What is Digg?Sponsored by Bing
How Many Calories Are In Alcohol? view!
bing.com - Handy guidelines help you get your drink on and keep the weight off.
111 Comments
- lead2thehead, on 10/27/2009, -2/+33... now watch this drive.
- SkittlesUSA, on 10/27/2009, -4/+269/11 wasn't a national security issue? What are you smoking?
- dabomb00, on 10/27/2009, -2/+18Feels kind of awkward to digg this...
- MetalHead73, on 10/27/2009, -1/+13I've been talking to my dad a lot about the war (He spent 8 months in Afghanistan, earned a Bronze Star for his actions), and he's telling me that if there is going to be a troop increase, it needs to happen now, while he was over there, they had barely enough to get by, men, equipment, resources, etc. His commander called it "an economy mission", and the situation was reflected along the entire country.
Mr. President, the men currently in Afghanistan need help, badly, they are "screwed", in the words of my father, if they don't get help.
The only other option is just leaving, and that's not going to happen.
Action needs to be taken. - steelclash84, on 10/27/2009, -0/+12The tragedy is this circular hatred.
Somewhere in Afghanistan:
"True Hero: anyone who dies fighting American terrorists-I hope that these <number> poor souls sent a lot of warmongers to their graves in the short time that they had."
PS: Jihadis...struggles? - Maraud3r, on 10/27/2009, -1/+12Actually what he said over and over again is that he would increase troops in Afghanistan (where we should be) and lessen the troops in Iraq making Afghanistan the focal point.
- dinki, on 10/27/2009, -5/+13Sure would be nice if the administration would make up their mind on how to handle Afghanistan.
- Surkit, on 10/27/2009, -0/+7As the future of wars become "safer" and our causalities fall to lower numbers, there still remains the fact that any life being extinguished is a heavy loss.
- brickwall99, on 10/27/2009, -2/+8I would prefer nothing more than to make a comment with every curse word known to man about this story and how much it pisses me off. But that would be immature.
I just want us out of this ***** war, seriously. - inactive, on 10/27/2009, -1/+6Well considering he golfed more times in 9 months than Bush in 8 years probably pretty good!
- Hetman, on 10/27/2009, -1/+6Why is leaving such a bad idea. Afganistan has a long history of being good a gurellia warfare. Why we decided to make the same mistake that russia made is beyond me.
- toxicshok, on 10/27/2009, -1/+5I believe Ymeg is being sarcastic
- TheInformer, on 10/27/2009, -2/+6When Bush was President, the National Media and "news" sites constantly paraded the death toll with daily, and in some cases, hourly updates. Article upon article excoriated Bush for the deaths.
Now we have Obama.
Troops are dying under Obama. Where are the outcries? Where are the "daily updates"?
Funny how that works. - Surkit, on 10/27/2009, -1/+5It's explained in "Where Men Win Glory" the trap we've fallen into, and the grievous errors we've made during the first years. Yet we find ourselves a dilemma. We are Americans, and we believe we are better then other people. Everyday we're there, we provide medical care to anyone who comes by to receive it. Our PJs and battlefield medics often pick up Afghan nationals in need. We provide aid to those who seek it. We believe if we leave these people will not get the care they need, and that is unacceptable from "the greatest country on earth", even if everyday we risk our men and women's lives.
The main difference between the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. during these wars: The soviets planted mines to injure children so Afghans would be forced to take care of their own, we are the ones taking care of injured civilians now. - Hetman, on 10/27/2009, -1/+5I never said he was bad. However there are current Genocides going on in Africa right now. Why are we not intevening with them? North Korea and Iran are bigger threats than Iraq was. You know damn well that if it was not for the Bush administration linking 911 with Iraq there would have been no we we invaded. For God sakes the majority of the 911 terrrorist were from saudi arabia. Guess what GWB does. He goes over there hugs them and holds hands with them. And yea I agree this is afganistan which did play a role in the 911 events. It still does not justify the Iraq war though.
- M1911A1, on 10/27/2009, -6/+9Hopefully a lot.
- inactive, on 10/27/2009, -2/+5probably around 100 civilians which will be labeled as terrorists by the US military
- rectifier, on 10/27/2009, -2/+5not enough insurgents, word on the civilians though.
- overridemymind, on 10/27/2009, -0/+3Botcha, you and I have spoken on this issue before, and for the first part of your post, I continue to respectfully disagree. For the second part, however, I somewhat agree with you.
Terrorism, while it is a national security issue, is not really an enemy you can wage war on. There are no lines, there are no fronts -- terrorism is an ideal that these people have. While yes, it is possible to wage war on this terrorist cell or that terrorist cell, in the end you get a "whack-a-mole" war. That is - once you destroy one terrorist group, another one pops up somewhere else. Once you go after that one, yet another pops up somewhere else, and so on.
I think the best way to fight terrorism is to take a multi-tiered approach, while avoiding full-on war.
1) Use special-forces and covert teams to seek and destroy terrorist cells.s
2) Reallocate (former) wartime funds to improving security here at home while striving to preserve individual liberties (I.E. No Patriot act garbage)
3) Create a task-force of sorts to learn about what drives middle-easterners to terrorism, and then finance humanitarian missions with the intent of countering that.
It's a rough solution, but it's a possible alternative to a decade of war.
In the meantime, though, until the word is given to withdraw, finance the troops and furnish them with what they need to survive in the combat zone. - ModeSeven, on 10/27/2009, -0/+3I think the fact that 8 losses wasn't considered "heavy" in previous wars says more about previous wars than it does about this one.
- Surkit, on 10/27/2009, -0/+3A quote from a song about the war between the states, that I feel applies here.
"And so Mr. Lincoln, I find myself thinking, in spite of what's happen, I know what we'll do. Pray God if he's willing, there be no more killing, and we'll raise up the stars, the red, white, and the blue."-The Irish Rovers, Lincoln's Army.
These losses need to be known. Sure 8 is "low" compared to previous wars, however any life cut short is a heavy loss. - NightC, on 10/27/2009, -1/+4Obama said he would increase troops in Afghanistan... the problem with people is that they talk out of their ass and listen to bandwagon BS instead of researching for themselves. If you voted for Obama because you thought he would leave Afghanistan, you should reconsider your decision to continue living.
- ghengiskhan1, on 10/27/2009, -0/+3Im going to guess EIGHT over par?
- alman783, on 10/27/2009, -0/+3Giving money and weapons to Israel doesn't piss of Al-Qaeda?
- Heiminator, on 10/27/2009, -0/+3@toxicshok:afghanistan has as much to do with 911 as pakistan and saudi arabia,neither were being invaded (except a few missions on the pakistani side of the border)
- Surkit, on 10/27/2009, -0/+3Soldiers mostly apply to the Army. by saying troops, you can be talking about solders, marines, airmen, and seamen. It's not really important, but it makes things clearer in reports.
- Surkit, on 10/27/2009, -0/+3President Bush promised our troops would have everything we need, yet when advised Osama's main escape route needed more troops, he denied it. When it was advised we could drop antipersonnel mines along the escape route, he denied that. 8 years latter we're still in a war, that if we had competent leadership in the beginning, we would have been gone in the "weeks" Cheney claimed. However, now democrats are debating whether we should risk more lives in Afghanistan by sending more troops, you question their motives.
I strongly recommend "Where Men Win Glory: The Story of Pat Tillman" If you'd like to expand your mind on the needless sacrifices we've made.
P.S. It's petty, but that blogger doesn't even use spell check. - Alderon, on 10/27/2009, -18/+20So anyone get Obama's links score today?
- Surkit, on 10/27/2009, -0/+2Ether it's misplaced gallows humor, or you really compared the death of these men and women to you having sex.
I hope it's the first because 12 yearolds shouldn't be having sex. - UV0001, on 10/27/2009, -1/+3No one cares. They weren't Americans.
- toxicshok, on 10/27/2009, -3/+5And this is in Afghanistan which had a lot to do with 911.
- NightC, on 10/27/2009, -0/+2Right, there was never a military defeat in Vietnam, a quote from a book on it by Dr. Jeffery Record, "The absence of defeat and political success."
In other words, it was politics that lost the war, not the military. The South Vietnamese government failed to be a viable alternative to the communist north, and many found it corrupt and ineffective, so many supported the VC insurgency and the North in general. If we can make the Afghan government effective, we will turn the entire country against the Taliban. - AbsurdParadox, on 10/27/2009, -2/+4Wow.
- Surkit, on 10/27/2009, -0/+2Soldiers mostly apply to the Army. by saying troops, you can be talking about solders, marines, airmen, and seamen. It's not really important, but it makes things clearer in reports.
- vinod1978, on 10/27/2009, -0/+2We can't just stop funding it and keep our troops there. We have to leave. Not funding the war just means our soldiers are left without the proper equipment to do what we ask of them.
- NightC, on 10/27/2009, -0/+2If Obama would just send in the extra troops, and the Pakistan military keeps up it's offensive, we will hammer them and this will be over in a couple of years, or at least they Taliban will be so damaged that the Afghan government can handle it on it's own. The problem is more political then military, the Afghan government has to be a viable alternative to the people of Afghanistan to the Taliban, or else they will keep allowing the insurgency to survive.
The problem with people in Western countries is they have been drilled to believe "WAR IS BAD PERIOD" perhaps because of Vietnam syndrome, and perhaps because it is just a progressive thought, in any case you have to realize that not everyone thinks war is bad, in fact the Taliban and other governments like it thrive on war because it a) distracts the people b) gives them legitimate reasons to take drastic actions against it's own people, and c) allows them to unite those under their control against a common enemy.
Keep in mind, their were no U.S. troops anywhere NEAR Afghanistan before 9/11, yet the attack was trained for, planned, and executed out of Afghanistan. USB himself was obviously there, and he started the war, not us. - ummagummas08, on 10/27/2009, -0/+2I'm just saying I thought it was a term used for multiple soldiers, not individual ones.
Like a troop of 5 or 6, not a troop as one single service member. - twiztidsinz, on 10/27/2009, -1/+3It does need to happen.
It's needed to happen for YEARS.
It's needed to happen ever since Bush told us that Iraq had terrorists and WMDs -- neither of which was true. - brickwall99, on 10/27/2009, -0/+2I'm not funding *****.
- NightC, on 10/27/2009, -0/+2We won't and shouldn't leave, that is ignorance on the part of anyone who say's so. If you were actually educated on the situation you would know that the war is winnable... non of you people have any military expertise to speak of, and even less political expertise.
Go take a class on why we lost in Vietnam and you will realize this war is even more winnable then that one was. - ericjohnson0, on 10/27/2009, -0/+2Bush was a real letdown, to be sure, on many levels.
And you're right, that blogger, the Saloon, could use some 'polish' in many areas... :) - twiztidsinz, on 10/27/2009, -1/+3Can you give me a citation on that quote?
Cuz if not, I'm going to have to call it *****. - NightC, on 10/27/2009, -1/+3Afghanistan is absolutely winnable, if anything we just need more troops to drive out the taliban along with pakistan hitting them in the rear. You make it seem like they have an endless pool of manpower, and that just isn't so. For the most part, handfuls of them here and there are making these attacks, as few as 1 man could have planted a bomb, but once we kill enough of the leadership and stop the money flow they will wither and die, hell they don't even really have a country, they control a few regions of mostly mountains.
The greatest problem we face, as in Vietnam, is not the effectiveness of the U.S. military to kill the enemy, we know we can do that, the problem is we have to make the Afghanistan government an acceptable counter to the taliban's ideology. If the people of Afghanistan don't trust the Afghan government, or they feel their lives are worse then they would have been, then we will lose. Right now it is hard to believe most people like the taliban better, so we are in a good position as long as the Afghan government can stop the BS and get something done. - ericjohnson0, on 10/27/2009, -3/+5Obama plays while the Troops pay.
Screw Obama. - Barackalypse, on 10/27/2009, -0/+1Obama has already sent 21,000 more targets to that hellhole, has it made any difference? Its time to leave before more of our men and women die.
- twiztidsinz, on 10/27/2009, -1/+2He said "occupying afghanistan"...
It's not my fault he cant say what he means. - brickwall99, on 10/27/2009, -0/+1Semantics, you know what I meant jack ass.
I'm tired of the loss of human life on this war that we cannot win with the methods we are going about it. - inactive, on 10/28/2009, -0/+1Dude, as many times as this is said no one actually gives a ***** if their people die. They just pretend to care
- Maraud3r, on 10/28/2009, -1/+2It's amazing how many people think Iraq is Afghanistan.
- Surkit, on 10/27/2009, -0/+1A solider is not a hero. They do their job to the best of their abilities and sometimes that means being heroic, but a hero they are not. They ask nothing more from the country they protect then to be respected and not have there lives trivialized. When you say some thing like "True Hero: anyone who dies fighting islamic fundamentalists", not only are you patronizing these men and women, you are cheapening their death and loss to their family. Hero? No. Sentinel of the U.S.A.? Yes.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 112 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is