It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NATO: Roadside bomb kills service member in southern Afghanistan

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 12:55 AM
link   

NATO: Roadside bomb kills service member in southern Afghanistan


www.680news.com

KABUL - A NATO service member died in a roadside bombing in southern Afghanistan early Wednesday, the military coalition said. No further details were released.
More than 670 U.S. and other international troops have died in Afghanistan so far this year.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 12:55 AM
link   
So it is reaching to 700/Year mark.

WOW

imagine if 700 heavily armed soldiers are killed every year for the next five years.

That would equate to 3500 troops.

Imagine if the attacks increase next year? It seems the resistance is gaining momentum, as evidence suggests, their attacks has increased dramatically, and they even have the capability to attack in winter now.

Before they halted their attacks in Winter and take a rest to prepare for the next big assault.


Related News



'Birther' Faces 18 Months in Prison for Refusing Deployment to Afghanistan
abcnews.go.com...


23 Experts claim surge in Afghanistan not working.
www.allvoices.com...



(Reuters) - Two new classified intelligence reports on the war in Afghanistan say there is a limited chance of success unless Pakistan hunts down insurgents operating from havens on its Afghan border, The New York Times reported on Tuesday.

www.reuters.com...


Security in Iraq and Afghanistan still bleak
www.thenational.ae...


Cautious optimism as Afghan oil starts pumping
www.washingtonpost.com...

Thoughts

oz

www.680news.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


Another sad moment in military life. We hate to hear about his but its part of the job and the soldiers know what they are getting into. But its still sad to hear.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism


So it is reaching to 700/Year mark.

WOW

imagine if 700 heavily armed soldiers are killed every year for the next five years.

That would equate to 3500 troops.


Well lets see... 3500 future US losses in 5 years plus 1297 losses in 9 years so far, that would be 4797 in 14 years of fighting.

OR

Roughly 1/4 of the 19,000 the Soviets lost in 9 years of fighting in Afghanistan .

OR

Roughly less than 10% what the US losses were in Vietnam


Edit to add: I'm not glorifying just throwing out numbers is all.
Presently we are at 1297 + or - in 9 years of fighting.

edit on 15-12-2010 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69


Well lets see... 3500 future US loses in 5 years plus 1297 loses in 9 years so far, that would be 4797 in 14 years of fighting.

OR

Roughly 1/4 of the 19,000 the Soviets lost in 9 years of fighting in Afghanistan .

OR

Roughly less than 10% what the US losses were in Vietnam




Umm, the occupying forces are not only Americans.

The occupying forces also include other NATO countries, and private security contractors.

I will give an approximate count, it equates to 5000.

+ 3500

equates to 7500.

The above being said, it is a good comparison you made, regarding US and USSR.

Vietnam is a whole different issue.

Anyways, you usually gain most of your casualties when you are in your back foot. US is not there yet, pray to GOD that it doesn't get to that point



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


Insh'allah...

God Bless America.

God Bless Afghanistan.

God Bless the world.

If God is willing at this point....



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
Umm, the occupying forces are not only Americans.
I will give an approximate count, it equates to 5000.

+ 3500

equates to 7500.


Total coalition losses so far = 2263 + or - + 3500 would = 5763 or roughly 30% of Soviet losses.


Vietnam is a whole different issue.


Agreed


Anyways, you usually gain most of your casualties when you are in your back foot. US is not there yet, pray to GOD that it doesn't get to that point


Put your trust in God, but keep your powder dry

edit on 15-12-2010 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


I don't want to argue lol, but have to point out that when you say coalition forces, you are talking about troops.

The occupying forces include private contractors etc..

Which equates to around 5000.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 02:31 AM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


Here is a great source for more information.
iCasualties



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 02:39 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


See how the casualties are increasing?

It is not clear that in the next year it will increase, but it is an indication which needs to be taken seriously:



2001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 4 12
2002 10 13 15 10 1 3 0 3 1 5 1 8 70
2003 4 7 12 2 3 7 2 4 2 6 8 1 58
2004 11 2 3 3 9 5 2 4 4 8 7 2 60
2005 2 3 6 19 4 29 2 33 12 10 7 4 131
2006 1 17 13 5 17 22 19 29 38 17 9 4 191
2007 2 18 10 20 25 24 29 34 24 15 22 9 232
2008 14 7 20 14 23 46 30 46 37 19 12 27 295
2009 25 25 28 14 27 38 76 77 70 74 32 35 521
2010 43 53 39 34 51 103 88 79 57 65 58 23 693



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 02:54 AM
link   
oozyism,

I'm not sure about the role you take on here at ATS.
Sometimes you come across as a cheerleader for the downfall of America.

However. The things you post are important. And often come from non-American news sources.
They are almost ALWAYS tainted with spin. But then again. So is American media.

Mind if I ask about your role here? How are you looking at things, and what are your hopes for the future of the USA?

I am asking as a member, not a moderator.
I would appreciate honesty, and for you to be as specific as you feel comfortable.
You can even do it via U2U if that makes it easier.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 03:05 AM
link   
reply to post by spacedoubt
 


I want US citizens to wake up.

Hitler gave the perfect formula for propaganda, and gave the perfect cure:



As soon as by one's own propaganda even a glimpse of right on the other side is admitted, the cause for doubting one's own right is laid.
Adolf Hitler

Read more: www.brainyquote.com...



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 04:52 AM
link   
And the senseless slaughter continues... When will humanity ever learn.. How many potential great artists, writers, thinkers, musicians ... Has the world lost as result of the idiocy of war...



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 05:08 AM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


Kind of reminds me of Iraq. Casualties increased then suddenly decreased. Shouldn't have anything to do with winning Iraq does it? The surge and the betrayal of the Sunni insurgents against Al Qaeda.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 05:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


See how the casualties are increasing?

It is not clear that in the next year it will increase


Yes that was anticipated. I wrote the following thread on 17-10-2009 Call it a prediction.

Marines Engage Al-Qaeda & Taliban Militants

This Fall, Winter and coming Spring will see a possible increase in US/West casualties IMO. Action will increase as the Taliban increase their activity after they infiltrate back into Afghanistan positions from Pakistan. Be advised the embedded videos have strong language. Nothing graphic. The first two videos are about a month old from what I can tell.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
reply to post by oozyism
 


Kind of reminds me of Iraq. Casualties increased then suddenly decreased. Shouldn't have anything to do with winning Iraq does it? The surge and the betrayal of the Sunni insurgents against Al Qaeda.


In Iraq the occupying force's casualties was at its highest when the civil war started, that is when the casualties decreased dramatically.

Coincidence, or a war tactic?

Depends how you see the world.
edit on 15-12-2010 by oozyism because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
In Iraq the occupying force's casualties was at its highest when the civil war started, that is when the casualties decreased dramatically.


Right after the Iraqis got smart and realized Iran was in there stirring the pot and stopped supporting the Iranian supplied and trained insurgents.


Coincidence, or a war tactic?


Enlightenment on the Iraqis part.


Depends how you see the world.


Eyes wide shut oozi?



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 05:22 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


There is only two ways to see it Slayer.

The US casualties dropped right after the civil war started.

That hints us that either the divide and conquer war tactic was used, or that Americans were darn lucky that a civil war started.

You take your pick.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 05:26 AM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


OR

The Iraqis got smart and realized Iran was in there stirring the pot and stopped supporting the Iranian supplied and trained insurgents. The sectarian Violence was brewing under the surface between Shiite and Sunni for hundreds of Years.

YOU KNOW that ooz.

edit on 15-12-2010 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 05:28 AM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


Do you remember your prediction you made on that thread I linked to?
Were you wrong then or are you wrong now?

Were you ever right?



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join