NewbieJr 541 Posted March 25, 2017 Hundreds of innocent children and adults have been killed over the past month in Iraq by U.S. forces reports the Pentagon and Iraqi government. Link coming shortly. Ugh, what the hell are we doing?? Can't wait to hear who our Commander in Chief blames. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cloaca du jour 2,072 Posted March 25, 2017 Its war, happens. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 12,813 Posted March 25, 2017 Down from thousands. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RaiderHaters Revenge 3,620 Posted March 25, 2017 Knock em out early before they become radicalized. Good idea 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted March 25, 2017 Sucks when innocents are killed no matter who is in office. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NorthernVike 2,080 Posted March 26, 2017 I hate the term "surgical strike" it's war, nothing surgical about it. Only a complete focking idiot would think otherwise or use it for their agenda. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
5-Points 2,748 Posted March 26, 2017 Hundreds of innocent children and adults have been killed over the past month in Iraq by U.S. forces reports the Pentagon and Iraqi government. Link coming shortly. Ugh, what the hell are we doing?? Can't wait to hear who our Commander in Chief blames. You'd come off like less of a doosh if you feigned a little concern about the loss of life. Just sayin. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 541 Posted March 26, 2017 You'd come off like less of a doosh if you feigned a little concern about the loss of life. Just sayin. ummm, idiot, I started the thread because of the unneccesary loss other innocent lives. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Guy 1,400 Posted March 26, 2017 future terrorists? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cyclone24 1,816 Posted March 26, 2017 ummm, idiot, I started the thread because of the unneccesary loss other innocent lives. Sure ya are. I'm venturing to guess you didn't have one thread about innocents killed while Obama was in office. Actually I have no doubts you didn't have one thread started on it. So it's completely expected douchiness to suddenly care about it now that Trump is in office. Waters wet. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 12,813 Posted March 26, 2017 Sure ya are. I'm venturing to guess you didn't have one thread about innocents killed while Obama was in office. Actually I have no doubts you didn't have one thread started on it. So it's completely expected douchiness to suddenly care about it now that Trump is in office. Waters wet. And douchy newbie actually thinks that the no fly list radicalized more of these mutants than drone strikes did. He's like a kid rooting for his team. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
5-Points 2,748 Posted March 26, 2017 ummm, idiot, I started the thread because of the unneccesary loss other innocent lives.Sure, but you outed yourself as a piece of sh!t when you failed to mention how bad you felt about it. Retard. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745 Posted March 26, 2017 Knock em out early before they become radicalized. Good idea Just perpetuating the cycle of violence. Hardening the next generation of terrorists. Of course, if we didn't keep doing that, we might find ourselves without an enemy. And we have far too much invested in the military industrial complex to allow ourselves to not have an enemy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
iam90sbaby 2,134 Posted March 26, 2017 Newbie lost lol Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wiffleball 4,658 Posted March 26, 2017 Let's bear in mind the nature of the warfare; door to door where bad guys use human shields and don't allow innocents to leave. One could argue we're using the wrong weps,tactics, but then they'd about losing boots on ground. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Voltaire 4,572 Posted March 26, 2017 Obummer made it a point to minimize civilian deaths, Trump has had a change in policy. So the relevant questions are how have these numbers compared to Obummer era numbers? And further, how have the results of the less restrictive bombings been different? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wiffleball 4,658 Posted March 26, 2017 I know there were at least two major eff ups. One was Azizibad. And Granai. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 541 Posted March 26, 2017 Sure, but you outed yourself as a piece of sh!t when you failed to mention how bad you felt about it. Retard.I'll add a sad face next time. Lol Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lickin_starfish 1,496 Posted March 26, 2017 ummm, idiot, I started the thread because of the unneccesary loss other innocent lives. How many posts did you start on the topic in the previous 8 years while Obama was raining death from above? You won't respond with the correct answer, which is "I started no threads on the topic in the previous 8 years". Instead, you will insult my intelligence and call me names. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 541 Posted March 26, 2017 How many posts did you start on the topic in the previous 8 years while Obama was raining death from above? You won't respond with the correct answer, which is "I started no threads on the topic in the previous 8 years". Instead, you will insult my intelligence and call me names. link to a day where we killed 200 innocent civilians under Obama's tenure?Find that and I'll find the thread I started about it. Go! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wiffleball 4,658 Posted March 26, 2017 link to a day where we killed 200 innocent civilians under Obama's tenure? Find that and I'll find the thread I started about it. Go! Look at the two airstrikes I listed above. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lickin_starfish 1,496 Posted March 26, 2017 Here you go, plenty of civilian deaths pre-Trump...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_war_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%932014) So much for your narrative that Trump is to blame. Your concern would have been more authentic if you hadn't referenced him in your original post. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drobeski 3,061 Posted March 26, 2017 Under obama the casualty rate for OUR guys went way up due to his ROE's. I'll take the trade off. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TimmySmith 2,782 Posted March 26, 2017 Obummer made it a point to minimize civilian deaths No he didn't. That was all lip service. This is not a partisan issue, it's a reality that drone strikes cause civilian casualties. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wiffleball 4,658 Posted March 26, 2017 Under obama the casualty rate for OUR guys went way up due to his ROE's. I'll take the trade off. Link? Obama increased drone strikes - especially in Paki-land tenfold. It's one of the few good things he did. I don't believe your ROE story. You have to actually deploy troops and commit them to Warfare before Rules of Engagement even matter. By and large, he did just the opposite. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wiffleball 4,658 Posted March 26, 2017 No he didn't. That was all lip service. This is not a partisan issue, it's a reality that drone strikes cause civilian casualties. Albeit far less so than anything other than targeted boots on the ground / sniper type attacks. It's not an either/or. It's a matter of magnitude. I'll take my chances as a civilian against the Drone strike long before I'll take my chances against a B-one dropping death from above. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drobeski 3,061 Posted March 26, 2017 Link? Obama increased drone strikes - especially in Paki-land tenfold. It's one of the few good things he did. I don't believe your ROE story. You have to actually deploy troops and commit them to Warfare before Rules of Engagement even matter. By and large, he did just the opposite. That's because you live in the fairy tale world of Obama did no wrong. Oh and how's it go ? Simple Google blah blah blah? http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/5/increase-in-battlefield-deaths-linked-to-new-rules/ But it is clear that the rules of engagement, which restrain troops from firing in order to spare civilian casualties, cut back on airstrikes and artillery strikes the types of support that protect troops during raids and ambushes. Increase in battlefield deaths linked to new rules of engagement in Afghanistan In Afghanistan, the [rules of engagement] that were put in place in 2009 and 2010 have created hesitation and confusion for our war fighters, said Wayne Simmons, a retired U.S. intelligence officer who worked in NATO headquarters in Kabul as the rules took effect, first under Army Gen. Stanley M. McChrystal, then Army Gen. David H. Petraeus. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kutulu 1,554 Posted March 26, 2017 If they're Muslim oh well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cloaca du jour 2,072 Posted March 26, 2017 Hundreds of civilians killed in chicago......crickets Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Reality 2,710 Posted March 26, 2017 This thread is a joke right? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kutulu 1,554 Posted March 26, 2017 This thread is a joke right?I thought they all were? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
the s is ilent 69 Posted March 26, 2017 Most are knowingly in harms way. Collateral damage. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted March 26, 2017 Under obama the casualty rate for OUR guys went way up due to his ROE's. I'll take the trade off. Way up? Link to this? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 12,813 Posted March 26, 2017 Newbie lost this thread. Bigly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baker Boy 1,498 Posted March 26, 2017 575 US troops died in Afghanistan during the Bush presidency. By August 18, 2010, following two troop surges initiated by President Obama, that number had doubled. Today, over 1500 US troops have died in Afghanistan since President Obama took office—and yet, little in that war-torn country has changed. These numbers should give us pause. While the Administration has publicly conceded that there is no military solution in Afghanistan, and claimed that it supports 'Afghan-led reconciliation', its policy on the ground is marked by a refusal to establish a timetable for full military withdrawal even after misleading Americans into thinking that all US troops would be out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014. http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/obamavsbush Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 12,813 Posted March 26, 2017 Shonuff also lost this thread, but not as big as Newbie did. It's a beat down of epic proportions for the resident punching bags. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted March 26, 2017 That's because you live in the fairy tale world of Obama did no wrong. Oh and how's it go ? Simple Google blah blah blah? http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/5/increase-in-battlefield-deaths-linked-to-new-rules/ But it is clear that the rules of engagement, which restrain troops from firing in order to spare civilian casualties, cut back on airstrikes and artillery strikes the types of support that protect troops during raids and ambushes. Increase in battlefield deaths linked to new rules of engagement in Afghanistan In Afghanistan, the [rules of engagement] that were put in place in 2009 and 2010 have created hesitation and confusion for our war fighters, said Wayne Simmons, a retired U.S. intelligence officer who worked in NATO headquarters in Kabul as the rules took effect, first under Army Gen. Stanley M. McChrystal, then Army Gen. David H. Petraeus. http://www.icasualties.org/ Look at the numbers...the amount of our men and women dying went down...not up. Ill take the trade off of fewer people on the ground...fewer US deaths...and fewer civilian deaths. You want to talk rate (because fewer people are there)...because that is the number that suits your idiocy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted March 26, 2017 Most are knowingly in harms way. Collateral damage. Really? Yes...they should just all move right? Become refugees? Oh wait...we don't want that either. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted March 26, 2017 575 US troops died in Afghanistan during the Bush presidency. By August 18, 2010, following two troop surges initiated by President Obama, that number had doubled. Today, over 1500 US troops have died in Afghanistan since President Obama took office—and yet, little in that war-torn country has changed. These numbers should give us pause. While the Administration has publicly conceded that there is no military solution in Afghanistan, and claimed that it supports 'Afghan-led reconciliation', its policy on the ground is marked by a refusal to establish a timetable for full military withdrawal even after misleading Americans into thinking that all US troops would be out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014. http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/obamavsbush No doubt...more died in Afghanistan...as that was basically forgotten as an issue under Bush while we focused idiotically on Iraq. Surges where we focused in Afghanistan raised those numbers before they then dropped dramatically. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
iam90sbaby 2,134 Posted March 26, 2017 If the civilians support our enemy, they are our enemy too, and in no way to me are they "innocent" it's war man, geez. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites