31 Americans, 7 Afghans killed in helicopter crash

I agree, it's not the ideal answer, but having American young men and women die for it, isn't either. Only more damage can be done, and more lives wasted. Murdered. Systematically. I'm not condoning it, anymore. I'm not willing tolerate direct American tactical leadership, or even indirect military involvement at this point, in this external conflict. The men and women dying are not expendable. This country needs our Dimitri's to serve and foster our nation, for the extent of their deserved lives, more than it needs anything else from Afghanistan.

I don't have an exit strategy, but when you're in over your head, you don't need one. GTFO. It's our only option, IMHO.

 

Yep, Vietnam did ok after we bailed.

DD

 

Yeah, you're right. We totally should have stayed in Vietnam longer.

 

Not what I said, we left, and it was a good move, we need to leave now in Afganastan too.

DD

 

Keep in mind though air strikes on a place where people are hunkered down in mountains and also don't have alot of infrastructure to attack are of questionable effectiveness. For example the Bin Ladin mission relied heavily on our bases in Afghanistan while the drone strikes also are based on launching drones out of Afghanistan or until Pakistan shut it down out of a Pakistani air base.

Also regarding intelligence gathering there is still limited intelligence that can be gathered relying solely on air and technology.

 

I understand where you are coming from and hate hearing about US troops dying. That said though we went into Afghanistan for a very valid reason and given the history of Afghanistan where we did leave them to fend for themselves that just ended up causing more problems for us I really think just pulling out is a bad idea.

As I said earlier I have no good solution to Afghanistan but just up and leaving may very likely lead to more problems. We may find we have to be back there in 10 years or so.

 

via blackfive:

--
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE2011-08-S-025For Immediate Release

ISAF forces conduct airstrike against insurgents responsible for downing CH-47 KABUL, Afghanistan (Aug. 10) – Coalition forces killed the Taliban insurgents involved with the recent downing of the CH-47 helicopter, with a precision airstrike in Chak district, Wardak province, yesterday.

The strike killed Taliban leader Mullah Mohibullah and the insurgent who fired the shot associated with the Aug. 6 downing of the CH-47 helicopter, which resulted in the deaths of 38 Afghan and coalition service members. Mullah Mohibullah was a key facilitator in an insurgent attack cell led by Din Mohammad, a Taliban leader killed in a previous Special Operations mission. As a leader in Mohammad’s network in Tangi valley, Mohibullah had as many as 12 Taliban fighters under his command, including potential suicide bombers.

On the night of the crash, the inbound CH-47 carried Special Operations Forces intended to pursue insurgents from Mohammad’s network that were fleeing an engagement in which six militants had already been killed. While it has not been determined if enemy fire was the sole reason for the helicopter crash, it did take fire from several insurgent locations on its approach.

After an exhaustive manhunt, Special Operations forces located Mullah Mohibullah and the shooter after receiving multiple intelligence leads and tips from local citizens. The two men were attempting to flee the country in order to avoid capture.The security force located and followed the insurgents to a wooded area in Chak district.

After ensuring no civilians were in the area, the force called for the airstrikewhich resulted in the deaths of the Mullah Mohibullah, the shooter, and several of their Taliban associates.

The security force assesses no civilians were harmed during the strike.

 

Booyah b****ES !

DD

 

Booyah indeed!

You kill 31 of our boys we kill two of yours! War of attrition baby!

Maybe Bill O'Reily should make a new bumper sticker.



He could ignore the 31 dead troops like he seemed to ignore the thousands dead on 9/11. The new sticker could read:

US Drones: 2 Taliban: 0

We could all pretend it was awesome!

 

Chickenhawks sure talk tough, don't they?

 

You do not reason with unreasonable people.

DD

 

Who said anything about reasoning with them? I'm not going to do a dance though that we killed two people who are responsible for 30 deaths. I'm sure as hell not going to say "Booyah!" like we just accomplished something.

Check your math DaDa. The Taliban won that exchange. They trade 2 for 30 every day of the week.

 

There were more than 2, I believe there were 18 of them, and we had no choice but to retalitate.

I am proud that we got them so quickly as opposed to Bin Laden which took 10 years.

DD

 

The whole idea you have, that losing 31 American lives to snuff out 18 more is worth it, that it makes you proud because it was quick and not prolonged, makes me sick to my stomach. It's not a basketball game.

I am reminded of a quote that Harvery Keitel says to George Clooney in From Dusk til' Dawn.

Are you so much a f**king loser, that you can't tell when you've won?

Get up from the table. Walk away. We CAN lose more. We cannot gain more.

 

I agree we need to leave, but I am also glad that they got the people who did this....it is not a numbers game......

There are no winners in death etc, someone's father/brother/son died...not good for anyone.

I would rather yank our troops home and tell Afganastan, goodbye, there is no need to be there...

DD

 

I'm glad we got them too, but I'm not going to say Booyah or go giddy about it and thump my chest from my computer. A lot of lives were lost and taking out the guys responsible doesn't make that any better.

 

It is better than not getting them.

DD

 

heads up:

http://recode.net/2014/06/16/suprem...king-violent-threats-on-facebook-is-criminal/

[rquoter]Supreme Court to Decide Whether Making Violent Threats on Facebook Is Criminal
June 16, 2014, 7:54 AM PDT

The Supreme Court announced plans to wade into the issue of whether you can go to jail for posting violent or threatening messages on social media sites — even when your intent to actually carry out those actions is unclear.

The court Monday said it will consider the case of Anthony Elonis, a Pennsylvania man who was sentenced to almost four years in federal prison in 2010 for posting violent threats about killing his ex-wife and law enforcement on Facebook.

Elonis said he never intended to hurt anyone and argued his threats were clearly not meant to be taken seriously. His threatening rants often took the form of rap-style lyrics, according to the Morning Call, a local paper that has covered the case. Lower courts rejected his defense that the comments were protected under the First Amendment.

The justices plan to look into whether “as a matter of statutory interpretation, conviction of threatening another person under [federal law] requires proof of the defendant’s subjective intent to harm.”

The court will take up the case in the fall, when the justices get back from their summer break. They’re wrapping up their current term and are expected to release more than a dozen decisions in the next two weeks or so, including the closely watched case involving streaming TV startup Aereo.[/rquoter]

 

Why would you even have this thread open to accidentally necro bump?

 

What idiot brought this dinosaur back?