digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

See the original image at news.aol.com —

Is the US 'Losing' in Afghanistan?

news.aol.com — KABUL, Afghanistan (Aug. 24) -- Taliban insurgents once derided as a ragtag rabble unable to match U.S. troops have transformed into a fighting force — one advanced enough to mount massive conventional attacks and claim American lives at a record pace.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • LewP, on 08/26/2008, -67/+86The answer is no.
    • GhostyBoy, on 08/26/2008, -38/+49Actually the answer is yes.

      When you pre-emptively invade a nation and continue to occupy it long after your fabricated justification for being there has expired, then regardless of any degree of success you may achieve on a particular mission, you are still a loser.
      • markgl, on 08/26/2008, -25/+13the war was won a few months after we got there. The taliban will never have control again. there.
      • GraebbeDigger, on 08/27/2008, -11/+9LOL!! After US leaves TALIBAN will take control. im not saying i support US im just saying that i hope US leaves other countries alone and start focusing on their economy, you don't see other superpowers like Russia and China doing that.or do you?
      • phalanxcronos, on 08/27/2008, -8/+31Afghanistan was not preemptive.
      • Wargalas, on 08/27/2008, -7/+24Try to follow world history Ghosty. Afghanistan wasn't invade pre-emptively. If you can't keep track of the wars, just remember Afghanistan = good war. You remember Osama right?
      • bjornski, on 08/27/2008, -8/+10@markgl

        Yup. They'll never have control there again. Oh wait....

        "QALAT, Afghanistan U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Monday that the Afghan guerrilla war can never be won militarily and called for efforts to bring the Taliban and their supporters into the Afghan government."

        http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articl ...
      • caferrell, on 08/27/2008, -5/+19@markgl
        Where did you get your extensive understanding of Afghanistan and the political, military and cultural realities there that inform you state unequivocally that "The taliban will never have control again. there."?

        We are destined to lose. It is now a war of attrition. Like so many times before in the history of Afghanistan the resistance has come together slowly, like the tide coming in. However, this tide won't go back out.

        Everywhere outside of our big bases and Kabul, the NATO troops and all foreigners are in enemy territory. The President of Afghanistan can't leave Kabul. We continue to coalesce the resistance to our occupation by killing women and children.

        There is no way to win. And there is no way to out-wait the Afghans. They have a 2500 year history, they are not in a hurry. They will continue to snipe and bomb and disappear into the mountains. Occaisionally they organize and kill a handful, a dozen NATO troops, they kill Afghan troops and police and officials that have accepted the foreigners money.

        We are not going to lose. We already lost.
      • warsongs7, on 08/27/2008, -7/+4@Caferrell
        The war in Afghanistan can be won but it will require more than the number of troops there at the moment due to its terrain. The current Taliban can be wiped out but since they are a social product of hatred and fanaticism, others within the Pashtun group will take up the banner.
      • boot20, on 08/27/2008, -0/+6That's right Caferrel, only Rambo can save us now...
      • stonewaljacksn, on 08/27/2008, -1/+9We can't "win" because winning now means "successfully imposing our culture onto them." It's kind of like a modern crusades, except the new religion is American vision of "the right way to live, the right principles to follow, etc." =Democracy, capitalism ("practice whatever religion you want, let them all become relative to each other, because the new defining, collective principles that ALL Americans will follow are those of Democracy and capitalism." THAT is what has taken the place of the "National Worldview", so to speak, that religion once held).

        We will never consider them "stable" unless they are living by our rules, and a hell of a lot of dead empires throughout history felt the same way about nations they "conquered." It just doesn't work. You would think that by this point in history, the damn Ivy League graduates who are bred to be presidents and policymakers would understand the need to coexist with other cultures instead of superimposing our lifestyle onto theirs. Of COURSE we are SURE our style is better...they feel the same about theirs!

        Regardless, the Soviets tried it too..and what happened?.

        and yeah, sorry, but buried for the ridiculous Obama plug and the title.
      • caferrell, on 08/27/2008, -2/+8Warsongs7, you don't get it. More troops will make it worse. The more we pressure them, the more they will resist us. The only way that more troops would work, would be to start a pitiless, bloody slaughter that killed so many Afghans that the remainder would disappear or give themselves into bondage.

        That happened in Afghanistan. Ghengis Khan managed to subdue the Afghans by killing most of them. He would make them run and then play a cavalry game where the runners became the ball. They never finished the game alive. The Afhans now play that game with a goat.

        We are too proud and brutal for them to like us and we are not brutal enough for them to fear us. We have already lost the war. Sending more men to kill and die for nothing is a crime and a sin
      • solid12345, on 08/27/2008, -5/+3Problem with Afghanistan is no one has the balls to say the politically incorrect truth, you are dealing with stone age savages. The region has been the center war hub of the spice trade for centuries between east and west, it is a desolate area that has never shown significant cultural advancements and they have been fighting for 4,000 years.

        Unfortunately this is why we will probably lose, instead of flexing our might and teaching them not to mess with us we are coming to them with our hand in friendship and they will shake it with one hand and have a dagger behind their back in the other.
      • regeya, on 08/27/2008, -1/+3'We can't "win" because winning now means "successfully imposing our culture onto them." It's kind of like a modern crusades, except the new religion is American vision of "the right way to live, the right principles to follow, etc."'

        That's essentially what the Taliban did to Afghanistan, except replace the American vision with the extreme Islamic vision. Think of how much many of you hate that 'Got Hates Fags' Phelps idiot. It's an apt analogy; a religious fanatic who seems to know little about his own holy book, or ignores the bits that get in the way of the agenda. Now imagine him, with command over people around the globe, and imagine a country run by him. Now imagine what would happen if he convinced people that it's okay to severely beat women for showing a bit of ankle. Imagine his people capturing petty thieves and murdering them right on the spot, so they can get to the judgement throne right away. Imagine having no rights whatsoever. Know how so many of you are so indignant that kids someday might have the right to silently pray in school? Imagine your kids being forced to learn to read the Koran--but not learn the language they're speaking verse in.

        You guys hate the far right so much, and to a certain extent you have the right to, and you're all right that NATO is involved in an unwinnable war, but I shudder to think what would happen if a charismatic imam pumped Al-Quaeda's hate speech into the inner cities of America. Hey, the thoughtful amongst the poor urban people of America are tired of their people being out of control. Militant islam started to get a foothold in the 60s--do you want it now?

        And let's not confuse what I'm calling 'militant Islam' with 'Islam.' I don't believe in it and I believe that it allows detestable indignity to be visited upon women, and it goes against the beliefs I was raised with here in the Bible Belt, but though I believe it to be a twisted version of God's word, Al-Qaeda twists it a lot further away from the Koran and into something which, amongst other things, allows all nonbelievers to be treated as though they have turned away from Allah.

        Obviously fighting a land war in the Middle East is the wrong thing to do, but to do nothing about the militant cancer in the Middle East which is spreading around the globe would be equally foolish. Has everyone forgotten that radical speakers have held rallies right by Admiral Nelson's statue in Trafalgar Square? Where next, the Washington Monument?
      • markgl, on 08/27/2008, -1/+2@bjornskibjornski

        You think I care about what frist says. thats his stupid opinion.

        Fact is we kicked their ass out of power and they'll never get it back.
    • CryRightardCry, on 08/26/2008, -22/+28I'm curious what your definition of "winning" is.

      Turning a country against us is rarely considered a win.
      • Iztikeit, on 08/27/2008, -9/+10America decides what goes on in Afghanistan, period.

        I don't call that a loss.
      • threon, on 08/27/2008, -2/+5They were already against us. Nothing to lose.
      • Troy64, on 08/27/2008, -2/+3So are you excited by Obamas plan to increase troops in Afghanistan.
      • bjornski, on 08/27/2008, -1/+12@lztikeit

        So America has decided that Afghanistan should have the biggest opium/heroin crops in their history?

        Awesome.
      • TheGuruStud, on 08/27/2008, -0/+4^^ while you're being at least partially sarcastic, it's true.
      • Jlaugh, on 08/27/2008, -0/+3@bjornski

        "So America has decided that Afghanistan should have the biggest opium/heroin crops in their history?"

        I thought we went in there to make sure the heroin poppies would be planted, and the Marijuana would continue to flow to market. That and a pipe line for oil.
      • bjornski, on 08/27/2008, -0/+3We pretty much HAVE to ensure that the poppies flourish, otherwise their economy could collapse, making things even worse than they are now.
    • DJIDJI, on 08/26/2008, -14/+8Answer is yes of course :-D
    • rearlgrant, on 08/26/2008, -9/+13When the country you are protecting asks you to leave, surely you have lost...
      http://digg.com/politics/Fiasco_0879_Afghan_Govt_T ...
      • silent7seven, on 08/27/2008, -4/+2We haven't ...and don't call me Shirley.
      • regeya, on 08/27/2008, -0/+1Um, did you mean to post a different link?

        Also, a big LOL at the Russian response--so NOW they're worried about Afghan civilian casualties???

        The Al-Jazeera English website looks pretty sweet, but I swear I've seen those icons before? Tango? The default XFCE4 set?
      • rearlgrant, on 08/27/2008, -0/+1"A resolution adopted by Afghan ministers during Monday's cabinet meeting said they had asked the foreign and defence ministries to negotiate with officials of international forces.

        "The presence of the international community in Afghanistan must be reviewed through a mutual agreement," it said.

        "The authorities and responsibilities of the international forces in Afghanistan must be regulated through a 'status of force agreement' consistent with both international and Afghan laws."

        This is no different than in Iraq.
    • bjornski, on 08/27/2008, -6/+8Well, as Bill Frist said, maybe the Taliban just needs a seat at the political table and everything will be fine.

      And hoo-boy. The right wing bury squad is out today trying to hide this one.
      • warsongs7, on 08/27/2008, -0/+4The Taliban government was recognized as being legit a few years before 2001 when they had first taken control of Kabul despite their opposition to the much vaunted ideals of "freedom and democracy" not being their priority.
        It won't work.
    • proliance, on 08/27/2008, -10/+6The pessimistic Democrats will tell you that we're losing because that's their platform for winning the election.

      We've already lost in Iraq (Harry Reid, April 2007), our unemployment rate (which most countries would love to have) is a national tragedy, and $4 per gallon gas is just about right, even if arrived at a little too soon (Barack Obama.)

      If the Democrats win in November it will because they convinced the people that the US is the worst place in the world. Losing in Afghanistan is just one more necessary tragedy for the Democrats to brainwash us into so they can control the sheep.
      • didiman, on 08/27/2008, -1/+1That is the only message that Democrats always have. Democrats actually want the economy to be bad and the war to go poorly...it's pathetic.
    • nosamesame, on 08/27/2008, -3/+12How odd, I could of sworn that Afghanistan was a NATO operation.
      • bnajbert, on 08/27/2008, -2/+6It is, but unfortunately most Americans can't see past their own fence.
      • bjornski, on 08/27/2008, -1/+3When it's a "US led coalition", what's the difference?

        KABUL, Aug 26 (Reuters) - The United Nations said on Tuesday it had found convincing evidence that 90 Afghan civilians, most of them children, were killed in air strikes by U.S.-led coalition forces in western Afghanistan last week.

        http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/ISL13124. ...

        Hey look, there's more proof of our "success" in the war!

        Expect blowback.
      • regeya, on 08/27/2008, -1/+1bjornski, why wouldn't it make a difference? I'm sure that Canadians and other NATO forces love that they're being ignored...hm, can any Canadians or Canadian veterans chime in on this? Maybe you guys WANT to be ignored by the international community--after all, it seems like our country will take the heat nowadays if, say, the President of France stubs his toe.

        Don't you know? It's our fault people in Europe were living beyond their means, just as we were. It's our fault that China's having environmental issue. It's our fault...oh, hell, it's all America's fault.

        Did people blame Hitler for ***** weather back in the 40s? Just wondering.
      • Meany123, on 08/27/2008, -0/+4regeya, how about you educate yourself before lumping all of NATO in the same bucket? The Canadians, the Brits, and the Dutch have been taking a huge amount of casualties, in some of the most dangerous battlefields on earth (worse than Iraq) waiting for the US to get serious about this war. We can argue till we're blue in the face about who is contributing enough and who isn't, but the bottom line is that Afghanistan was a US-led invasion post Sept 11, and it was subsequently forgotten and abandoned by the US so they could pour troops into the misadventure in Iraq. If it wasn't for NATO, that one eyed Taliban Mullah would be happily plotting more explosions in New York from his perch in Kabul once again.

        And yes, the situation in Afghanistan IS America's fault. America elected a *****-for-brains president who sent their entire military on a useless adventure in Iraq, that did absolutely nothing whatsoever to improve America's security or protect it or it's allies from an attack. They did so while constantly berating all their allies who were actually fighting real terrorists, in a country that actually produced terrorists (but oddly enough, has no oil). The President of France, through France's involvement in Afghanistan, has probably done a lot more for the cause of keeping WMD's out of New York that your dumbass of a president has by getting your military caught in a quagmire that has nothing to do with terrorism, so how about you give them a break? Meanwhile, the US is busy selling F-16's to their "allies" in Saudi Arabia (hey, wait a minute, where did all the hijackers come from again? And who is funding all those madrasses that preach death to the infidels? OH yeah, the Saudis). Personally, I know we're on the right side of this conflict, but it sure is depressing that the supposed leaders in all this (that'd be you guys) don't even know what the ***** is good for yourselves and how to keep your own ass safe (and FYI, no, you weren't attacked because they "hate [y]our freedom").
      • bjornski, on 08/27/2008, -0/+3Why should we be blaming other countries for the happenings in the "NATO missions" when it's our planes dropping the bombs, and our generals ordering it?

        Again, expect blowback. And the target of that blowback?

        The US.
    • linagee, on 08/27/2008, -1/+4We already lost when we deployed the first military personnel. There are no winners in war.
  • Fangsinmybeard, on 08/26/2008, -38/+81The civilian casualties say we're winning in the genocide category, just can't seem to kill the enemy.
    • PolishLogic, on 08/26/2008, -13/+24Genocide....lol
      • CryRightardCry, on 08/26/2008, -30/+10Yeah, LOL at genocide.
        It's not like rightard cowards like PolishLogic care. They think ANY brown person being killed is a good idea.
        The sad part is how rightard scumbags like this have no Christian values.
        This ***** and the other scum like him cheer at news of innocent Afghanis or Iraqis being killed.

        But thanks for showing once again what a low piece of crap you are, PL.
        It's not like anyone forgets, but you make it easy for people to see what kind of lowlife you and your rightard buddies are.
        It's revolting you the policies you losers cheered for developed into the ruin of Afghanistan.
        The traitorous Bush adminstration weaked the elected government, and strengthened warlords who had no intention of helping the US once they got our guns or money.

        ***** like you cheered for that to happen.
        Pathetic ***** cowards like you cheered for it.

        And now you lack the balls to even stand up and defend it.
        Man, what's it like to be such a scumbag?
      • PolishLogic, on 08/26/2008, -11/+23One of these days, I'm sure you'll actually manage to make a factual statement about me.

        However I won't hold my breath.
      • DreadPirate, on 08/26/2008, -11/+21"And now you lack the balls to even stand up and defend it." CRC, does it hurt to be as hypocritical as you are? You have never "stood up and defended" any of your statements in your entire time on Digg, even as MightyDaveFish. You're just another pathetic liberal coward.
      • ElderBieler, on 08/26/2008, -10/+16CRC is such a piece of trash. He/she makes venomous statements and the runs off to make the take the next Anti-American stance.

        Leave it up to those from San Fran to spit on anything doing with America.
      • nmnnotmyname, on 08/27/2008, -6/+12I normally think of people like CRC, Amiga401 and Tehrooni when I'm taking a *****.

        And then I realize that my ***** is worth more than all of their opinions combined - because they haven't said anything yet that could actually be interpreted by human beings other than themselves.
      • DreadPirate, on 08/28/2008, -1/+4Ten negative diggs, and not a single person can dispute what I said. Somehow, I am not surprised.
    • use2bacanadian, on 08/26/2008, -6/+29Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.
      1)The Rwandan Genocide was the 1994 mass killing of hundreds of thousands of Rwanda's minority Tutsis and the moderates of its Hutu majority. Over the course of approximately 100 days, from April 6 through to mid July, at least 500,000 people were killed. Most estimates are of a death toll between 800,000 and 1,000,000.
      2)A Man-Made Famine raged through Ukraine, the ethnic-Ukrainian region of northern Caucasus (i.e. Kuban), and the lower Volga River region in 1932-33. This resulted in the death of between 7 to 10 million people, mainly Ukrainians. This was instigated by Soviet leader Joseph Stalin and his henchman Lazar Kaganovich
      3)In April 1992, the U.S. and European Community chose to recognize the independence of Bosnia, a mostly Muslim country where the Serb minority made up 32 percent of the population. Milosevic responded to Bosnia's declaration of independence by attacking Sarajevo, its capital city, best known for hosting the 1984 Winter Olympics. Sarajevo soon became known as the city where Serb snipers continually shot down helpless civilians in the streets, including eventually over 3,500 children. In Srebrenica, a Safe Haven, U.N. peacekeepers stood by helplessly as the Serbs under the command of General Ratko Mladic systematically selected and then slaughtered nearly 8,000 men and boys between the ages of twelve and sixty - the worst mass murder in Europe since World War II. In addition, the Serbs continued to engage in mass rapes of Muslim females. On August 30, 1995, effective military intervention finally began as the U.S. led a massive NATO bombing campaign in response to the killings at Srebrenica, targeting Serbian artillery positions throughout Bosnia.

      Are you equating REAL genocide with a few accidental civilian Afghan casualties that the coalition of 65 countries fighting the Taliban have caused? Because if you are - then you are a ***** retarded dope smoking idiot with the education of a 5th grader as evidenced by your vocabulary, use of inflammatory wording , and downright stupidity!!
      • td001, on 08/27/2008, -3/+2hey.. this guy IS retarded, and your retort IS brilliant.. but lets leave dope smoking out of it!! ..lol
      • Bodhinature, on 08/27/2008, -4/+3Bush: He was FOR the Taliban before he was AGAINST them!

        I don't think the families of the dead civilians are going to appreciate your nuanced semantics. To them it was genocide. Since we did the killing I don't think is up to us to define or spin our acts that caused over 3000 casualties. Those civilians were first victims of the Taliban, then they because victims of our bombs.
    • destron, on 08/27/2008, -6/+14This is not genocide. Thank you use2bacanadian for the actual definition, and I also have something to add.
      Our enemy, terrorists, come in all shapes and forms. They were no official uniforms and may or may not be part of a bigger faction. I believe that a very large number of civilians killed in Afghanistan and Iraq are the product of the terrorists' cowardly tactics. They hide in cities amongst innocent civilians, they plant roadside bombs and IEDs, rig cars with explosives, and at times have even used people as human shields.
      I'm not above admitting that some of the civilian deaths had nothing to do with the terrorists (besides the fact that the war on terror is why we're there), but to be honest, terrorists are fickle bitches, and it can be very, very hard to tell a civilian from a militant unless they're pointing an AK 47 at you.
      • BikerDude69, on 08/27/2008, -3/+3They're all "enemy combatants" until they are killed and able to be used by the media as civilian casualties because they have no uniform and the survivors remove any evidence that they were participating in combat. Women and children who choose to stay in the same house where the males are plotting their attacks are usually willing participants.

        I care enough about my family that if I were to engage in combat, they would be miles away. I care about my family. They are not tools. Afghanis do not seem to feel the same way. This is why Regan pulled out of Lebanon, because they are "irrational".
      • Bodhinature, on 08/27/2008, -2/+4Really BikerDude? You'd have the brains to be miles away from your family? How about if the fight is in your back yard, like in Afghanistan. You want them to come over here and do the fighting? I thought that was the whole point! Taking the fight to them! Now they're stupid because they didn't have it to "fight them there."

        Afghanis are the victims of the Taliban that inhabited the power vacuum after the Soviets left. Lest we forget, the Soviets invaded because we provoked them by funding and arming Mujahideen fighters including Osama bin Laden.
      • Recidivus, on 08/27/2008, -3/+2Or, their family was killed in a precision bomb strike which happened to miss it's intended target, driving this Afghan person to swear to kill the people responsible for their families death.

        And if they are "All enemy combatants" why not just turn the place into a sheet of glass, or use something a lot more general in destruction? Take more out with less money and time.

        Where exactly do you think the people not involved will run? In case you didn't notice, there's a war going on over there.
  • MacSuxWindozSux, on 08/26/2008, -11/+107With no goals to define victory there can be no loss.
    • GhostyBoy, on 08/26/2008, -2/+22Or any victory for that matter.
      • impei, on 08/26/2008, -4/+6In accordance with the principles of doubthink it does not matter if the war is not real, or when it is, victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous. The essential act of modern warfare is the destruction of the produce of human labour. A hierarchical society is only possible and the basis of poverty and ignorance. In principle, the war effort is always planned to keep society of the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects. And its object is not victory over Eurasia or Eastasia, but to keep the very structure of society intact.

        George Orwell
    • lorem1000, on 08/26/2008, -1/+11Which is the fundamental reason why wars on generalities are failures. Terror? Drugs? You can't admit defeat when you don't have to stop fighting if you don't want to.
    • sodade, on 08/27/2008, -1/+5The only goal, based on pragmatic observation of the effects of our policies, is to create more people willing to give up their lives to stop the "oppressor"

      Blows me the ***** away that there are normally rational people who ignore the pragmatic realities of our actions.

      I think that our criminal blunder in Iraq should be enough evidence that we should just GTFO of the ME completely. ***** their toxic oil - the real cost is so high that any alternative is really ***** cheap - and no one can say that we would be involved in the Middle East at all if it weren't for their oil.
    • jimmiss, on 08/27/2008, -0/+1Well, if you are occupying a country, and you get driven out... YOU LOSE!
    • Hangly, on 08/27/2008, -0/+2The heroin is flowing. Isn't that victory enough?
  • 1legend, on 08/26/2008, -15/+5Something submitted from AOL's website and getting dugg? Shocking!
    • dib2, on 08/26/2008, -4/+1When do people digg ***** up from the AOL site? Sure if it was Cracked, I could see your point. Diggers love lists.
    • bjornski, on 08/27/2008, -1/+4It's an AP story. It doesn't matter where it gets posted.
  • Bagos1, on 08/26/2008, -11/+18Historically, really, who from modern civilization and thought has won Afghanistan.
    • num3thod, on 08/26/2008, -4/+22Sorry...what? I can't make any sense of that sentence.
    • killerpopiller, on 08/26/2008, -2/+11me neither, maybe he wanted to state out, that british colonial troops in the end of 19th century lost, soviets lost and the us will loose to
      unfortunatly germany is as well there :( for no apparent reason
      • Bagos1, on 08/27/2008, -0/+3Sorry guys, bad sentence structure/. Killer, you are correct, nobody has ever walked away in the winner's circle in Afghanistan. I was trying to say that a modern thought process does not work with the tribal mentality. The land is rough and difficult to traverse, so building up an infrastructure is prohibitive.
        It just isn't worth the effort, and history has shown that to be true.
      • bnajbert, on 08/27/2008, -0/+3It doesn't help the cause there with countries like Germany not even willing to patrol at night.
      • regeya, on 08/27/2008, -0/+4Bagos1, yeah, it makes you wonder if they teach about the Revolutionary War at West Point. One of the things credited is that Colonials were using native-style guerilla tactics on the British troops.

        And 200+ years later...we seem to have forgotten that lesson. Heck, we even went back to having formalized rules of war. Maybe WW3 won't be fought with nukes, but with single-file lines of troops on both sides.
    • warsongs7, on 08/27/2008, -0/+7The Moguls were the only ones in recent history that had control of the territory but even they had to relinquish control of the mountainous areas to the tribes.
    • sodade, on 08/27/2008, -0/+6The Russians couldn't do it, what makes us think we can?
    • td001, on 08/27/2008, -2/+4no one... Afghanistan, in fact, usually breaks said modern civilization, eventually helping lead to said modern civilization's decline.
  • SteelChicken, on 08/26/2008, -10/+12Im so glad we went into Iraq instead of dealing with the real source of the problem in Afghanistan.
    • 9mmCensor, on 08/26/2008, -9/+43The real source of the problem is in Washington.
    • BotchaMcCoola, on 08/26/2008, -1/+7Source of what problem and why will no one say what is to gain there? Even the USSR got free of that. Shouldn't we be smarter than them?
      • Jexie, on 08/26/2008, -6/+5It's about desperation for Caspian oil, the US can't afford to be smart right now.
      • CryRightardCry, on 08/26/2008, -6/+3@jexie
        Oh Jexie, the US can't afford to NOT be as smart as we possibly can.
      • warsongs7, on 08/27/2008, -0/+4Did you ever hear of the oil pipeline installed from the Caspian to the center of Afghanistan? The strategic areas still controlled by NATO troops are placed at key sites protecting that line.
  • outreach417, on 08/26/2008, -11/+26There is no win win solution in Afghanistan. Not for NATO, USA, Canada or the Afghans themselves...
    http://digg.com/world_news/Canadian_Troops_Kill_Tw ...
    and
    http://missionlog.wordpress.com/commentary/archive ...
    • PopASquatt, on 08/27/2008, -4/+4Afghanistan is actually a fairly successful mission right now.

      The Taliban that removed all culture, arts, media, and the rights from women have now been exiled from their government. The Afghan national army has been rebuilt thanks to the funding from the US, Germany, Canada and many other NATO nations providing equipment and support. Women are no longer beat in the streets by "religious police" and they can now go to school. An estimated 2/3 of landmines left over from the Soviet war have been removed thanks to the Canadian Forces.

      I believe that 63% of Afghans still want the support of the ISAF assistant force as of a 2007 poll conducted by British journalists, I believe anyway.

      Thanks to the NATO led operation, these people might one day have everything we take for granted. Like the simplicity of roads.

      The conflict will likely end by 2011, like Iraq.
      • bnajbert, on 08/27/2008, -2/+3You are seriously misled if you think that 2/3 of the landmines have been removed from Afghanistan. I' bet we haven't even put a dent in the number of mines strewn about in that country.
      • regeya, on 08/27/2008, -1/+2yeah, bnajbert; my guess is that troops will do the same thing there which was done in places like Sarajevo: hand out comic books so that kids know how to identify U.S. and Russian landmines.

        I bet they have plenty of the latter in Afghanistan.
    • outreach417, on 08/27/2008, -1/+2Do you think it will end? It's been going on since the 1800's, first the Russians (old imperial pre-revolution Russia), Britain, then the Soviets (during which the US armed and funded Taliban warlords as "freedom fighters") and now Nato. The damage done, the hostilities bred, the terrorists spawned will last generations. Although as you say, by 2011 the US and NATO may leave... They'll probably convince themselves to enter Pakistan next it's become so de-stabilized. But "over"? Hardly.
  • BotchaMcCoola, on 08/26/2008, -19/+3If Afghanistan or any little country like that or Iraq ever attacked, invaded and/or occupied the USA we would put up a much better fight than they have so far - at least my generation would, I can assure you.
    • wadge22, on 08/26/2008, -1/+13So the country with WMDs aplenty, ICBMs, jet fighters, nuclear subs, cluster bombs, apache helicopters, aircraft carriers, tanks, a large standing army, and near unlimited resources could kill a bunch of people with only black-market weapons and no formal organization? Remarkable!
    • use2bacanadian, on 08/26/2008, -2/+7And what generation is that arm chair warrior. Di you take your high blood pressure medicine today???? Maybe you should cut back on freebasing nicotine too.
      • BotchaMcCoola, on 08/27/2008, -1/+1Good belly laughs. I'm blessed with such low blood pressure I had to smoke to keep it up. Oh, I'll be sixty five next b-day but look 10-15 years younger without my beard.
  • empirefalling, on 08/26/2008, -28/+14The defeat of the US military in Afghanistan and Iraq is a well accepted fact. The heroic struggle of the Iraqi and Afghanistani peoples against the bloody occupation of their countries by American Fascists is legendary. Yes America has not lost the battle in these lands but throughout the World Body.
    • GhostyBoy, on 08/26/2008, -8/+18To be fair, America was defeated the moment it allowed itself to become involved in these stupid oil wars for the rich.
      • Hortnon, on 08/26/2008, -10/+11I used to buy the "war for oil" line...5 years ago.

        Now, it just doesn't make sense. These wars have contributed to the price of oil/gasoline skyrocketing, which is encouraging people to seek alternative sources of fuel/energy, essentially obsoleting the oil industry. Where is the logic in this argument?
      • GhostyBoy, on 08/26/2008, -8/+13Unless you can operate a standing army with tanks, planes and navy boats with alternative energy, and almost everyone in the country drives alternative energy vehicles, then oil is still an incredibly valuable resource.

        Contracted corporations in the middle east are getting just insanely rich off of this....What do you think the reason for these wars are?
      • GWBExplosives, on 08/26/2008, -12/+6I totally agree Horton. Clearly if the war was for oil it would be to get the consumer a better deal at the pump not so that the oil companies could increase their profits.

        And clearly alternative energy sources have the oil companies on the ropes. I don't know about where you live, but where I live just about everyone has a roof covered in solar panels and at least 2 huge windmills in their yard. In fact I'm thinking about giving up my car for a horse!!
      • Hortnon, on 08/26/2008, -2/+11The facility I worked in happens to be the "greenest building in the DoD", with solar panels, custom ventilation, crazy waterless urinals, and all that "stuff". I don't know if you realize, but the DoD is actually one of the biggest users and proponents of energy efficiency, simply because they have legal requirements to be that way.

        @ghosty
        I think contractors getting rich is an effect of war, not a cause. I hope, anyway. I don't like companies like Blackwater not only making tons of money off war, but also operating seemingly outside of the scope of the law. Though, I hear the DoD isn't actually very happy with Blackwater lately...

        As for the construction contractors...well, someone's gotta do the work. Though, that embassy is pretty ridiculous...

        To both of you: Even if the military is the only user of oil...that's a dramatic DECREASE in usage, not an INCREASE. The cost of gas has accelerated research into alternative fuels, has caused people to get more fuel efficient vehicles, drive less, and generally use less gas. Over time, this will only get worse for these companies, and they business on it.
      • card51short, on 08/26/2008, -10/+1hortnon...are you saying you work at the DoD?

        SHOCKING!!!
      • Hortnon, on 08/26/2008, -3/+8"...worked...", you ***** moron.
      • GWBExplosives, on 08/27/2008, -1/+6Overtime, the oil companies, who by then have gained more control over the world's oil supply via oil wars, will simply loosen the spigot on the oil supply (ie, lower the price) every time it looks like alternatives are making greater strides. At the same time, these oil companies will continue to fund "environmental" groups to help cast their one true and viable competition in a negative and false light - nuclear energy.

        Nuclear Energy is cleaner, safer and about 100 times cheaper than oil could ever be, even if oil was traded on a free and open market. But so called "environmental" groups have helped make the public believe that nuclear power plants are dangerous. And they are dangerous ....... after about 60 years. that's why you have to build new ones every 40 to 50 years. But the pubic is lead to believe that nuclear power plants are inherently dangerous and nothing can be done to make them safe.

        So on we go chasing after the solar power dream while living in an oil war nightmare.
      • Hortnon, on 08/27/2008, -1/+3I don't get the "nuclear plants are evil" stereotype. I always hear about it from older people, I've never seen commercials or ads on it, nor have I heard about it from my peers.
      • GWBExplosives, on 08/27/2008, -0/+1Back in the 80s after Trinoble, Nuclear power was talked about as if every nuclear power plant in America was about to meltdown at any moment and kill everyone within a 50 mile radius. But now, I guess you're right, Nuclear power isn't even talked about. Notice how you'll see news coverage or a TV program or even a 2 hour documentary on all the alternatives to oil; and of all the alternatives, the one that is most viable and easily obtainable right now is the one that's not mentioned.

        So I guess the goal isn't to make us scared of nuclear energy, the goal must be to make us forget it even exist. And it works. Whenever you think of "alternatives" you think of sun, wind and bio, none of which can take the place of oil in any large-scale significant way the way nuclear energy can.
  • Waiting2awake, on 08/26/2008, -9/+20It is just a horrible situation all way around. A very sober lesson in what we, the citizenry, let our jobs slide and stopped watching the Government, that allowed these crimes to happen.

    Keep in mind - has anyone seen any evidense that that who we think did 911 actually did it? The Taliban offered OBL to the US, if they would show any - the US refused.
    • empirefalling, on 08/26/2008, -4/+8A very telling decision by the US government.
    • Waiting2awake, on 08/26/2008, -5/+8I'm guessing the digg downs here are the same from the other thread when I mentioned the lack of evidence that OBL was even responsible for 911.

      I mean just because these guys have been caught in lie after lie, after lie, after lie again - since then - does not mean we shouldn't trust what they said then. I am sure they only started lying on the 12th, and that whole writing about needing another pearl harbor is just a coincidence.

      I once asked a friend of mine, who was a child in Germany at the end of the war, how such a thing like that could have happened. She said at the time no one knew what was happening with the camps. I thought at the time she was just ashamed to admit how bad they were. I mean seriously, how could an entire nation not know how their nation was acting? The things they were doing? Now I understand.

      And before anyone says I am saying Americans are like Nazi's I'm not - my friend wasn't - EVER - a nazi. She was a German and that is a very big difference. The other difference is obviously America is no where near what Germany turned into...but then again, neither was Germany when it first started.
      • sodade, on 08/27/2008, -0/+4Part of that equation is that the Germans didn't have the internet - we do and we should know way better.
      • regeya, on 08/27/2008, -0/+2sodade, people still think chiropractic care works, that crystals work, that little green men are waging war against the Earth without anyone knowing, that the Mayans predicted the end of the world in 2012.

        People will believe anything they read on the Internet. Anything. And let's not forget that mass media, including the Internet, can also be used as a tool for propaganda. I can only imagine what the Soviets would have done to spread a disinfo campaign if they'd had the Internet. And vice versa, of course, but given how much people seem to hate America these days, that was sort of a given. :->
    • regeya, on 08/27/2008, -1/+1They wanted evidence of Osama bin Laden's guilt. Al-Qaeda is a classic rebel cell network, from what I've read and seen on them, so that might prove a bit hard to do, and they merely wanted to discuss the possibility of handing him over to a third party (not the U.S., in other words) in exchange for a cessation of bombing.

      That's a bit different than the tale you painted.

      I even have a non-U.S. source, so you Diggiots just know it has to be 100% true...bleh.

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghan ...

      I just want to repeat that I don't defend all the actions of my country over the last few years, and in fact defend very little, but it really irks me to see so much crap being spread around as truth, and people being rewarded for spreading crap.
  • borez, on 08/26/2008, -1/+17Interesting thumbnail you picked there
    • GhostyBoy, on 08/26/2008, -4/+12Obama advocates this idiotic war.
      • th3heretic, on 08/26/2008, -9/+3Sources? Fox news?
      • skinnyskittles, on 08/26/2008, -1/+7@th3heretic
        voting record
      • GhostyBoy, on 08/27/2008, -1/+11@th3heretic:

        From his website you *****:

        barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

        "the Taliban has reemerged in southern Afghanistan while Al Qaeda has used the space provided by the Iraq war to regroup, train and plan for another attack on the United States. 2007 was the most violent year in Afghanistan since the invasion in 2001. The scale of our deployments in Iraq continues to set back our ability to finish the fight in Afghanistan"
  • ahsen74, on 08/26/2008, -4/+12FTA:

    "U.S. critics of the Afghan government are becoming increasingly vocal. Rep. Jim Marshall, a Georgia Democrat who is a member of the House Armed Services Committee, said last week that Karzai's government "is not nearly where it should be."
    "I'm not willing to have a long-term U.S. commitment, a substantial U.S. commitment to Afghanistan without seeing substantial reform and improvement in the government," Marshall said on a visit to Kabul."
    -----

    What he did not say was that the lack of a functioning central government is largely due to our (US) actions in the two tears following the invasion of Afghanistan. We enabled warlords instead the central govt. Read "Descent Into Chaos" by Ahmed Rashid (http://www.amazon.com/Descent-into-Chaos-Building- ...
    • Vagari, on 08/27/2008, -0/+1They're too split to form a full central government. Westerners drawing random borders didn't make them into a nation.
  • dukeeeey, on 08/26/2008, -12/+2most americans dont even know where afghanistan is
    buried in the hope a funny picture or apple is amazing article will replace this
    or a top 10 list article
    • bjornski, on 08/27/2008, -0/+3Yeah, because burying the information is a great way to let people learn about something they don't know about.
  • mrwoo, on 08/26/2008, -9/+10They blew up 60 kids,15 women, and 16 men today. I'd say they are killing a lot of people, is that winning? (Can't be arsed to link stuff just check bbc news website, or ITN, or any news network just not a US based one.)
    • regeya, on 08/27/2008, -1/+2Yeah, 'coz Lord knows bias doesn't exist outside US press.

      It's a good thing y'all are LOVABLE idiots.
  • 0dnj0, on 08/26/2008, -3/+18with heroin exports sky rocketing since we got there id say somebody is winning
  • jlhoben, on 08/26/2008, -7/+34Bankrupting America to fight meaningless foreign wars? That is losing.
    • rearlgrant, on 08/26/2008, -2/+6To paraphrase British General Clinton, "A few more such victories would have shortly put an end to American dominion across the World."
    • radiofrequency, on 08/27/2008, -7/+1Hey moonbats: how about rooting for our side for a change?
  • Harabeck, on 08/26/2008, -1/+17"and a rush on a U.S. outpost last month by 200 militants that killed nine Americans."

    That tells us nothing without a count of enemy combatants killed, or the total number of Americans at the outpost... But at first glance, it seems to me that needing 200 to kill 9 does not indicate much competency.
    • 1gunners4, on 08/27/2008, -2/+2The outpost had around 30 soldiers and was very temporary; the Afghans took the Americans by surprise, but that will only go so far when you are charging head-first into a position with automatic weaponry.
      • JAWS, on 08/27/2008, -1/+2Don't confuse the attack as being from Afghans. While some may have been involved, most rebel forces are actually Pakistani Taliban fighters.

        Most Afghans (until relatively recently) were content with the rebuilding efforts (unlike in Iraq). Unfortunately, the Taliban have been surging the past few months and the 'allied' forces cannot (could not) compete. As a result they started doing more air campaigns, which unfortunately means more civilian casualties than if they'd been ground forces. Air strikes equals 'collateral civilian damage' and now there are more Afghans joining the Taliban forces.
      • 1gunners4, on 08/27/2008, -0/+1Yup, my mistake; should have been more specific in my reply.
  • macinit1138, on 08/26/2008, -5/+9Depends on who in the US you are referring to. The average Joe on the street in the US didn't and couldn't ever gain anything by a war in Afghanistan(or Iraq), but he did and will continue to lose financially. If you want to look for the winners, look to the suits who run the many arms of the military industrial complex.
  • cheese06, on 08/26/2008, -5/+9U.S and NATO are simply not putting enough boots on the ground in Afghanistan.

    Northwestern part of Pakistan is the main issue, with all the cross-border attacks its no wonder why the U.S is "losing" according to this article. Jihadists are flush with cash in Pakistan and rearm in that region.

    To simply state, Pakistan is the root problem.
  • tkstock, on 08/26/2008, -10/+3Yeah, we've all heard the "war for oil" argument before.

    As was pointed out, the increased cost of oil has caused a big push for conservation, alternative energy, and the eventual elimination of our independence.

    Sounds like a scheme concocted by liberals, if you ask me. I think they were behind going to war. They've just planted evidence to make it look like the Republicans did it. Maybe it was the liberals who gave Bush the faulty intelligence.

    Sounds like motive to me! And now they use that war strategy to take back congress and the White House.

    I think the whole 9/11, War in Iraq, War in Afghanistan, the artificial oil shortage, and our gradual increasing dependence on foreign oil was all a left-wing conspiracy for power.

    What do you think?
    • tkstock, on 08/26/2008, -2/+1That should be "elimination of our *dependence [on oil]"
      • oveedrx, on 08/27/2008, -0/+1Secretly they wanted us to think it was a war for oil.. but really the war was for the "green" companies to make money off of people.





        both are /s
      • tkstock, on 08/27/2008, -0/+1Maybe the Republicans planned it then. They're secretly invested in green companies - so they made it look like the Democrats were secretly planting evidence that the Republicans used shoddy intelligence to go to war...

        Oh, nevermind. Too much sarchasm dulls the brain.
    • kingmanic, on 08/27/2008, -0/+3And clearly JFK shot himself and the whole film footage thing was a liberal conspiracy?
    • bjornski, on 08/27/2008, -0/+2When I see the commercials by Exxon saying "stop the war, it's killing us", I'll believe you.

      Until then, condensing control of the oil supplies into their control doesn't seem to be hurting them too awfully badly. Once they have majority control over the flow, as soon as an alternative becomes affordable, they'll drop prices to crush it. When it's gone, prices will go back up.

      Just like they did before the last elections.
      • tkstock, on 08/27/2008, -1/+1Who are "them"? The Saudis? They already have majority control over the flow of oil - that's why we want to drill on our own turf - return some control to OUR side of the water.
      • bnajbert, on 08/27/2008, -1/+1There is more than enough oil in North America to tell OPEC to go ***** themselves. They are the problem, we can take care of ourselves, we don't require foreign oil.... its the government that fears life w/o that foreign oil supply.
      • wunksta, on 08/27/2008, -0/+2"There is more than enough oil in North America to tell OPEC to go ***** themselves. "

        clearly you have no understanding of market principles or reality for that matter.

        in short, we DONT
    • td001, on 08/27/2008, -0/+2are you ***** retarded!!!???
      • tkstock, on 08/27/2008, -1/+2No, but I'm ***** sarchastic as hell. I guess sometimes it's hard to tell the difference. :)
      • td001, on 08/27/2008, -0/+1ha.. i guess so.. yeah, no-one could be that retarded!
  • TomJoad, on 08/27/2008, -3/+4how can you win or lose an occupation? It is feasible through cooption, corporate statism and brute force to create a new puppet government but would that even be considered victory? Our thinking is so flawed these days. I mean who is the U.S. anyways? the american people, the american government, the U.S. military?
  • bigstinky, on 08/27/2008, -5/+9Russia could not "win" Afghanistan, what makes anyone think the US can? Seriously, unless you count turning big rocks into smaller ones victory.
    • Midtowner, on 08/27/2008, -8/+3Difference:

      Russia was attempting to colonize and make Afghanistan part of the Soviet Union.

      We are attempting to rid the nation of the Taliban and install an independent, not extremist, hopefully secular government. The two experiences, especially including the tactics are not the same.
      • xander, on 08/27/2008, -3/+7Midtowner, you're a ***** retard.
      • griffinjam, on 08/27/2008, -1/+2I don't know if this is something you believe is possible, or are just stating what people think is the real plan, but keep this in mind; You don't get lemonade from oranges, and you don't get secular democracies from extremists that have known nothing but dictatorship all their lives.

        Anyone that thinks we're "helping" in Iraq and Afghanistan just until they get their free secular democracies up and running is fooling themselves.
      • djoobacca, on 08/27/2008, -1/+4someone forgot to clue midtowner in. he seems to learn from fox news lol.
      • Midtowner, on 08/28/2008, -0/+1You guys fundamentally misunderstand the character of our actions up there. To think our occupation and purpose thereof is anything remotely similar to that of the Soviet Unions is to completely ignore facts and history.

        If you think I'm a "***** retard," please make your case, either sit down and shut up about something you have an embarrassingly pathetic understanding of.
  • kingmanic, on 08/27/2008, -2/+3The US is really fighting terrorism in Afghanistan. The US is just losing money and serving corporate interests in Iraq. pull out of Iraq, push more into Afghanistan.
  • rhoman23, on 08/27/2008, -2/+12Ya know what I haven't had in a while? Big League Chew.
  • SirLoinChop, on 08/27/2008, -7/+1Afghanistan is a wasteland, literally. It's only useful purpose is as a conduit for an oil pipeline. That is the only reason the towely-ban were allowed to operate for as many years as they did. Had it been a worth-while country we would have invaded years earlier when news of their gross abuses towards women became know. Backwards dung eaters. If it weren't for all of the opium that is grown in that country I am pretty sure no one would live there.
    • drgmdp, on 08/27/2008, -0/+3towely-ban! that's so clever!!

      ...

      stupid
  • mediaspree, on 08/27/2008, -0/+5We haven't heard anything about it on the news (besides the massive killings by US forces today) so its safe too assume things aren't good over there. Where is Osama Bin Laden?
  • dizilbdog, on 08/27/2008, -8/+5Actually the U.S is losing in Everything sounds better.
  • atarijedi, on 08/27/2008, -0/+1I don't think you could win in Afghanistan unless you sent in something crazy like a million troops. Specifically because of the landscape of the country, it is a very large and mountainous area, even the flat areas have lots of rolling hills.
  • choochee, on 08/27/2008, -2/+7The sooner we admit defeat and stop blowing our tax money on Bush's frat boy project in Afghanistan, the better.
    • bnajbert, on 08/27/2008, -2/+1I love the people still clinging to the anti-Bush statements.....awesome.......... you're dumb
      • djoobacca, on 08/27/2008, -0/+3no, the people that still defend bush are dumb... like you.
  • chase001, on 08/27/2008, -0/+2...
  • JK1150, on 08/27/2008, -7/+2no
  • chase001, on 08/27/2008, -2/+1Is abandoning losing? We abandoned that country to the Taliban (once Unocal got it's oil pipeline of course) for Bush's hard on for Iraq and then abandoned it again for his manly surge in Iraq at the expense of Afghanistan. We aren't losing. We forfeited the game.
  • zombie210, on 08/27/2008, -1/+1What the hell does the picture have to do with the story?
  • socketman, on 08/27/2008, -5/+2Heh - all US troops will have withdrawn from Iraq by 2011 - withdrawn into Iran
    LOL - bet you liberal obamaites didn't see that one coming ;)
  • TheSabre, on 08/27/2008, -4/+9Wait wait wait. When Republicans say that the US is winning in Iraq, the anti-war folks say "you can't fight a war on an abstract; there is no winning." When the Republicans say that the Dems want the US to lose (from Iraq pullout), the anti-war folks say "its an abstract war, you can't lose." But now, when it fits their own personal political view, the anti-war folks come out and say we're losing in Afghanistan. You can't have it both ways.


    • nosamesame, on 08/27/2008, -2/+3Democrats are known for being switch hitters.
  • designer, on 08/27/2008, -5/+5I hope so. We need to be taught a lesson.
  • nirav72, on 08/27/2008, -8/+4Afghanistan was a justified war. The attacks on 9/11 originated from that country. Only way we're going to win is by diverting some of our military resources from the middle east to that area. If we ever needed a massive military buildup, then it should be in afghanistan. The Taliban are like rodents. We drop our guard and they creep back in. Time to finish them. That will the real decisive war on terror.


    • choochee, on 08/27/2008, -3/+3The Taliban government didn't attack the USA and were not conspirators in the 9/11 attacks. Toppling the Taliban government was a bad idea. The USA should have sent a small force into the country to capture Osama bin Laden and his tiny cult, but that would have meant fewer dollars for defense contracts, no GOP manipulation of war to get votes and no "war presidency."
      • nirav72, on 08/27/2008, -1/+2Idiot - In case you haven't done your research. The Taliban knowingly harbored Bin Ladin and Al Queda. They provided safe haven for the terrorist to train and organize in that country.

        Also, did you forget they were a very repressive regime?



    • mshtml, on 08/27/2008, -1/+1If the Mafia attacks the NYC docks should we bomb, invade and occupy Italy for 10 years?
  • AlienMushroom, on 08/27/2008, -1/+1You win some you lose some.
    It depends on whom you consider.
  • Midtowner, on 08/27/2008, -7/+6This "The U.S. is losing" nonsense is nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of some who aren't happy with the way things are going. We've been quite successful in Iraq up to this point, as we near the pullout deadline and move our focus to Afghanistan, we should experience similar results.

    If you've looked at a map recently, you'll notice that Iraq and Afghanistan are on either side of Iran. That should be sufficient to keep Iran from doing anything stupid.
    • djoobacca, on 08/27/2008, -0/+3stupid like what, defending itself against aggressors like US and Israel?
    • rabidjester, on 08/27/2008, -0/+2"If you've looked at a map recently, you'll notice that Iraq and Afghanistan are on either side of Iran. That should be sufficient to keep Iran from doing anything stupid."

      Ug, what the hell happened to us?
  • SubjectiveC, on 08/27/2008, -0/+4can i haz foxnoos style headline?
  • unknownpoltroon, on 08/27/2008, -4/+8From what i hear, were blowing the ***** out of a lot of weddings. That really wins the hearts and minds.
  • DigitalBrian, on 08/27/2008, -3/+8Let me ask another question

    Why is the US still wasting our tax money in Afghanistan?
    • Gimjee, on 08/27/2008, -2/+4Apparently everyone like you has forgotten what you promised to never forget.
      • choochee, on 08/27/2008, -0/+4We promised after Vietnam never to start unnecessary wars, like the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan. You have obviously forgot about that one. The Taliban didn't attack the USA and was not a 9/11 conspirator. Hence: taking out the entire Afghan government was not necessary.
  • SLockhart, on 08/27/2008, -5/+3I don't know about the US but Canada is winning.
    • TPorter72, on 08/27/2008, -1/+1no were not, it's getting worse in the kandahar province. We need help now or we need to leave.
    • bnajbert, on 08/27/2008, -1/+3All gains made by Canada in the Kandahar province have been nearly erased over the last year from a security stand point.
  • URnotheonly1, on 08/27/2008, -3/+4USA turned Afghanistan over to NATO years ago, go bark up their tree. Whats the matter, you like it when USA loses?
    • TPorter72, on 08/27/2008, -2/+3Yes, makes them learn to stop invading countries.
      • URnotheonly1, on 08/27/2008, -2/+1Go talk to the Russians, we had 17 UN violations and congress approved mission in Iraq. Now go find some other enemy propaganda to spew
      • TPorter72, on 08/27/2008, -1/+2You had no approval of the UN and who gives a ***** about congress. It's an American government body. Guess what the Russian parliament voted to invade Georgia.
  • McCain4eva, on 08/27/2008, -3/+7Afghanistan is not justified, there isn't a target in that whole country that justifies the cost of taking it out. The 9/11 attacks originated in the U.S. nirav72. Didn't they board U.S. flights? Take flying classes in the U.S? Killing Akmed the dirt poor Milita man who probably doesn't even recognize this "Afghanistan" as a real nation state does not make me feel safer. Just a waste of my tax dollars, and human lives.

    Whoosh....

    AMERICA! ***** YEA!!! MCCAIN 08!!!
  • nastronomical, on 08/27/2008, -7/+2Nuke all that moves and give it back to the ruskies..........hey Putin want in??
  • JonyMill, on 08/27/2008, -0/+1We must stop these evildoers!
  • Bovorik, on 08/27/2008, -2/+1Summer fighting season fellas - 'nuff said.

  • bigstinky, on 08/27/2008, -0/+5Regardless the "experience", until the US can get a foothold and send soldiers into mountain tunnels, nobody is going to take Afghanistan anywhere. You can drop a billion dollars in bombs, but all that will be accomplished is smaller mountains. And a nightly Taliban giggle fest. No one will ever change the Taliban's ideology, and that is where the "war" with Afghanistan must be fought. There are some in this country whose arrogance exceeds reality. The world does not always want our help into changing over to a nice cozy lil democracy.
    • bigstinky, on 08/27/2008, -0/+2Apologies...This comment was made in response to Midtowner, way up there ^^^.
  • TigerStar337, on 08/27/2008, -3/+1USA #1, USA #1. USA is the best at making war.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 89 of 89 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.