Posted wo comment
- Thread starter THE_DEVIL
- Start date
WT actual F. How much more of this buffoonery can our nation take.
They'll be listed as Killed in Action (KIA) or died in the line of duty. They just wouldn't technicall be counted as casualties of the officially defined "Iran War" if the Pentagon, in fact, decided conflict ended when the ceasefire took effect (and that's the route the Pentagon wants to take). Shouldn't impact any family benefits, etc...just how it's listed.
Last edited:
Well, whaddya know? Turns out all those American soldiers killed in the Tet Offensive weren’t actually casualties of the Vietnam War after all. On account of we were under a ceasefire at the time.
A lot, our country cares more about tv dating shows than it does politics
Still BS and you know it.
And, you trust this administration, especially the SecDef? They aren't too rigid about following rules.
“My cup is just too full to pay attention to politics”
Well seeing as how an official “war” technically requires an act of Congress the department’s stance seems like using a bureaucratic change of name to justify a lower death toll.
I can understand having two different operations, but we should still provide the overall stats of a conflict with another country. In WW2 they would list D Day casualties and then also roll them up to the broader umbrella total of the war.
didn't comment an opinion one way or the other.
To pay their families is my guess. Why else remove them from the death total in a war of choice?
I always thought a “cease fire” meant both sides … you know … ceased firing.
Not for Israel styled ceasefires.
Certainly no intent on dishonesty from this WH.
This is beyond disgusting.
I eagerly await how Newsmax and Fox Opinion Network spin this.
This is beyond disgusting.
I eagerly await how Newsmax and Fox Opinion Network spin this.
I'm assuming he meant in actually honoring all the family "benefits" (the word just seems gross considering the scenario of why these people are dead).
It's one thing to manipulate numbers to skew war perception, it's another to intentionally and unnecessarily deny a family's benefits. I would not put the former past this administration, but the latter would be unusually cruel to Veterans they seemingly support, especially considering their names are now a matter of public record (and scrutiny).
It's weird that the U.S. is fighting a war that it already won and having casualties against an enemy that is "completely obliterated."
Iran has already won this war by withstanding everything the "supposedly" strongest military in the world has dished out.
It's also clear this WH underestimated the Iranian response and resolve.
No way out for Trump, at least, gracefully.
It's also clear this WH underestimated the Iranian response and resolve.
No way out for Trump, at least, gracefully.
1. I don't trust them to accurately report information
2. This administration has been marked by an extreme willingness to break contracts.They keep losing court cases over it. Congressionally authorized funds not being dispersed. Members of the military purged for a variety of reasons. Trans members purged and denied benefits after years of faithful service. So, yeah, I can see some wanker following Dementia Donald's instructions forcing the families to sue.
3. Trump views the military as props, and he's a raging narcissist. Why would Trump care if a little person gets harmed? His ego an the reality he creates need to be protected.
According to reports Trump is weighing an escalation of the non-conflict. We're going to super obliterate them if they don't go back to begging for a deal.
Their families will be relieved that they didn’t die in a senseless war
Look, I don't necessarily disagree w/ what you posted...I'm just looking at it objectively. IMO this is likely someone in the admin/DoD manipulating data points. I doubt Trump personally woke up and thought, "How can I screw families of these four servicemembers?" NOt sure what purpose that would serve...politically or for his ego.
My guess is this is some last ditch effort to improve the optics of the conflict (if that's even possible). Fewer officially counted war casualties looks better to the public than more. That doesn't make it right, but it's a very different than intentionally targeting Gold Star families. Now, if later we find out families are actually being denied benefits or honors because of this, we can have a raise hell thread then.
and that kinda proves why the reclassification is dumb. 100 years from now it may have some impact, but current day we all know the truth/reality.
...the more I think about it, wondering if there's some sort of legal issue here. The military often uses very specific definitions for operations, campaigns and contingency missions. If these deaths occurred after an operation officially ended (even if they were clearly related) they may no longer qualify for that op's casualty count.
I remember in OEF vs OIF the allowable collateral damage thresholds (yes, that's a thing) were significantly different between the two campaigns. The acceptable noncombatant casualty estimates could vary quite a bit depending on the theater and ROE. ...just spitballing examples of things not generally known to the public. I remember sitting in the targeting cell watching the pred feeds waiting forever while the attorneys made the call before a strike.
I remember in OEF vs OIF the allowable collateral damage thresholds (yes, that's a thing) were significantly different between the two campaigns. The acceptable noncombatant casualty estimates could vary quite a bit depending on the theater and ROE. ...just spitballing examples of things not generally known to the public. I remember sitting in the targeting cell watching the pred feeds waiting forever while the attorneys made the call before a strike.
One thing is certain...there's some specific reason for doing this and it's intent is to make this WH look better.
What I would like to hear are comments from the families of the dead soldiers!
What I would like to hear are comments from the families of the dead soldiers!
B*tch be for real, huh
Let's make a deal, b*tch be for real
Is you off a pill? Okay
Let's make a deal, Rumpelstiltskin (hm)
She wanna see my purple pickle up in the wind (okay)…
…I am constructor, that b*tch I demolish, ayy!
Yes give me, a girl from Disney
And a Happy Meal, pretty please don't gyp me
On fries (ketchup), on the guys, uh huh
McDonalds 'cause they still sellin' pies, uh-huh
Just bought a new suit, got mob ties, uh-huh
Said he want beef, pull up, Five Guys, uh-huh
Yes I'm fire, lil' different like pumpkin fries…
…I'ma put my foot up in it, sock it, uh
Who's this? He should be in cockpit, uh
'Cause I'm flyer than a f#ckin' ostrich, uh
On my wood, that b*tch won't give me polish, uh
I am constructor, that b*tch I demolish, ayy!
They have been pretty open about not supporting women or minorities, and three of the four fall into that category.