1,000 Americans Dead in Afghan

1. 61

   theirishobserver.posted 14 years ago

   Today we are told that 1,000 American solidiers have now been killed in Afghanistan - was it worth it with more deaths to come....latest (1,000) solidier killed in Road side bomb....

   replyreport
   1. 69

      Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Okay? Now, what COUNTRY are you actually representing here?
      
      Ireland or America?
      
      You use the word "WE" as though you have a say in what is to be done with American troops or military?
      
      Or are you referencing bring home your folk of Ireland?
      
      I see you post so many "American" subjects, and speak as an American? But, your profile claims "love" of Ireland?
      
      So, you can see the dilemma.
      
      Just curious, please indulge me.

      replyreport
      1. 69

         Ultimate Hubberposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Easy cagsil, he just said that "Today we are told that 1,000 American solidiers have......"

         replyreport
      2. 0

         ryankettposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         There are Irish troops in Afghanistan Cagsil, many of them with the British Army. Since the British army are fighting side-by-side with the Americans, I would say that an Irishman has every right to join Americans in their concern for the welfare of the coalition troops.

         replyreport
         1. 69

            Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            It's a war. DUH!
            
            Concern for all life. But, war does take life. Accept it, move on.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               ryankettposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Deleted
               1. 69

                  Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  What drug habit would that be you are talking about?
                  
                  Please do tell....

                  replyreport
      3. 0

         Chasukposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         I would interpret his "we" as meaning the readers and audience of the myriad media outlets reporting the statistics.

         replyreport
   2. 60

      prettydarkhorseposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      They should all be sent home ASAP

      replyreport
   3. 61

      nikki1posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      May the thousands of our soldiers who died for there Country be represented in honor. Also, My guess our Honorable Obama meant our soldiers would come up alive and in hero status. Its a shame way too many unique dictators up there. Can't stop and realize how tech dumb they are acting. A community grows together when bonding and respect for one another is met. Partnerships all round.

      replyreport
   4. 60

      ehackerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Even it's matter to discus though we have to understand every action has
      same reaction!!!
      
      Because  They have crushed and crucified native people of  Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan  to occupy the natural resources...cause of that gaining reactions...It won't be ended until they stop invading...

      replyreport
2. 61

   theirishobserver.posted 14 years ago

   Should we bring the lads home before more deaths

   replyreport
   1. 61

      nikki1posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      IF our trained tropes could help them hire better dictators and help them clean there up the (mess) possibly we should bring them back home. And give them a huge welcome home party. They did GREAT!!

      replyreport
3. 69

   MikeNVposted 14 years ago

   Obama has pledged to bring them home... he doesn't really care if they are in body bags or in person.
   
   And what have we "won"?

   replyreport
   1. 70

      Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Obama "doesn't really care." I can't imagine anyone believes that.

      replyreport
      1. 69

         MikeNVposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Obama pledged to end the war and when he took office there were 30,000 and now there are 100,000.
         
         It would be a lot harder to find non delusional people who think he does care than rational people who believe he doesn't.
         
         Obama is a fraud.
         
         And what are we winning?  Anyone care to explain that?  We are no safer, we are less safe.  We don't protect our borders and we continue to piss of the Muslim World.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            prettydarkhorseposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Obama is not a fraud and have respect for the President, -- the name

            replyreport
            1. 66

               SparklingJewelposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               ...it's hard to have respect for the office of the president, when the man holding that office does not deserve respect...
               
               lefties need to wake up just like righties did...some anyway

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  PrettyPantherposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  Please explain to me how and when the righties "woke up."  GWB won by a larger margin in 2004 than he did in 2000 and yet I can't find anyone who admits to voting for him the second time around.  When did the righties "wake up" exactly?

                  replyreport
                  1. 64

                     TheSituationposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     I voted for him in 2004 and not in 2000.  Whatever you say about GWB, he was a man, he had balls.  When he said we were sending troops to hunt down the taliban, you felt like this was a posse in the old west....real...not some slick, greasy Chicago political machine. 
                     
                     Obama is obviously very intelligent, but I do not trust him at all.

                     replyreport
               2. 70

                  Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  Opinions are like **sholes. Everybody has one.

                  replyreport
                  1. 69

                     Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     They certainly are.

                     replyreport
            2. 61

               nikki1posted 14 years agoin reply to this

               I'm with Prettydarkhorse on this. Our honorable Obama is doing everything he can. He too is some what limited. In my opinion this has to frustrate him as well. I agree that we should have other Countries like that. He did good. I also feel for him when he tries to do well he gets mocked. Its rather sad.

               replyreport
               1. 64

                  TheSituationposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  He is not even living up to the promises he made to his base.  I mean every politician is a liar, but much of what he ran on was "changing" how things were ran...
                  
                  HEALTH-CARE MANDATES
                  
                  STATEMENT: “We’ve got a philosophical difference, which we’ve debated repeatedly, and that is that Senator Clinton believes the only way to achieve universal health care is to force everybody to purchase it. And my belief is, the reason that people don’t have it is not because they don’t want it but because they can’t afford it.” Barack Obama, speaking at a Democratic presidential debate, February 21, 2008.
                  
                  EXPIRATION DATE: On March 23, 2010, Obama signed the individual mandate into law.
                  
                  HEALTH-CARE NEGOTIATIONS ON C-SPAN
                  
                  STATEMENT: “These negotiations will be on C-SPAN, and so the public will be part of the conversation and will see the decisions that are being made.” January 20, 2008, and seven other times.
                  
                  EXPIRATION DATE: Throughout the summer, fall, and winter of 2009 and 2010; when John McCain asked about it during the health-care summit February 26, Obama dismissed the issue by declaring, “the campaign is over, John.”
                  
                  RAISING TAXES
                  
                  STATEMENT: “No family making less than $250,000 will see any form of tax increase.” (multiple times on the campaign trail)
                  
                  EXPIRATION DATE: Broken multiple times, including the raised taxes on tobacco, a new tax on indoor tanning salons, but most prominently on February 11, 2010: “President Barack Obama said he is ‘agnostic’ about raising taxes on households making less than $250,000 as part of a broad effort to rein in the budget deficit.”
                  
                  RECESS APPOINTMENTS
                  
                  STATEMENT: Then-senator Obama declared that a recess appointment is “damaged goods” and has “less credibility” than a normal appointment. August 25, 2005.
                  
                  EXPIRATION DATE: March 27, 2010: “If, in the interest of scoring political points, Republicans in the Senate refuse to exercise that responsibility, I must act in the interest of the American people and exercise my authority to fill these positions on an interim basis.”
                  
                  BORDER SECURITY
                  
                  STATEMENT: “We need tougher border security, and a renewed focus on busting up gangs and traffickers crossing our border. . . . That begins at home, with comprehensive immigration reform. That means securing our border and passing tough employer enforcement laws.” Then-candidate Obama, discussing the need for border security, speaking in Miami on May 23, 2008.
                  
                  EXPIRATION DATE: March 17, 2010: The Obama administration halted new work on a “virtual fence” on the U.S.-Mexican border, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced Tuesday, diverting $50 million in planned economic stimulus funds for the project to other purposes.
                  
                  GUANTANAMO BAY
                  
                  STATEMENT: Executive order stating, “The detention facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than one year from the date of this order.” January 22, 2009.
                  
                  EXPIRATION DATE:  November 19, 2009: “Guantánamo, we had a specific deadline that was missed.”
                  
                  MILITARY TRIBUNALS
                  
                  STATEMENT: “Somebody like Khalid Sheik Mohammad is gonna get basically, a full military trial with all the bells and whistles.” September 27, 2006
                  
                  EXPIRATION DATE: Ongoing. “President Obama is planning to insert himself into the debate about where to try the accused mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, three administration officials said Thursday, signaling a recognition that the administration had mishandled the process and triggered a political backlash. Obama initially had asked Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to choose the site of the trial in an effort to maintain an independent Justice Department. But the White House has been taken aback by the intense criticism from political opponents and local officials of Holder’s decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in a civilian courtroom in New York.”
                  
                  RECOVERY.GOV
                  
                  STATEMENT: “We will launch a sweeping effort to root out waste, inefficiency, and unnecessary spending in our government, and every American will be able to see how and where we spend taxpayer dollars by going to a new website called recovery.gov.” – President Obama, January 28, 2009
                  
                  EXPIRATION DATE: “More than two months after some of the funds were released, [Recovery.gov] offers little detail on where the money is going . . . The government [spent] $84 million on a website that doesn’t have a search function, when its purpose is to ‘root out waste, inefficiency, and unnecessary spending in our government.’” April 2, 2009
                  
                  Eighteen from his first 100 days:
                  
                  1. “As President I will recognize the Armenian Genocide.”
                  
                  2. “I will make sure that we renegotiate [NAFTA].“
                  
                  3. Opposed a Colombian Free Trade Agreement because advocates ignore that “labor leaders have been targeted for assassination on a fairly consistent basis.”
                  
                  4. “Now, what I’ve done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut.”
                  
                  5. “If we see money being misspent, we’re going to put a stop to it, and we will call it out and we will publicize it.“
                  
                  6. “Yesterday, Jim, the head of Caterpillar, said that if Congress passes our plan, this company will be able to rehire some of the folks who were just laid off.”
                  
                  7. “I want to go line by line through every item in the Federal budget and eliminate programs that don’t work, and make sure that those that do work work better and cheaper.”
                  
                  8. “[My plan] will not help speculators who took risky bets on a rising market and bought homes not to live in but to sell.”
                  
                  9. “Instead of allowing lobbyists to slip big corporate tax breaks into bills during the dead of night, we will make sure every single tax break and earmark is available to every American online.”
                  
                  10. “We can no longer accept a process that doles out earmarks based on a member of Congress’s seniority, rather than the merit of the project.”
                  
                  11. “If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime.  I repeat: not one single dime.”
                  
                  12. “Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe the United States has to be frank with the Chinese about such failings and will press them to respect human rights.”
                  
                  13. “We must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights.”
                  
                  14. “Lobbyists won’t work in my White House!“
                  
                  15. “The real gamble in this election is playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expecting a different result.”
                  
                  16. “I’ll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we’ll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills.”
                  
                  17. “Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.” Obama is 1-for-11 on this promise so far.
                  
                  18. A special one on the 100th day, “The first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That’s the first thing I’d do.”
                  
                  And a list from of promises that expired during the campaign:

                  replyreport
4. 60

   ediggityposted 14 years ago

   R.I.P.

   replyreport
5. 56

   leebertteaposted 14 years ago

   It's sad. I hate to see our people lost in this war. It's gone on too long now and we probably should have left once we let Bin Laden slip away. I heard that many Afghan people are questioning why if we were able to defeat the Taliban in weeks, are they still there and becoming stronger. They believe America's CIA is transporting the Taliban from the south to the North. How can we ever win there when the people believe such nonsense? How do we answer their questions? We should just leave.

   replyreport
   1. 77

      figmentposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      i agree

      replyreport
   2. 70

      Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Finally something we agree on!

      replyreport
6. 64

   Greek Oneposted 14 years ago

   you can add 144 Canadians

   replyreport
   1. 77

      Uninvited Writerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      146 now

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ryankettposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Add 288 from the UK.
         
         Although, in fairness, you can also add over 2000 Afghan civilian deaths for 2009 alone....

         replyreport
7. 58

   Jeramiposted 14 years ago

   excuse my ignorance but how many of our troops are in Afghanistan now?

   replyreport
8. 0

   PrettyPantherposted 14 years ago

   CNN has an interactive map depicting casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan.
   
   One map shows hometown locations and another shows casualty locations.  If you click on a location, a popup will display the name (and sometimes a photo) of the person who died and how he died. The two maps are linked so you can see where people are from and where they served.
   
   What makes it really special is friends and family can submit memories of their loved ones.
   
   This is a great graphic that shows the data but also the real people behind the numbers.
   
   
   http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/war.casualties/index.html

   replyreport
   1. 70

      Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks. Great graphic. It shouldn't surprise anyone. More than I year ago when the increase in troops in Afghanistan was being discussed I expressed my fear that Obama was jumping out of the fire in Iraq and into the fire in Afghanistan and that the more troops we sent there the greater the number of casualties.

      replyreport
      1. 93

         habeeposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Rut-roh, Ralph - this is the second time today that I've agreed with you! Is the sky falling??

         replyreport
9. 58

   TMMasonposted 14 years ago

   Get the ACLU out of the theatre and fight this war to win.
   
   I am tired of this BS they call war today.
   
   War is not, has not been and will never be, civillized. To tie our soldiers hands with BS ROE shit the enemy is not obliged to follow, is retarded.

   replyreport
   1. 77

      Uninvited Writerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Warfare has always had rules of engagement...

      replyreport
      1. 58

         TMMasonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Nowhere near what we call ROEs of today. Yes there wewre certain rules followed, but nothing so binding and hindering as what soldiers are prohibited with today.

         replyreport
         1. 90

            Paragliderposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Please define 'win'

            replyreport
10. 76

    mega1posted 14 years ago

    our wars are really about drugs (heroin/morphine/poppies) and oil - and as always, the megabucks made on weaponry and military equipment.  Its just business as usual.  I don't see why people are really persuaded by the propaganda of the war machine.  It does no good to rage about it - we need massive demonstrations and civil disobedience - we need our boys not to sign up - otherwise the powers that be won't stop.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       ediggityposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       If no one signs up they will draft.

       replyreport
11. 77

    Uninvited Writerposted 14 years ago

    He pledged to end the war in Iraq and move the troops to where they should have always been...Afghanistan.

    replyreport
    1. 70

       Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Correct. Obama has done what he said he would do. He's not a fraud. However, I didn't agree with what he did at the time, and I haven't changed my mind. Also, winding down in Iraq is taking longer than I had hoped.

       replyreport
12. 61

    theirishobserver.posted 14 years ago

    Cagsil - only catching your post right now - due to the great number of Irish in America you will find that many of those solidiers being shipped to die in foreign lands are off Irish blood - when I say we I am talking about all of us who are connected to these 'wars' Shannon Airport in Ireland is used on a daily basis to transport Americans to and from the theatre of war - so I imagine that when I say we - I am speaking about the we that are involved in these wars - which are not the preserve of political or military elites in the Pentagon Hope that clears that up for you

    replyreport
13. 61

    theirishobserver.posted 14 years ago

    ryankett - well said - indeed one way or another we are all in this together.

    replyreport
14. 61

    theirishobserver.posted 14 years ago

    Setting aside the politics of it all there are a lot of families grieving right now.

    replyreport
15. 0

    ryankettposted 14 years ago

    Cagsil, my bad, for some reason I was convinced that you were in recovery I will request deletion of my forum post so that a Google search on Cagsil doesn't paint any inaccurate pictures.

    replyreport
    1. 69

       Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Sorry no recovery here. No need for it either.

       replyreport
16. 0

    ryankettposted 14 years ago

    Well that is the first time that I have reported myself!

    replyreport
17. 72

    IntimatEvolutionposted 14 years ago

    When you work on a crab fishing boat in Alaska, you know the risks.  When you are an Ax man, you know the risks.  When you are an United States American soldier, you know the risks.  Not saying it is right or wrong, or that they need to come home or not.  But as a Marine Brat, five generations long..........., it is what it is.  An American soldier lives for it. 
    
    That is all I'm saying.  They only one who can answer questions like these, are the real men at the the scene.  For us to speculate in open forums, make them feel they are worlds apart from their homeland.  They view chatter like this, to be a disgrace on the 1000 soldiers dead.  At least that is how it is and was with every military family I know.  And I've been around alot.

    replyreport
18. 72

    AEvansposted 14 years ago

    That is so sad, so sad my prayers are with there families right now, I could not imagine what they have been going through.

    replyreport
19. 0

    Kathryn LJposted 14 years ago

    It's sad that families have to deal with such tragedy. My step son is serving in the British forces in Afganistan.  My concern is with him.  I hope you will forgive my lack of interest in the wider picture.

    replyreport
20. 61

    theirishobserver.posted 14 years ago

    Kathryn - agreed

    replyreport
21. 67

    Pearldiverposted 14 years ago

    No surprises... There is a certain futility in invading and fighting over the religious ownership of rocks, hills and deserts.... no matter the diplomatic spin.

    replyreport
    1. 78

       Shil1978posted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Is it about "ownership?" Is the plan to occupy these distant lands? If yes, then may be I am missing something!
       
       I am not sure if the ideal option is to shut oneself in one's own country and say we are not interested in what goes on in another country - especially when that country has been established to have elements in it that have openly called for your destruction and have proved that they are not just bark, but can bite too, as in 9/11 and the recent Times Square attempted bombing.
       
       Now, unless one believes in the 9/11 conspiracy theorists and says all the ills there are - are the direct result of one's own Govt., I am not too sure what other options should have been considered?
       
       Using diplomatic offices with the Taliban? Peace talks with the Taliban? Just walking away? What was the alternative?

       replyreport
       1. 67

          Pearldiverposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          There are many things that equate to 'ownership' in politics.. perhaps 'control' or 'financed by' should spring to mind.
          
          Afganistan has been a war zone for a thousand years.. though for some reason that is overlooked. The place is a muslim state and on that basis alone will always be in despute with what we promote politically as being the answer to their problem.
          
          Short memories - USA financed the very same party that you are saying justifies the war   The Taliban.... CIA backed, developed and deserted once the Russians pulled out.
          
          But as an environment to test new weapons and battlefield tactics it is perfect and is used that way. What a waste so many young lives are sacrified. What a waste of taxpayers funds when it is the muslim groups in places like Pakistan that are funded by 'Infidels'... those that are detested most by the parties that take the 'Aid.'
          
          Give it to them... it is theirs... other than hollow political excuses.. there is no reason to be slaughtering young lambs.

          replyreport
          1. 78

             Shil1978posted 14 years agoin reply to this

             "Financed by," or "controlled" by whom? Is that an assumption that you make or is it based on some facts?
             
             I am not sure about the "thousand years," but did people in ages past have the kind of weapons they have now, or the capability to pose the kind of destruction they can now?
             
             Did they pose a threat to lands thousands of miles away? I am not sure why any of that has to have any significance to this day and age.
             
             Afghanistan being a muslim country does not matter. Fact is there are thousands of countries around the world, who are muslim, and while they may not agree with the foreign policy of the US, they don't harbor elements that openly call for the destruction of the US, and even if they do, they just have the 'bark,' not the bite!!
             
             What you had in Afghanistan till 9/11 and shortly afterwords was a situation where stateless actors and the Taliban had taken complete hold. They didn't just bark but bit!! Would you say, they were they involved in carrying out humanitarian programs around the world?
             
             "short memories" - well, isn't this an oft-repeated argument. So, what? It was wrong (in hindsight)! Did anyone at the time cry hoarse about the CIA backing?
             
             This is a most cynical view. "testing new weapons" - well, what can one say!!
             
             Afghanistan can't survive on its own as a country, not yet!! There are far too many interested parties there to allow for that to happen. Its not an impossible task though, but it requires commitment.
             
             Its better a job is well done and a country strengthened to take care of itself, rather than leave mid way and then ponder over the what-could-have-beens years later. I don't think anyone wants Afghanistan to become a haven for Al-Qaeda and Taliban as it had become.

             replyreport
22. 61

    theirishobserver.posted 14 years ago

    Still - there will come a day when like Gadaffi these 'terrorists' will be invited for tea and cakes by the great and the good

    replyreport
23. 58

    rg01posted 14 years ago

    "Afghanistan can't survive on its own as a country, not yet!!"
    
    ROFL, isn't that abit of an ignorant statement? It hasn't been under foreign occupation for much of its long history because foreign invaders are usually thrown out.

    replyreport
24. 60

    VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 14 years ago

    "Afganistan cannot survive on its own." This is very strange to read. It may well suit US, which cannot stand on its own. They want help from the rest of the world.
    
    Afganistan is the only country in the world which stood independent for several centuries, till 1979. Russia occupied Afganistan first in 1979 and US occupied it in 2001.
    
    Eventhough US thinks it had occupied Afganistan, those people never care for Americans. They continue their normal life, except a few terrorists, aided by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. So, Afganistan is standing on their own legs even now. The foreign merceneries and US soldiers fight each other. One day, native Afgans will drive both of them out.

    replyreport