possible to reach the U.S. from Europe in mere hours, or even to presently be here? If nation X had a force on the ground attacking the our capital, would Washington have not fired on its shipping and its ports?

Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to sort out the issues.

[frog in a pot]

I lived in that backward region of the world for years and I know that what the US is doing is worthwhile. People complain about the stone age those people live in, yet they don't want to do what it takes to advance them and bring them closer to the modern age. Did they think an advance would take place in a couple of years.

Bravo! This is it in a nutshell.

[napscoordinator]

Cuz Bush said we must be there.

[Marie]

How about we stay long enough to establish a strong central government that can defend against a Taliban resurgence? We don’t need to turn it into another South Korea with troops on the ground half a century later, but we can definitely stick around long enough to give them a chance.

I’m content with where we’re leaving Iraq. It’s not ideal, but it’s good enough for government work.

[Steel Wolf]

Had 13 troops died under Bush, had those Navy Seals died under Bush we'd never hear the end of it. But because Obama is CIC, 300 of our troops could get blown up tomorrow and the MSM would still focus on the Michael Jackson trial and any missing person case.

Undiplomatic as your case is, you're not entirely wrong. The average American never signed up for decades of blood soaked nation building, either for Iraq or Afghanistan. You can't really blame the American people for losing interest in pursuing goals they were never really sold on.

In either Iraq or Afghanistan, we'd have been better off overthrowing the enemy regime, finding whoever was most opposed to that regime, putting them in charge and then leaving, with the warnings that (a) they need to continue to hunt down our mutual enemies and (b) they must never mess with us or we will return and put a new faction in charge, one that is hostile to them as well.

In and out in six months.

With the public example set that we can to it again, at will, to anyone who develops WMDs or threatens us with terrorism.

We'd have achieved the same results as now, except that we'd have spent a trillion less dollars, still be feared, and be fresh to apply pressure to other bad actors and WMD developers.

Instead, our conventional might is basically exhausted. In no more than 20 years, all of our potential enemies will have nuclear weapons. The lessons of how we have dealt with Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq vs Iran, North Korea and Pakistan have proven instructive to our enemies. In 40 years, you'll be hard pressed to find any patch of real estate calling itself a nation that wants nuclear weapons but still doesn't have them.

The wars we are fighting now are 20th century anachronisms. We made a deliberate choice to fight in the restrained manner we did, sadly based on political expediency instead of strategic vision. The world is now evolving in a way that makes nuclear conflict more likely, not less. The U.S. military will be made smaller and weaker by increasingly war-weary citizens and tightening budgets.

Focusing on nation building for remote tribals at exorbitant costs is to lose sight of what the looming threats the 21st century really are. That's really the big picture tragedy of all this. All we've done is set the stage for a very ugly century.

[napscoordinator]

Haven’t heard a peep out of Vietnam in 30-40 years so yes it did work. Iraq and Afghanistan were stupid to get into without a narrow group of strategies. Bush did not have them so we are still 10 years in the mess.