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.

 

U.S. War Dead in Afghanistan Have Tripled in Less Than 3 Years Under Obama

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   

President Barack Obama has not yet served three full years as commander in chief, but the number of U.S. casualties in the 10-year-old Afghanistan war has now tripled since Obama was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009.

On that day, the total casualty count for the then-7-year-old Afghan war was 569. As of Sept. 30 of this year, it was 1,698. The 1,129 additional U.S. casualties in Afghanistan since Obama took office equals 66.5 percent of all U.S. casualties there for the duration of the war.

With three months still to go, 2011 is already the second deadliest year of the war.

From January through September 2011, 340 U.S. service members have been killed in Afghanistan--only 22 fewer than the 362 who were killed during the same span in 2010, which was the deadliest year so far for U.S. forces in Afghanistan.


Source: www.cnsnews.com...



A Marine carry team loads a transfer case containing the remains of Sgt. Christopher Diaz into a transfer vehicle Saturday, Oct. 1, 2011 at Dover Air Force Base, Del. According to the Department of Defense, Diaz, 27, of Albuquerque, N.M., died Sept. 28, 2011 while conducting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

Surely, Obama is the biggest blood-shedder in the modern history of the globalist-controlled presidency of the United States.

Ironically, he has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and sends more U.S. troops to Afghanistan so that they can maim and kill Afghans with 21st century weaponry while they get killed themselves with heavily constrained ROEs.

Obama has accrued more casualties than his predecessor Bush Jr., in such a shortened time span, even though they progressed the globalist agenda very well.

All the while the military families are taking the fall and feeling the psychological anguish from the loss of a loved one, the husband / wife, father / mother, brother / sister, cousin or even a close friend you personally knew ever since you joined the armed forces, KIA and flown home, then buried in Arlington in a flag-draped coffin surrounded by an honor guard and weeping relatives and friends.





Surely the military families are not benefiting from the war, but suffering from the war and occupation, rendering Afghanistan a lost cause, and has always been a lost cause, in the self-styled Graveyard of Empires.





What do you think?




posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   
The sad thing is not that this is happening. but that the average person just doesn't care. To pull them out of Afgan will only see them sent elsewhere.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   
what do i think?

well this pretty much sums it up:






posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Where are all the anti-war protesters?

I guess protesting liberal Wall Street is more important.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Obama is CIA and was groomed to become President to protect the CIA's interests and source of income which are the Opium crops grown in Afghanistan.

Similar to the war in Vietnam which was also the world's premier source for Opium at the time.

Ever see a picture where Obama and Bush Senior meet....it's all smiles, winks and masonic handshakes.

As if they are old buddies.



Why do you think US Army Ranger, Pat Tillman was killed by friendly fire after a short tour of duty in Afghanistan ?

Because He had scheduled an interview with a journalist on his next leave and was planning on spilling the beans as to what he had seen in the "Stan".

That's why...

Plain and Simple.


Rest In Peace Pat TIllman...

www.msnbc.msn.com...



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Carseller4
Where are all the anti-war protesters?

I guess protesting liberal Wall Street is more important.



Yes they ALL love war now. This is how the American dictator (whether Obama or some other stooge) will be graciously ushered in.

This OWS thing is going to go nowhere fast until it turns into a giant "WE REFUSE TO SUPPORT WAR EVER AGAIN" rally.

They powers will pretend to commit the money the people are asking for and then announce we can't have it because the boogie man China is stopping us from getting our negotiated money. So WWIII will begin.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 10:33 AM
link   
How is obama personally responsible for increasing the numbers of soldiers killed in action? Apart from the fact they should not be out there still. Has he reduced military funding leading to cheaper kit for frontline troops or something? I can't realy follow any logic in what your saying. Its more likely a consequence of what the taliban are doing rather than anything obama has done.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Atzil321
 


He is the commander in chief. Doesn't he command the military?

You know people die in war. So when you command war you are responsible for death.

Maybe he should END THE WARS? I know i am just a peon.. but just a thought.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   
And what about all of the suicides among military personnel these
days. Aren't they casualties as well? Soldiers are killing themselves
in record numbers. It's scary. War is hell and they are paying such
a high price for a system that does not give a damn about them.

The pioneers of a warless world are the young men and women
who refuse military service. -Albert Einstein



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Albert really was a genius wasnt he?
How succinctly put.
The suicides are casualties of the war as surely as the dead and maimed flown back to foriegn bases and hospitals first to avoid being filmed here.
if asked to perform such inhuman actions as i have read the leaders have ordered,(things like tortures and even targeted civillians killed as well)....
It becomes a matter of life long regret for these young people i am sure.....Then to come home to basically some ignominous job flipping burgers or civil police service where they just get more traumas inflicted.
All of that without ever getting answers really as to the need for it all, It must play very heavily on the sensitive individual.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 06:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by clintdelicious
The sad thing is not that this is happening. but that the average person just doesn't care. To pull them out of Afgan will only see them sent elsewhere.


Thats because there is no draft. And it might sound cynical and heartless, but 5000 dead troops in 10 years is not that much. About 100.000 people have been gunned down in America since 2001. The numbers are just not as shocking as in Vietnam, there is no draft and the nation as a whole isnt as involved in the war either.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666

Originally posted by clintdelicious
The sad thing is not that this is happening. but that the average person just doesn't care. To pull them out of Afgan will only see them sent elsewhere.


Thats because there is no draft. And it might sound cynical and heartless, but 5000 dead troops in 10 years is not that much. About 100.000 people have been gunned down in America since 2001. The numbers are just not as shocking as in Vietnam, there is no draft and the nation as a whole isnt as involved in the war either.


Yeah but millions killed in Iraq and Afghanistan is a lot. What's the difference? People killed by violence are people killed by violence. And if you advocate that then you give your Masters the OK to dominate YOU with violence and this is the problem.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Almost to be expected when you have someone in charge with no prior military experience. It is my personal belief that one of the requirements to run for president should be at least 4 years of active duty military service. This way at least we wont have clueless people getting in the whitehouse trying to fight a war for the nation when they have no clue how the inner workings of the military work.



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 01:32 AM
link   
.On a recent 1,800 km cruise down Russian rivers and lakes to Moscow,
visiting churches and historic sights (sponsored by various university
alumnae), the most persuasive of several distinguished lecturers on
things Russian was Larry Black, a Carleton University professor and
founding director of the Centre for Research on Canadians-Russian
Relations...

.. Appealing about Prof. Black was his realization that
"experts" on Russia's (and before that, the Soviet Union's) politics and
future were often calamitously wrong. Black is cautious, informal,
immensely knowledgeable and acutely aware that until something actually
happens in Russia, it's best not to make categorical assumptions...

.. Those with memories might recollect that until the Soviet
Union imploded and crashed, "experts" thought it was invulnerable.
Before that, on the eve of Khrushchev's ouster in 1964, experts were
proclaiming that "his mantle of power was never more secure..."..

.. In Russia, parliamentary elections are due on Dec. 4,
with the presidential election in March. There is even a move in Russia
to make it a parliamentary democracy, which may be the future, but not
quite now.



The big news in Russia, for those who care, is that Vladimir Putin is
again running for president -- a role he's held twice before, until the
constitution declared twice was enough. He then switched to prime
minister for a term, and is now eligible for two more terms as
president, with each term extended to six years...

.. That means Putin is likely to be in the job until 2024...

.. The present president, Dmitry Medvedev, (who has a more
distinguished administrative record than Putin) is likely to be the PM.
The pair have a sort of Tweedledum and Tweedledee relationship that
works well...

....(Blog continues after slideshow)....

..




..























1 of 7



















































Prof.
Larry Black of Carleton University, founding director of the Centre for
Research on Canadian-Russian Relations and an expert about Russia.




comments(1)


















Total comments: 1 | Post a Comment





1 of 7






















.. It's hard to see Putin losing in the election -- 315 of
450 seats in the Duma are held by the conservative United Russia party
which supports Putin and Medvedev. Although the popularity of United
Russia has dropped from 64 per cent in 2007 to 40 per cent last May,
there's no other party that is likely to govern...

.. Oddly, as described by Black, the president of Russia
belongs to no party -- but United Russia is (or has been) his. As
something of a macho, dynamic individual, the great achievement of Putin
after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, was to restore the rule
of law amid the economic and political chaos that afflicted liberated
Russia...

..One never knows, but it's unlikely Medvedev will challenge Putin's
bid for the presidency. And Dmitry Rogozin, leader of Russia's extremist
nationalist party, Rodina, seems on the verge of throwing in with
United Russia to ensure Putin's return to power -- with possibly himself
destined to be deputy speaker...

..We in North America tend to forget (if we ever know) that Russia is
Europe's second biggest economy. It's also the world's biggest producer
of oil and gas -- probably more than the rest of the world combined...

..China now buys all its gas from Russia. It has more hydro power than
the rest of the world combined, has the largest land space and 25 per
cent of the world's unfrozen water. Russia has 31 nuclear reactors and a
severe labour shortage. Its potential is limitless...

..What Russia has that we haven't to the same extent, is Islamic terrorism...

..We hear little about Russia's continuing war against terror -- maybe a
thousand terror incidents a year, most of them by Chechen extremists.
Our media tends to the view that Russia (and before that the USSR) is
oppressive and at fault in Chechnya...

..What isn't widely realized that after the first Chechnya war
(1992-96), Russia agreed to a treaty and to study the question of
separation. Russian people didn't give a damn. Chechnya was at the
bottom of then country, and who cared? Something could be worked out.
Chechnya won...

..The second Chechnya war was started in 1999 by an Islamic terrorist
called Shamil Basayev -- a homicidal jihadist who was against the
existing Chechnya government and wanted Sharia law imposed, favoured
foreigners being killed and, indeed, has hoisted heads impaled on pikes...

..Shamil was responsible for the 2002 Moscow theatre hostage incident
that resulted in 170 deaths; he engineered the Beslan school massacre in
2004 of 380 people -- 190 of them children; his people were behind the
suicide bombing of a hospital that killed 33...

..Basayev was apparently killed in an explosion, but another terrorist,
Doku Umarov is carrying on the terror program -- killing 46 in a Moscow
metro bombing last year, and 36 killed earlier this year when Chechen
jihadists shot up Domodedova airport. (Security at that airport is still
nervous and intense -- three sets of electronic scannings for
passengers)...

..Today most Russians would gladly see all Chechens killed...

..The first Chechnya war was nationalistic, the second was Islamist, involving Saudis...

..Russia's war against Islamic terrorism begs the question why it seems
to side with Iran against U.S. interests, and opposed the air war
against Libya's Muammar Gadhafi. Why is Russia sympathetic towards Hamas
and Hezbollah?..

..Who knows? Maybe it's another example of Churchill's observation that
Russia is "a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma... perhaps
the key is Russian national interest."..

..Perhaps indeed -- one the Larry Black and others constantly probe...



posted on Nov, 28 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Pretty simple really. In the earlier years of the Afghan conflict the US were primarily responsible for the North of the country. The number of deaths have increased dramatically since they took over some of the nastier regions of southern Helmand where the Taliban have traditionally had more influence. British deaths have decreased slightly over the last couple of tours as we have moved from areas such as Musa Quala and handed them over to US forces.

We (British) are still holding much of southern Helmand, but there are considerably more US troops in these hard line areas than before. These areas are closer to the Pakistan boarder regions and have many more Taliban per square mile than the rest of the country. Simple as that.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join