More troops die in Afghanistan, major highway in shambles and voter fraud charges continue...
By John Amato Tuesday Sep 08, 2009 5:00pm
(h/t CSPANjunkie)
The Afghan war is going very badly and support is shrinking. I heard Michael Ware say on CNN (above clip) that the big multimillion dollar Highway #1 which runs from Kabul to Kandahar that we repaved has been almost destroyed and the Taliban can attack at will. Drivers are left completely exposed to attacks, but what choice do Afghan truckers have?
More troop losses are mounting....
Eight soldiers have died on a bloody day for US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Three died in a roadside bombing in northern Iraq - the US military's deadliest single incident in five months - and one died in Baghdad.
Four soldiers died in what was described as a "complex attack" in Kunar province, eastern Afghanistan.
Violence in Afghanistan is at a record high, while attacks have increased in Iraq since a US-led pull-back in July.
{}
In Afghanistan, violence has surged to a record high eight years after the US-led invasion which toppled the Taliban.Some 820 US soldiers are thought to have died in Afghanistan in those eight years.
The Bush administration mishandled their other war so badly that violence has spiked almost eight years laterand accusations of voter fraud are flying around.
Afghanistan’s UN-backed Electoral Complaints Commission ordered a recount and examination of some ballots in the Aug. 20 presidential election, saying it had found “clear and convincing evidence of fraud” in the vote.
The order came as results released by the country’s election authority showed President Hamid Karzai nearing the majority of votes required -- 50 percent plus one vote -- to be elected. It was the first official confirmation of fraud that independent election monitors say risks undermining the credibility of the vote and the next Afghan government.
The media would like us to forget that this is another Bush/Cheney disaster, but it is and the troops have to pay the ultimate price for getting us into another quagmire. This is the next political battle after health care in DC, but we're hitting it on the net now. After eight years the war is in even worse condition no matter what Joe Lieberman has to say.
Login or Register to post comments.
Obama has adopted the Bush military plan.
The Operation comprises several subordinate operations:
1. Operation Enduring Freedom - Afghanistan (OEF-A)
2. Operation Enduring Freedom - Philippines (OEF-P)
3. Operation Enduring Freedom - Horn of Africa (OEF-HOA)
4. Operation Enduring Freedom - Trans Sahara (OEF-TS)[
Among others who signed the letter, organized by the Foreign Policy Initiative, a newly created conservative organization, were Karl Rove, the senior adviser to Mr. Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush; William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard; and Ryan C. Crocker, the former ambassador to Iraq.
The letter to Mr. Obama said its signatories “congratulate you on the leadership you demonstrated” by sending 21,000 more troops and replacing the military commanders in Afghanistan this year, and it called on him to grant an anticipated request for more troops from Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/08...
...and let the remaining exhausted troops carry on in that slaughterhouse hellhole.
Of course we need to get the fuck out of Afghanistan and Iraq ASAP, but the soldiers who are there need to be protected.
We need to get our troops and equipment out of these sub asian continent hell holes IMMEDIATELY.
Whatever they teach in our military academies about wars and insurgencies is just plain wrong. They, the military, have not learned a thing from these foolish wars they get us into.
Not one more American man or woman should be injured or die in this hell hole. It isn't a country, it's the wild frontier.
The only reason we are there now is to protect a gas pipeline to be built from Russia, through Afganistan and to the coast to be compressed and sold on the world market. No dead Americans for world fuel companies.
Disgusting,
Icesailor
you meant a gas pipeline to bypass Russia.
Putin kicked out the western energy gangsters and all the other crooks long time ago they obviously all flocked back to the United States.
Russia has their very own local energy gangsters, they never had to import any foreign plutocrat... they seem to have made a fantastic job to have their very own oligarchy. In fact Russia makes our whacked out system look semi normal.
Jesus H. Tap Dancing Christ on a pogo stick, the only thing remotely positive you have to say about anyone and anything... and you decide to use it to cast Putin in a positive light.
Seriously?
...you meant a gas pipeline to bypass Iran, which is the only other way from the Caspian Sea region to the ocean.
Obama is making a big mistake by continuing and escalating the mayhem in Afghanistan. The situation is unwinnable.
Two more canucks died there yesterday.
Bring the troops home NOW.
I think Homer said it best in a recent episode when Lisa complained about zoos imprisoning animals, "But Lisa, they're getting to know something they never would in the wild. They're fat, bored and lacking in ambition, the American Dream."
how little repugs cared about the troops.
You know, its not surprising that after almost 8 years of being in Afghanistan that things are the way they are for the United States. Powerful nations always seemed to under estimate the people of Afghanistan and have eventually paid a heavy price for it.
Whats truely sad about the Afghans is that those same powerful nations always wonder why they face a foe that is probably more better at fighting armed conflicts than they are. The answer to that is simple. Those same powerful nations are the very ones who created the foe that they now face. The Afghans (and yes that includes the Taliban) have really had no choice but to become fighters from an early age due to constant invasions from powerful nations. If it wasn't the British, it was the Iranians, if it wasn't the Iranians it wast the Soviets, each other and so on. In my opinion, hands down the Afghans, irregardless of tribe or ethnic background are probably some of the best fighters in the world. The never did it for medals or emipiral dreams. They do it because they had no other choice in the matter. The United States is learning this the hard way and if this trend continues will end up the same way. Afghanistan is not called "the graveyard of empires" for nothing.
The United States is learning this the hard way ...
The US isn't learning anything, and doesn't want to. The Corporate Industrial Government has a very different set of priorities.
but then again, the corporate industrial Government of other past empires have had the same priorities and they all failed. I see no reason why the U.S. will not end up the same way given the history of Afghanistan.
I believe it is the innocent civilians merely trying to survive in Afghanistan who are paying the "ultimate price".
U.S. military enlistees CHOSE to enlist and to go to where they were sent. Then when they are committing war crimes by accepting unlawful orders from their superiors they are breaking the oaths they took to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
The truth is that the Taliban were in Texas for a big meeting with Unocal back in, I believe, 1998 in order to hatch plans for a pipeline. They told Unocal to take a flying leap and then they were officially on our "shit list".
Not to mention there is STILL no evidence (as admitted to by our own F.B.I.) that Osama bin Laden had ANYTHING to do with the attacks of 9/11.
If anyone has paid the "ultimate price" in Afghanistan, it is truly the innocents who are being attacked by our cowardly drones and worse.
George Will and Cindy Sheehan (politics makes strange bed fellows), among many other peace activists and others world-wide are right. It is time to admit DEFEAT and get the F out of Afghanistan AND Iraq.
(Besides. We need that Pentagon $$$ to pay for health care reform AND we need to save our soldiers lives).
why are we there again? just asking...
http://www.counterpunch.org/tomenron.html
Vietnam.
One of my friends from highschool got sent to Afghanistan, got shot, came home, and then got sent back to Afghanistan again.
One of my friends from high school was leading patrols foot patrols in Iraq on his first tour (and he's in the freakin' Navy, ffs); he's on his second tour, this time on a boat at least.
Btw, he (and I) are 49 years old.
Bring. Them. Home. Now.
From. Everywhere.
One thing I think should be brought into perspective is that by modern war time standards I don't think one could consider troop losses to be remarkably high.
Not when in comparison In Vietnam, the U.S. lost on average about 4,850 soldiers a year from 1963-75. In the Korean war, from 1950-53, the U.S. lost about 12,300 soldiers a year. What would happen to support if we started to realize these kind of casualties numbers. I think it maybe a little un fair for the older people who can still remember seeing the service men we have lost in eight years in Afghanistan lost in a single battle back then. I think we have gotten used to clean battles where not a single service man dies. If we were ever to have to go into North Korea or Iran I promise we would not be so fortunate.
Is it remotely possible that the Afghani's don't care for American-style (Corporatist State) democracy any more than the Iraqi's do? Or any more than the Soviet-style (State Corporatism) tried there in the 1980's?
Oh, wait! Could it be possible that neither Islamic-majority country cares to have heavy-handed foreign infidel occupiers on their soil?
Please tell me why we are still in either of these countries -- oh, right. The perpetual search for Osama bin Forgotten was replaced with the tenuous rationale to bring Western-style democracy and freedom to people who have no such aspirations. The truth, so apparent to them but not to us here in the USA, is that we are there for their OIL, their NATURAL GAS, or PIPELINE access to the SAME -- thanks to our wonderful Corporatist State Main Stream Media (propaganda organs).
It's time to redefine, one last time, our missions in both these countries, make accommodations with all the parties involved to bring stability there, declare victory, and LEAVE.
Well it is a fact that most of the 911 hijackers trained and planned in Afghanistan. In that country are vast networks of training camps devoted to teaching jihadist to kill Americans. These men will sooner or later kill more americans if nothing is done about it and next time it could be more than we lost in the trade center attack. After all that is what they are planning to do and there is where they are doing the planning from among other places. So I would think leaving without removing these elements or at least naturalizing them to a great degree would be no victory at all and may be saying the 820 of our brothers and sisters mentioned above may have just died in vain.
Naturalize them? Make them US citizens? To a greater degree? You mean make them high ranking Republicans? Yeesh, you conservatives really have gone around the bend!
.
You know it was a Freudian slip. Admit it. Those cats did a lot for the GOP in a short time.
And have to get rid of my favorite infidel t-shirt have you lost your mind?
I fail to see how killing civilians is going to do ANYTHING to stem the number of people trying to kill us. What would the first words out of your mouth be and what would your mission in life become if somebody killed your child or your mother? Continuing on with this "war" for events that happened 8 years ago is sheer madness, particularly since we can't afford it anymore. Since insurance companies have no problem letting Americans die each and ever day, dealing with the fact that someday, maybe, some Afghani might come out from under my bed and cut my head off is a risk I'm willing to take.
Oh, news flash: those 820 brothers and sisters have already died in vain.
Think about it: How many times have we heard that those civilians were killed on good information, only to find out that someone was more than likely having the troops get rid of personal enemies? Certainly reminds me of a particular film:
"Forget about it, Jake. It's Chinatown."
Yeah but Andy this is real life not some film. die in war. In Vietnam 2800 to 6000 civilians died in the city of Hue during the Tet Offensive. Do you think we targeted them?
Although there did seem to be a few bombing campaigns that didn't really pay much attention to the estimates of "collateral damage".
What I'm talking about are the air raids in Afghanistan on weddings and the like, working off of unreliable information from some tribal leader who claims that the people at the wedding are Taliban insurgents when those people are actually neutral or friendly to the US/NATO cause, but personal enemies of the informant.
Have you ever seen Chinatown? Jake Gittes, the main character, talks about how the cops in LA stayed out of the goings on in that neighborhood because they'd been used in a similar manner too many times. They- the cops, westerners- didn't understand the language well enough, and they didn't understand the culture at all.
So you believe we are intentionally targeting civilians? I don't but it is a reality of war. You say "Continuing on with this "war" for events that happened 8 years ago is sheer madness" but in the weeks after we saw the towers fall if you had been told it could take 10 years maybe more to get Osama and those that follow him but we will get them. What would you have said? Would you have said not if it will take that long or cost that much. Maybe you don't understand the term at all costs.
...I don't think so, at least not the same way that strategic bombing campaigns of the last century's wars did.
But I think that our intelligence is unreliable, and we've ended up unwittingly acting as the muscle in old feuds, and pissing off large chunks of the populace by doing so.
If we can't do it right, we shouldn't be doing anything at all.
Supposedly, 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi Arabians. Supposedly. And yet, at least 9 of those 15 Saudis are still alive and well, either working in Saudi Arabia or for Saudi companies overseas. Plus, there were no Saudi Arabians on any of the hijacked airlines passenger lists. The then Director of the FBI Robert Mueller never put Osama bin Laden on the FBI's Wanted List -- why? because there was no proof that he lead, orchestrated, or took part in any way with what happened on 9/11/2001. The de facto Taliban government of Afghanistan asked for substantiated proof from the Bush Administration before handing Osama bin Laden over to American "justice", proof we could not furnish because it didn't exist. In point of fact, it was the US government, during the 1998 Manhattan trial of the blind sheik, that "created" a highly organized top-to-bottom al Queda organization which never existed as anything other than an umbrella organization, in order to charge Osama bin Laden in absentia as a co-conspirator under RICO statutes.
Those "training camps" in Afghanistan were bombed during the Clinton administration, and again during the Bush administration after 9/11. The vast majority of those jihadists were training for the Taliban in Afghanistan, or for operations in Kashmir against the Indians, at the behest of Pakistan's ISI, the Taliban's largest benefactor. Except for USA military forces stationed in Saudi Arabia, and US Navy forces displaying their "big stick" in the Wahhabist-centric Yemen, there was no particular animosity against the USA. American oil and natural gas interests had been negotiating with the Taliban since 1998, when Taliban leadership was invited to the USA (as reported only by the BBC). The only reason those negotiations broke down was because the Taliban wanted too large a cut of the profits. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was quoted as saying that the Bush administration switched their focus from bombing Afghanistan to Iraq after 9/11 because "... there are no good targets in Afghanistan ...". There was not, ever, any links between Saddam Hussein in Iraq with any terrorist actions against USA national interests, nor with the radical fundamentalists of al Queda -- Saddam was a secular dictator who hated the fundamentalists.
The Congress appropriated $750 Billion USD to the Bush administration explicitly for military operations, including troops, in Afghanistan to go after Osama bin Laden. Those funds, and the troops authorized, were diverted from Afghanistan for the run-up to the illegal (and unjustified) invasion of Iraq. The CIA was forced to rely upon bought-and-paid-for tribal warlords for the Tora Bora operation, but they proved to be ineffectual and under-strength. Osama bin Laden subsequently escaped into the Pakistani tribal areas.
All of the USA and NATO forces currently in Afghanistan are there to prop up a hand-picked (and quite corrupt) puppet government whose leadership's only claim to fame was being UNOCAL's representative in support of the planned Oil and Natural Gas pipelines. The Taliban are not fighting the USA and NATO troops because they "hate our freedoms", they are nationalists fighting against foreign infidel invaders, just like the Soviets before us. Those 820 plus American troopers truly did die in vain, thanks to all Three Terms (including this one) of the Bush administration.
EXACTLY RIGHT, and it's Obama's war now...
It's unfeasible to run it through Afghanistan in the best of all possible circumstances. Any type of lasting peace is going to mean giving a lot of autonomy to to traditional tribal leaders- warlords, basically- who would hold hostage the sections of pipeline that run through their own little duchies.
The evidence that it wasn't the reason we invaded (other than the fact that all of the corporations pulled out of the project after making initial deals with the Taliban) is that Bushco committed so few troops to Afghanistan.
they are still talking about the Oil and Natural Gas pipelines. Instead of running the pipelines through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the ocean, they are now talking about running it through Pakistan into India. Negotiations, with some USA mediation, are on-going. India needs the energy for their growing economy -- a portion of the profits would go to both Afghanistan and Pakistan, whose economies very badly need new sources of funds. An added benefit is that a more peaceful, even symbiotic, relationship would be created between two nuclear-armed (and historically belligerent) neighbors. DoublePlusGood.
Obama needs to make a deal with the Taliban: "You can have Afghanistan. All we want is Osama bin Laden and what's left of al Qaeda. Help us get them and Afghanistan is yours without a fight."
The Afghanistan people would be better off under the Taliban than what they have now: a lawless land run by sociopathic warlords and corrupt American pigs.
Can you really believe this? I mean when we went into Iraq I remember the public outcry about human rights atrocities perpetrated in large by the Taliban and primarily to females in Afghanistan. So your telling me it would be better to leave the civilian population to the Taliban barbaric rule. Just as long as we get what we want. I thought you guys were suppose to be empathic.
Afghanistan, not Iraq. Iraq, under Saddam, treated women pretty decently. Secular law, not Sharia.
See, that's what happens when you drink the Bushco Kool-Aid.
:P
You misunderstand. @21:52 — tiktokklok said "The Afghanistan people would be better off under the Taliban" My point was that it would not be better. I used the outcry about human rights during that time as an example why it would not be better. That time being the start of the Iraq war. Pay attention.
It was the hot topic on September 12, 2001. A year later, when Bushco was trying to take us to war in Iraq, the focus was off of the burka and Afghanistan.
You're still confused. But that's okay. That's what indoctrination will do to you. Patty Hearst went through the same thing.
Was locked in a closet and repeatedly raped. These people have no excuse save for willful ignorance.
The women of Afghanistan were treated pretty shabbily until they overthrew the King in the '70's. It took a Soviet-backed, Marxist government to implement secular law that granted women rights, and allowed them to shed the burka.
But, ya know, we helped replace secular law in the country by arming those who wanted a return to Sharia law. Go figure.
So what is your point exactly? That you agree with tiktokklok
and that "The Afghanistan people would be better off under the Taliban" Or you just wnat to discount anything I say?
It's their culture. What right do we have trying to force Western culture on them? I wouldn't want to live there even if the women of Afghanistan had equal rights.
And there are many women who live under Sharia law who think it's fine. Jesus, there are women in this country who fought against the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment. Now them, I'll debate, because we share a culture, a way of thinking, if not the same thoughts.
You can trace the traditions of rights in this country back to Runnymede, where King John was forced to sign the Magna Carta. Then there was the English Civil War, the Glorious Revolution, the American Revolution, the emancipation and suffragette movements, the American Civil War, women winning the right to vote, the Lunch Counter Sit-Ins, the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act....All internal struggles, built on the cornerstone of Runnymede.
Afghanistan hasn't had its Runnymede. We can't expect them to cherish rights they haven't really struggled over.
So you believe it has nothing to do with those who believe like Osama and would want to kill Americans. And getting them where they live would be better than them attacking us again here. Maybe worse next time? Maybe in your town next time. It is only about, well...... all of that crap you just said? Do you think I care about Afghan history? I don't.
Why would they want to kill Americans?
First I ask myself where are the ones that will kill Americans.
They were at Tora Bora, surrounded, but instead of committing Americans to spring the trap, Bushco decided to go cheap and rent some oh-so-reliable Afghan warlords to do the job.
Again, though, it worked out for the GOP in the short-term, didn't it? Won the Senate back in 2002. Controlled both houses of Congress, the White House and the Supreme Court. Did jackshit to correct their little Tora Bora mistake over the next four years. *slow clap* *slow clap* *slow clap*
The correct answer is: "Because we support the other side in the civil war they're fighting." Same reason American revolutionaries attacked Montreal and Quebec during our revolution.
And that's got what to do with what I think? You were under the impression that I wanted Osama to get away. I thought they should have leveled Tora Bora while they had them pinned down there. If they ever really did. And having control of both houses of Congress, the White House and the Supreme Court means you can do anything right. Like pass the public option? Hmmm. Maybe not. Don't give me that bush crap I never voted for a bush so you can't stick me with his mistakes. But it's not bush now why does Obama not sign the order to bring them home if it's such a bad ideal I do remember during his campaign his saying it was important to get Bin Laden. You don't want him to go back on yet another campaign promise do you?
You break it, you buy it. Bushco broke a big one in the name of the USA, and we're paying on the installment plan.
Not every German supported Hitler, but plenty of them were killed in Allied bombing raids, and lived under occupation for a long time. They didn't bitch about the fact. It was Germany's legacy for which they were paying, and they knew that. Now, 65 1/2 years after they were defeated, they do well for themselves, and they learned how to be a good neighbor.
We're paying for the Bushco legacy. This is what happens when we don't fight hard enough to keep dumbasses out of the government. Hopefully, once we are out of there, it won't take so long for us to learn to become good neighbors.
It's late. I'm out. Smell ya later, Rick.
You have to understand Afghani culture to understand why that didn't (under BushCo) and won't work.
You also have to understand that we've been busy strong arming these people (or trying to) for decades.
And who are you to decide how anyone is better off? if you (we) are, why aren't we intervening in Darfur, or Somalia, or Ogaden (Ethiopia), the civil war in Chad, etc., etc.?
"Our boys" imbibed substantial amounts of alcohol before and after the NATO airstrike last Friday which killed 125 people:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/A...
Good times.
I may be missing it CL but I don't see where it shows in this report where the servicemen were drunk or drinking during the mission. It does not say how long after the mission it was before it was attempted to contact them. It may have been that they were celebrating after the mission not knowing that some of them who had gathered to siphon fuel from the lorries were civilians. It did say that twelve were insurgents maybe the same dozen that killed some of "Our boys" in the days prior to the bombing. I can see getting those dozen as being a reason to celebrate. You do realize it is customary to celebrate after a victory at battle?
"Thursday nights are the big party nights, because Friday's a 'low-ops' day. They even open a bar in the garden at headquarters. There's a '2-can' rule but people ignore it and hit it pretty hard."
The airstrike was last Friday. I wouldn't be surprised if many of the soldiers were hungover from the night before.
I'm sorry, but such behaviour doesn't sound very professional to me.
I agree that it sounds like a very real discipline problem. It really does not prove the servicemen that carried out the mission were in fact drinking or drunk. Or even hungover. It merely leads you to believe they could have been. Even if they were hung over it does not prove the 70 civilians and dozen insurgents died because of it. In fact it to me it says that it had nothing to with it at all and that it was the misinformation by the Germans that was to blame. Also 70 civilians + 12 insurgents only = 82 who were the other 43 maybe insurgents too? You said " I wouldn't be surprised if many of the soldiers were hungover from the night before" I bet you would be surprised if you found out that it was "our boys" brave boys BTW that did a good job. I am sure that one would suprise you all to hell. You know CL they are our boys yours and ours so how about giving them the benefit of the doubt.
Lastly it is WAR do you think that men that fight and bleed and may die tomorrow care if you like them drinking or not?
It's like the Wild West over there.
I don't blame them for wanting to drown their sorrows. What they witness daily must be horrendous. It's gone on far too long.
That's why we need to bring them home now. Enough is enough.
Goodnight.
It's hell where they are though it is a fact that they knew they may and more than liklely would go to war when they signed up. Did you think they would just be sitting at home polishing cannon balls? Goodnight and I honestly enjoyed talking to you.
Peace to all :)
Wonder how many of them have had their tours of duty extended indefinitely (stop loss).
Wonder how extended involuntary servitude in a hostile (deadly) environment effects one's sensibilities.
Wonder how long we can keep up this travesty, sending fine young men and women into these situations with little or no chance of escape.
Many volunteers had no other options. No jobs at home, no money - the military was the only job they could get.
Noah that is just a crap excuse. No other options! They all had the option to not sign up to do a dangerous job. If you sign up for military service during a time of war should you really be surprised when you get sent there? As far as stop loss and extended tours I think when you agree to be a solider you understand that you belong to the military until you time is up and can be stationed anywhere they want you to be. Stop loss is part of any servicemen's enlistment contract and not any kind of dirty secret. Once again nobody was forced to sign the enlistment contract.
Many of our guys currently serving are reservists who signed up in peacetime. Many are people who didn't have any other viable options - NO employment opportunities.
"The Department of Defense said Tuesday that all branches of the armed forces, including the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps, met or exceeded their active duty recruiting goals for January, continuing a trend that began with a decline in the U.S. job market.
This is despite more than 4,800 American soldiers, Marines and sailors dying in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
It wasn't always like this. In the past, when the economy was strong, the military struggled to fill its ranks. But since fiscal year 2006, the DOD has consistently met or exceeded its recruitment goals. This occurred even as the Navy, Marines and Air Force raised the bar on their goals.
The military acknowledged that weakness in the U.S. economy, which lost 2.6 million jobs in 2008 and another 598,000 in January, has made the armed services more appealing to potential recruits."
http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/10/news/economy/...
Reservists that signed in peacetime also knew that they could be called up at any time and they too signed enlistment contracts agreeing that if needed their time could be extended. I am sure during hard times some will turn to the military but that does not mean they never had a choice. Some people choose to stay in a easy low risk job while others choose to work on crab boats and put themselves at risk for more money. The key word is choice. I have been unemployed before two things I never did were draw a dime of unemployment or join the army. This was my choice.
You apparently had too many opportunities. Lucky you.
That we left Afganistan and went into Iraq for fun and profit.
Of coarse the war in Afganistan was just a staging point to go into Iraq. Bush to all the people at the end of the very first security council meeting well before 911, and I quote Paul Oneil The first treasury secretary for the bush cabal "Find me some way to get into Iraq"!
It was never about protecting America or its people, it was about making money. Bush eeven told reporters at a so called news conference that" Sometimes money trumps peace". If you look inside yourself and think that bush/chenny did anything to help America you are one stupid person!
republicanism is a mental illness!
Is a great reporter. For months he was the only one in the MSM who was telling the truth about the situation in Iraq. But I think he's been out there too long.
It took 12 years to turn Vietnam into Vietnam. We have turned Afghanistan into Vietnam in one-half that time, with less than ten percent the number of deaths of US soldiers! Go Team America!
When Obama is diving deeper into the quagmire.
I agree. Obama is behind the wheel now and if he wanted to sign the order today to start bringing them home he could. One thing about the "quagmire" is that we all knew what kind of war it would be when we decided to go into Afghanistan. We all knew that we would be attempting to do something that had never been done before and that we would be in for a extended war campaign there and that it would encompass war campaigns on other fronts as well. If it's the right thing to do then we should dedicate ourselves to it and if it is not then we should get out.
I don't think we can call this Bush's war anymore.
It never really was Bush's War - it was (and is) driven by interests outside the White House. Bush - and apparently Obama, too - are all too ready to please those interests.
You can call it anything other then the bush/chenny fiasco!
If bush/chenny wanted to do the right thing we would not have been there to start with. But this was never about 911 or terrorists!
This was about getting into Iraq for fun and profit.
Afganistan was just an easy place to get America involved so they could go into Iraq!
Bush/chenny never cared enough about America to do anything to even try to prevent 911!
Then they used it to get into Afganistan and on to Iraq!
Everything about the last eight years can be laid squarely at bush/chenny's feet!
Shows that Obama does NOT command the armed forces.
If he did?
We would be out of BOTH Bush Wars.
And if we WANTED healthcare for all?
We could roll back the global Imperialism and shut down our hundreds of bases and outposts all over the world.
Login or Register to post comments.