PDA

View Full Version : 4 US Soldiers Killed in Afghanistan Sat. Jan 7th, 2012.....



MMC
01-08-2012, 10:08 AM
Yesterday we Lost 4 Soldiers.....Heaven Needed Some More Heroes! All were around my area except the one from Indianapolis. The Soldier who Surivived from Hammond In. Is the Uncle of my step-son's close friend. They WILL NOT BE FORGOTTEN! Huah! http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b297/GHGecko/ANI_GIFs/BUs/Smiley_BU_Sign_Salute_A_Vet.gif


INDIANAPOLIS — Four soldiers with an Indiana-based National Guard unit were killed in Afghanistan and a fifth was injured when their vehicle struck a roadside bomb as they were working to clear a supply route of the improvised bombs, guard officials said Saturday.

The four men killed were identified as: Staff Sgt. Jonathan M. Metzger, 32, of Indianapolis, Spc. Brian J. Leonhardt, 21, of Merrillville, Ind., Spc. Robert J. Tauteris Jr., 44, of Hamlet, Ind., and Spc. Christopher A. Patterson, 20, of Aurora, Ill.
A fifth soldier injured in the blast, Pvt. Douglas Rachowicz, 29, of Hammond, Ind., was initially treated at a military base hospital in Kandahar before being airlifted to the U.S. military hospital in Landstuhl, Germany, Umbarger said.....snip~

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/jan/07/4-ind-national-guardsmen-killed-in-afghanistan/

R.I.P. my brothers! Sua Sponte. http://politirant.com/Smileys/oldrant/icon_salut.gif

totemi
01-08-2012, 10:23 AM
The National Guard should not be in Afghanistan.

MMC
01-08-2012, 10:26 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUKMNHjb_PQ

The Soldier flown to Germany is hurt very seriously. Skull, back, torso, over 6 pints of blood loss and more. My son's friend. She is devastated as she was close to him.

I understand the Call.....I have lived it......I would do so again, without hesitation. But I would also go with the thought in my head. Fuck Afgahnistan and the shit hole it is!!!!!

Conley
01-08-2012, 10:33 AM
Terrible news MMC, my thoughts are with you and she. IEDs :angry:

MMC
01-08-2012, 10:35 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGCPAKLsX08&feature=related

They Lived and Died As Soldiers! http://politirant.com/Smileys/oldrant/icon_salut.gif

Conley
01-08-2012, 10:39 AM
:icon_salut:

MMC
01-08-2012, 10:44 AM
Terrible news MMC, my thoughts are with you and she. IEDs :angry:

Thanks CL.....that was their job to. Dammit! They were clearing mines and checking for them on the supply route. Here is some news my wife was just called by her teacher friend. Her son is there to and his squad were the ones to discover them. He was actually holding one of them in his arms. When he passed. Don't know how she got the News so fast. A day ahead I guess. :undecided:

Conley
01-08-2012, 10:59 AM
Terrible. I just posted an article about how things have gotten worse since we stopped the drone attacks. Our boys need to come home, leave that cursed place to fall into the hell of its own creation.

MMC
01-08-2012, 11:03 AM
Terrible. I just posted an article about how things have gotten worse since we stopped the drone attacks. Our boys need to come home, leave that cursed place to fall into the hell of its own creation.

Yeah.....I responded in there already. :wink:

Conley
01-08-2012, 11:08 AM
Yeah.....I responded in there already. :wink:

You are a quick one! :laugh:

MMC
01-08-2012, 11:11 AM
You are a quick one! :laugh:

Thats what she said.....:smiley_ROFLMAO:

Mister D
01-08-2012, 11:51 AM
This kind of reporting does a disservice to us all, IMHO. We don't need daily death tolls and names. I understand where MMC is coming from and I definitely respect that but wars should not be reported this way. It did a great deal of damage to our cause in Vietnam, for example, and I doubt it helped in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, it most likely hurt us. Secondly, I just did a rough calculation and an average of 328 American men died each day in the Second World War. Now it's news when 4 men are killed? What's next? Will they show baby pictures and grieving parents? WTF?

Conley
01-08-2012, 11:57 AM
I disagree completely but respect you for voicing your opinion.

For starters, these men deserve to be remembered and appreciated for the sacrifices they made.

Besides that, the American people should know the true cost of war. We're already too sheltered as it is. If people recognize the folly of some of these wars then hopefully we are less likely to repeat the errors in the future - learning from our history, as it were. If nothing else, the reporting from Iraq and Afghanistan are a reminder of how we need to get rid of our oil dependence and leave the Middle East behind (before anyone disagrees, I link Afghanistan to oil because it was AQ's goal to get the US off the Arabian Peninsula and away from the holy land; the reason we were there is of course because of oil).

MMC
01-08-2012, 11:59 AM
More than likely due to being the first for the year. As usually they do not release the names so quick. Not that I agree with it. As like you say they have gone how many years without giving the names for a few days and after family has been contacted. Normally they Say NATO troops. In Which there are a bunch of links up that way.

It cannot compare to the Great Wars or even Nam on the death toll. Its on every news station round here, papers and radio.

Conley
01-08-2012, 12:01 PM
The family should definitely be contacted first. Are you guys saying that didn't happen in this case? That would have been a real cluster.

MMC
01-08-2012, 12:04 PM
I would disagree with you on the aspect of reporting the deaths of.....and agree with CL's thought. No need to shelter any, when the Dogs of War Bay!

Putting the personal info out before family and all have been contacted, is what I am against. As this is how their family found out.

Peter1469
01-08-2012, 12:05 PM
When I was in Iraq, the base would turn off the internet until family members could be notified of deaths. Of course if you had a private connection in your quarters that was available.

Mister D
01-08-2012, 12:06 PM
I disagree completely but respect you for voicing your opinion.

For starters, these men deserve to be remembered and appreciated for the sacrifices they made.

Besides that, the American people should know the true cost of war. We're already too sheltered as it is. If people recognize the folly of some of these wars then hopefully we are less likely to repeat the errors in the future - learning from our history, as it were. If nothing else, the reporting from Iraq and Afghanistan are a reminder of how we need to get rid of our oil dependence and leave the Middle East behind (before anyone disagrees, I link Afghanistan to oil because it was AQ's goal to get the US off the Arabian Peninsula and away from the holy land; the reason we were there is of course because of oil).

Respect all around of course. We're just discussing. :smiley:

They do deserve to be remembered but being memorialized on the 6 O'clock news is a different matter. What are we trying to do? Win? If so, this isn't the smart thing to do. I understand that you don't support the war and neither do I but that's not the point. Let me put it this way. What if you did support the war? What if you thought it was absolutely necessary and the righteous thing to do. What then? Would you support this kind of reporting when it undermines morale at home?

Conley
01-08-2012, 12:06 PM
I would disagree with you on the aspect of reporting the deaths of.....and agree with CL's thought. No need to shelter any, when the Dogs of War Bay!

Putting the personal info out before family and all have been contacted, is what I am against. As this is how their family found out.

I didn't realize that on my first read through. That's awful.

Conley
01-08-2012, 12:07 PM
When I was in Iraq, the base would turn off the internet until family members could be notified of deaths. Of course if you had a private connection in your quarters that was available.

Thanks, that does make sense. I can see how a leak would happen.

MMC
01-08-2012, 12:15 PM
When I was in Iraq, the base would turn off the internet until family members could be notified of deaths. Of course if you had a private connection in your quarters that was available.


Musta have been how my wife's friend found out. Thanks I thought they blacked out things Until Contact with the family was done. Course now then it's all over facebook I would imagine.

Conley
01-08-2012, 12:18 PM
Respect all around of course. We're just discussing. :smiley:

They do deserve to be remembered but being memorialized on the 6 O'clock news is a different matter. What are we trying to do? Win? If so, this isn't the smart thing to do. I understand that you don't support the war and neither do I but that's not the point. Let me put it this way. What if you did support the war? What if you thought it was absolutely necessary and the righteous thing to do. What then? Would you support this kind of reporting when it undermines morale at home?

Going along with your hypothetical, if it were a war well supported then this sort of thing wouldn't be damaging to morale. It would be considered a loss, certainly, but a loss in terms of an overall noble goal and the price one must pay for victory. We agree that if you go to war you go to win, but IMO hiding the death toll does more harm than good.

Really, I think most Americans don't pay attention to these stories - Kim Kardashian gets more airtime - and I doubt it even makes the national nightly news except in terms of periodic updates on death tallies.

MMC
01-08-2012, 12:21 PM
Respect all around of course. We're just discussing. :smiley:

They do deserve to be remembered but being memorialized on the 6 O'clock news is a different matter. What are we trying to do? Win? If so, this isn't the smart thing to do. I understand that you don't support the war and neither do I but that's not the point. Let me put it this way. What if you did support the war? What if you thought it was absolutely necessary and the righteous thing to do. What then? Would you support this kind of reporting when it undermines morale at home?

Yet we then report such when taking down the heads of AQ and other terrorists. Or report that we have killed so many and usually with an exact number. My point would be if you can use such to boost the morale of a nation, and especially those that would seek to keep us engaged and the money/politics that chooses to do so. Then you can't have.....just one side of the coin.

Conley
01-08-2012, 12:32 PM
Yet we then report such when taking down the heads of AQ and other terrorists. Or report that we have killed so many and usually with an exact number. My point would be if you can use such to boost the morale of a nation, and especially those that would seek to keep us engaged and the money/politics that chooses to do so. Then you can't have.....just one side of the coin.

True. If the government keeps a lid on our casualties coming out that IMO that will probably lead to more general outrage and people being much more aware of the true cost of war. As it is these stories come out all the time and the masses have become numb to them. When was the last time we heard of an anti-war protest? Even as Obama expanded into Libya and moves toward Iran.

Mister D
01-08-2012, 12:53 PM
Going along with your hypothetical, if it were a war well supported then this sort of thing wouldn't be damaging to morale. It would be considered a loss, certainly, but a loss in terms of an overall noble goal and the price one must pay for victory. We agree that if you go to war you go to win, but IMO hiding the death toll does more harm than good.

Really, I think most Americans don't pay attention to these stories - Kim Kardashian gets more airtime - and I doubt it even makes the national nightly news except in terms of periodic updates on death tallies.

Hiding the death toll and reporting on it daily are two different things and I do think dwelling on death and the true cost of war (e.g. mutilated bodies etc.) is extremely harmful to public morale especially over time regardless of how committed we are as a society to the war effort. That's why it was not done before Vietnam and the end result of that kind of reporting was defeat in Vietnam. Back in the 1940s, it was recognized as something you simply don't want to do. Thankfully, they didn't.

True. I doubt many people are really paying attention but your average person's impression of the war will be colored by those nightly newscasts. "More Americans killed in Iraq today..."

Mister D
01-08-2012, 12:54 PM
Yet we then report such when taking down the heads of AQ and other terrorists. Or report that we have killed so many and usually with an exact number. My point would be if you can use such to boost the morale of a nation, and especially those that would seek to keep us engaged and the money/politics that chooses to do so. Then you can't have.....just one side of the coin.

Sure you can. Killing the enemy is a good thing. Our guys getting killed is a bad thing. Raising our morale is a good thing. Lowering our morale is a bad thing.

Mister D
01-08-2012, 12:55 PM
True. If the government keeps a lid on our casualties coming out that IMO that will probably lead to more general outrage and people being much more aware of the true cost of war. As it is these stories come out all the time and the masses have become numb to them. When was the last time we heard of an anti-war protest? Even as Obama expanded into Libya and moves toward Iran.

I'm not saying that a lid should be kept on anything but the obsession with daily death tolls does not do a war effort any good whatsoever.

MMC
01-08-2012, 01:05 PM
Sure you can. Killing the enemy is a good thing. Our guys getting killed is a bad thing. Raising our morale is a good thing. Lowering our morale is a bad thing.

I will go with Walter Cronkite stated.....

"The point is that in any war situation, this is the most intimate commitment that the American government can make of its people. This is our war, our troops, our boys, our girls. We need to know every detail about how they are performing in our name, both when they perform well and when they perform badly. It's most important when they perform badly, as a matter of fact. So war should be covered intimately. Correspondents should be there reporting on it. Their dispatches should go through a censorship procedure so that no military secrets are given to the enemy. But there is the report; it is there for history. It may not be released by censorship immediately, maybe not the next day, maybe not the next month, but it'll be there next year. It'll be there ten years from now.
Today we have no independent film of the [1991] Persian Gulf War — none — because our correspondents, our film crews, were not permitted to go out on the front with the troops. They should have been. The tape they shot should have been sent back to censorship. If it couldn't be released immediately, at least it would be held for eventual release and for history. We don't have that history now. That history is lost to us. It's a crime against the democracy".....snip~

http://www.pbs.org/weta/reportingamericaatwar/reporters/cronkite/censorship.html

I don't mind certain censorship in war just like Cronkite. Things that don't really give the enemy an advantage over us. With these conflicts now. We have lost history! Although, I don't say democracy I say the The Republic!

Conley
01-08-2012, 01:17 PM
That would have been incredible footage to see.

MMC
01-08-2012, 01:22 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qvp37o1jZUo

The Truth may not set you free.....but none can say. One is not standing on righteous ground!

Conley
01-08-2012, 01:25 PM
And knowing you are in the right does wonders for morale.

Mister D
01-08-2012, 03:21 PM
I will go with Walter Cronkite stated.....

"The point is that in any war situation, this is the most intimate commitment that the American government can make of its people. This is our war, our troops, our boys, our girls. We need to know every detail about how they are performing in our name, both when they perform well and when they perform badly. It's most important when they perform badly, as a matter of fact. So war should be covered intimately. Correspondents should be there reporting on it. Their dispatches should go through a censorship procedure so that no military secrets are given to the enemy. But there is the report; it is there for history. It may not be released by censorship immediately, maybe not the next day, maybe not the next month, but it'll be there next year. It'll be there ten years from now.
Today we have no independent film of the [1991] Persian Gulf War — none — because our correspondents, our film crews, were not permitted to go out on the front with the troops. They should have been. The tape they shot should have been sent back to censorship. If it couldn't be released immediately, at least it would be held for eventual release and for history. We don't have that history now. That history is lost to us. It's a crime against the democracy".....snip~

http://www.pbs.org/weta/reportingamericaatwar/reporters/cronkite/censorship.html

I don't mind certain censorship in war just like Cronkite. Things that don't really give the enemy an advantage over us. With these conflicts now. We have lost history! Although, I don't say democracy I say the The Republic!

If you don't mind censorship we don't have much of a disagreement. I for one like all the footage that was taken of combat in WW2 (by all sides) but I can tell you with some confidence that pictures of dead and mutilated GIs were not gracing the pages of Time.

Conley
01-08-2012, 03:27 PM
Nor are they today. In that sense, 'censorship' is still alive and well today.

Mister D
01-08-2012, 03:35 PM
I haven't picked up an issue of Time in ages but I've seen some horrific stuff since the wars started. Some of it no doubt on Fox since that was what I used to watch the most. Fox was also big on the death count crap as were all the networks. I don't recall ever seeing dead GIs but plenty of maimed GIs.

Conley
01-08-2012, 03:46 PM
I haven't picked up an issue of Time in ages but I've seen some horrific stuff since the wars started. Some of it no doubt on Fox since that was what I used to watch the most. Fox was also big on the death count crap as were all the networks. I don't recall ever seeing dead GIs but plenty of maimed GIs.

Really? Interesting. I haven't seen it, but I don't get much of my news from TV. I remember there was a blackout on photos of coffins coming back home, right?

Mister D
01-08-2012, 03:50 PM
Really? Interesting. I haven't seen it, but I don't get much of my news from TV. I remember there was a blackout on photos of coffins coming back home, right?

Yeah, I remember that controversy. Now that I think of it the worst stuff by far was photos of kids and other non-combatants that had been injured.

Conley
01-08-2012, 04:00 PM
Yes, I do remember photos of Iraqi kids in hospitals. I remember seeing some wounded guys when Walter Reed was being exposed but generally speaking, not much.

Was the war in Iraq ever popular? I don't seem to recall it ever being so (even though Congress voted for it). If anything, the casualty numbers (of our troops) have been astoundingly low and I don't think those deaths have contributed much to the anti-war movement - not that there is one.

I think not finding WMDs and the eventual nation building were far more detrimental to general morale and the war itself. I don't feel that Americans have felt much for the loss of our soldiers. People slapped a yellow ribbon on their gas guzzling SUV, and the lefties used the body count to attack Bush, but there didn't seem to me at least much sincerity behind any of it. Maybe I'm just too cynical.

Mister D
01-08-2012, 04:11 PM
Yes, I do remember photos of Iraqi kids in hospitals. I remember seeing some wounded guys when Walter Reed was being exposed but generally speaking, not much.

Was the war in Iraq ever popular? I don't seem to recall it ever being so (even though Congress voted for it). If anything, the casualty numbers (of our troops) have been astoundingly low and I don't think those deaths have contributed much to the anti-war movement - not that there is one.

I think not finding WMDs and the eventual nation building were far more detrimental to general morale and the war itself. I don't feel that Americans have felt much for the loss of our soldiers. People slapped a yellow ribbon on their gas guzzling SUV, and the lefties used the body count to attack Bush, but there didn't seem to me at least much sincerity behind any of it. Maybe I'm just too cynical.

I think it was somewhat popular when it first started although I don't recall any numbers. I might be wrong. The casualty figures are incredibly low. Far lower even than Vietnam which in turn was far lower than Korea and WW2. I do remember the anti-war movement (which we both know suddenly disappeared with the election of BO) used to play up the deaths to bring attention to the movement. They used Iraqi civilian deaths too and always the most exaggerated ones available.

Lack of WMDs and nation building (it's rocky road more so than the idea itself, IMO) undermined what support there was. Agreed. The neocons didn't portray it as a long term commitment. When it turned into one people weren't happy and rightfully so.