What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Much Are You Over-Paying For Your Auto Insurance view!
howlifeworks.com - Car insurance rates have dropped leaving many people paying far more than they need to...
110 Comments
- Travelet, on 11/04/2009, -5/+29It is the highest number of UK soldiers killed in a single incident of "combat" since the US-led invasion of 2001.
- ViralMonkey, on 11/04/2009, -0/+20Why are people digging that? It was a US led invasion, that's a fact, its used as an adjective to pad out the sentence. It doesn't blame the Americans for killing the soldiers.
Europeans don't take responsibility for their actions? How is that qualifiable? - Shiredweller, on 11/04/2009, -10/+30What are we doing out there?????????? Bring the troops home now...let the country sort itself out.We will never change the mindset of these people to work in a democratic way.What a waste of brave lives!
- waydee, on 11/04/2009, -5/+21Where did that little rant come from?
- Hetman, on 11/04/2009, -0/+14Yea western countries have been doing this since WWII. Regardless of what country it is. Be it korea, vietnam, south american soldiers etc. Its kind of how we roll. If you are fighting in country that has a possibility of being unstable or even worst having a civil war then some of the people you train may not be who you think they are.
- KyotoWolf, on 11/04/2009, -1/+14You're right, you don't know about youth culture in Europe.
- LokitheComplex, on 11/04/2009, -2/+14Nobody here in the UK knows exactly why we are there again. We are told it is keep our streets safe. But all the last UK jihadists blamed us for being in Iraq and Afghanistan. Though I did see an Afghan man in the UK saying we should be there. And I thought why are WE fighting HIS war?
- mparker21311, on 11/04/2009, -4/+15We need to get the ***** out.
- DevilToo, on 11/04/2009, -9/+19Lets get the ***** out now and cut our losses. Either way we go this is all going to end in tears and centuries more of war & suffering in the region.
- theodenking, on 11/04/2009, -2/+11The same reason you are. It's not only the US which is threatened by Islamic terrorism, nor is it only the US which has an interest in increasing their influence in the Middle East (I'm not seeing either reason is right, that's just way it is). And FYI our contribution is not at a "low level". There are 10 000 British troops fighting in Afghanistan compared to the US's 85 000, in other words an equal proportion of each countries' total active military personnel (about 5%).
- TheHerk, on 11/04/2009, -4/+11Piece of *****. Enough said.
- Crimeodial, on 11/04/2009, -4/+11It's a little quick to blame Obama. It takes time to free up troops from Iraq, retrain and redeploy them. It's only been 8 months. I would focus the blame more on the war being mismanaged from the start.
- bluewithinblue, on 11/04/2009, -1/+7Because we're your allies. if your friend gets into a bar room brawl, you stand up for him. Period.
- Crimeodial, on 11/04/2009, -0/+6Parker, I'm beginning to agree with the withdrawal side, I was just pointing out why it was stupid to blame Obama for issues that have been happening there since the war started.
- theodenking, on 11/04/2009, -0/+6More like Nato.
- LonesomeFighter, on 11/04/2009, -1/+7i'll guess i will be the first one here to say it sadly, RIP
- kemp34, on 11/04/2009, -1/+6It's an historical fact that foreign military occupations are messy endeavors.
- cplusplus, on 11/04/2009, -0/+5If one NATO country is attacked its considered an attack against all. At least that's the theory.
- Crimeodial, on 11/04/2009, -1/+6No. He didn't have the ability to send 10,000 troops over there at a whim. It takes time to train for the conditions and tactics in Afghanistan, sending a bunch of guys there just to bolster the numbers would have resulted in more deaths.
I'm not sure why you're bringing up bailouts and environmental regulations, stretching for a point, perhaps? - LokitheComplex, on 11/04/2009, -2/+6Weren't they mainly Saudis? Who'd lived along time in the West? Led by a Kuwaitie of Pakistan heritage who'd studied in the US who's spirtual leader was a rich Saudi.
- frequentFlyer, on 11/04/2009, -0/+4And the heroin.
- KokomoNYC, on 11/04/2009, -2/+6Whoever did show up would get the oil.
- Crimeodial, on 11/04/2009, -1/+5That part was too stupid to correct. What the ***** does Britain being there have to do with Bush? I was no fan of Bush, but you're being ridiculous.
- TexMexRex, on 11/04/2009, -1/+5So many military experts on Digg, who would have thought? oh Wait...
- frequentFlyer, on 11/04/2009, -2/+6What if there was a war, and nobody came?
- Frumbler, on 11/04/2009, -0/+4So your are saying the military runs the USA? That's a bit of a stretch.
I think the US will get many more years of laying waste before the rest of the world gives the US serious grief about it. They hosted the 9/11 guys so the US has carte blanche for awhile yet. - inactive, on 11/04/2009, -1/+5Think harder.I'm sure it'll come to you.
- mparker21311, on 11/04/2009, -1/+5***** it, we need to get the ***** out already. Our country can't afford it!
- Lefts, on 11/04/2009, -0/+4But if your friend starts beating on some random dude for some made up reason, what then?
- Hetman, on 11/04/2009, -1/+4When you live in Chicago and you read about it in the newspaper everyday. It is not like a chip it is more like a depressing monkey banging you over the head with a hammer. However until we get sensible drug laws in this country nothing is going to change.
- LokitheComplex, on 11/04/2009, -1/+4More soldiers? To what? About the level of the Russians? Or what the British Empire had last century?
- muzza001, on 11/04/2009, -0/+3would you rather zero puncuation? /s
- slugpellet63, on 11/04/2009, -0/+3Highest loss in one day since the Falkland conflict.
- lateralus, on 11/04/2009, -0/+3By the way, Afghanistan is not in the "Middle East". Friendly reminder.
- captininsanity, on 11/04/2009, -1/+4Well we originally went out there to destroy the Taliban, but then Bush decided to go to Iraq. Many other side tracks later Afghanistan is no longer Taliban controlled (there off in the mountains some where), but now it's pretty much chaos due to the regions instability and our neglect. Should we call the job done? Honestly, I'm not sure either way...
- kernel16, on 11/04/2009, -2/+4The mistake that everyone behind this occupation/war are making is to assume that people in the Middle East value democracy as the best form of government as we do. The fact is that the majority probably don't.
Even Obama believes this, that or he's faking it in every speech because to suggest that democracy might not be the best for certain regions would be a no no in the US. - imkidred, on 11/04/2009, -0/+2Guess they didn't say thank you ma'am?
We need to leave (on a serious level and I have sympathy for those families) - LokitheComplex, on 11/04/2009, -0/+2Though I believe the Afghan population at that time of the last Anglo Afghan war was 5 million. Its now at about 30 million. But I could be wrong.
- piper999, on 11/04/2009, -0/+2Are 1 and 2 supposed to be mutually exclusive?
I think you should enlist and get out there ASAP to show them how to do things properly. So brave! - sodade, on 11/04/2009, -0/+2This happened because their country is being invaded - just GTFO and leave them to rot.
- GamerXR72, on 11/04/2009, -3/+5In my opinion, this war is wrong on every front.
If we are going to be there, then we need to do this like a real war, not just pussyfoot around the issue.
1. Overthrow their entire government and bring in our own people to lead. Make it ours, and eventually turn it into another state.
2. GTFO of their country and dont buy their stuff. - BohicaTwentyTwo, on 11/04/2009, -1/+3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma
- Cepster, on 11/04/2009, -0/+2"Rogue" Afgan policemen?
http://www.unnecessaryquotes.com/ - diggbigwig, on 11/04/2009, -0/+2That's what they thought about Hitler.
- 11oops, on 11/04/2009, -0/+2On Feb. 17, 2009, Obama ordered the deployment of an additional 17,000 soldiers to Afghanistan.
In a March speech outlining a new strategy for the war there, Obama said that "for six years, Afghanistan has been denied the resources that it demands because of the war in Iraq."
Obama then seemed to take a swipe at the Bush administration when he added that he ordered the additional troops to satisfy a request that came from Gen. McKiernan "for many months."
The public doesn't have access to McKiernan's formal request for more troops. But we know that he was talking about it publicly in September 2008, at least 4 1/2 months before the end of Bush's term. And McKiernan told reporters his request went back nearly to the start of his taking over as the top U.S. commander four months before that. That would suggest Gibbs' claim is correct that it had been sitting on desks in the White House for eight months. And so we rule his statement True.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements ... - LokitheComplex, on 11/04/2009, -1/+3@Spirods
Actually the oil theory would say its because we want the oil at a lower price.
We need to switch away from oil. - doomestic, on 11/04/2009, -0/+2Qu'ils mangent de la brioche.
- TexMexRex, on 11/04/2009, -1/+3Hudson: Let's just bug out and call it even, why are we talking about this for?
Ripley: I say we take off, and nuke the site from orbit. It's the onyl way to be sure.
Hudson: *****' A! - ayeroxor, on 11/04/2009, -0/+2I love that guy
- GamerXR72, on 11/04/2009, -0/+21 and 2 are seperate.
I think the way things are being done is stupid.
Our current strategy seems to be stand around until someone shoots at us, then shoot back and if you happen to see where they run too, keep an eye on it for a while and then shoot them and their friends.
All that leads to is a bunch of dead people and nothing to show for it.
If we're going to be at war, we should get something out of it. If we aren't getting anything out of it, we should GTFO. -
Show 51 - 100 of 110 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is