home

8 U.S. Soldiers Killed in Afghanistan Battle

By Jeralyn, Section Afghanistan 2009
Posted on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 11:44:07 AM EST
Tags: Taliban (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

In the deadliest attack in more than a year, 8 U.S. soldiers and 2 Afghan troops have been killed in a attack by the Taliban in Afghanistan.

"Coalition forces effectively repelled the attack and inflicted heavy enemy casualties while eight Isaf and two ANSF [Afghan National Security Forces] members were killed," the Nato statement said.

The attack took place near Nuristan, a mountainous region. The Taliban says it has 35 police chiefs in custody and they will be taken before a council. There are 100,000 Nato and US forces in Afghanistan and their commander, Gen. McChrystal wants 40,000 more. So far, [More...]

President Obama has not agreed to additional troops. He's developing a strategy.

While the U.S. is developing a strategy, more U.S. lives are being lost. We have just swapped one war for another, Iraq for Afghanistan. It's time to stop funding these wars and bring the troops home.

< Sunday Football Open Thread | Sunday Musings >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    8 U.S. Soldiers Killed in Afghanistan Battle | 69 comments (69 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    General Westmoreland will never (none / 0) (#1)
    by scribe on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 11:56:24 AM EST
    have enough troops.

    Did I say Westmoreland?  I meant McChrystal.  Sorry.

    Light? Tunnel? (none / 0) (#2)
    by oldpro on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 12:03:56 PM EST
    "Deja vu all over again."

    Without a strategy and an exit plan, this would just amount to 40,000 more targets...all of them ours.

    The Secretary of Defense is doing a good job of walking the tightrope so far...at least I haven't seen any evidence of where he comes down on the current discussion.  So far, I'm glad Obama kept him.

    Parent

    I finally read Charlie Wilson's War (none / 0) (#9)
    by Cream City on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 01:36:28 PM EST
    this week, and it is clear to me that we have to get out.

    A lot of these weapons aimed at us were given by us in that era -- and more are being taken every day to be aimed at us, too.  And even re equipment being sent in from elsewhere, it was the U.S. that turned tribal warriors into modern technologically trained troops.

    Parent

    If it make you feel one shred better (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 01:39:49 PM EST
    Cream City, they've shot all the really good stuff at us already.  They are out of old stinger missiles :)  And anyone can rustle up an rpg these days but they are hell to navigate.  If an rpg takes something flying down, its mostly luck.  On the ground is different though, your accuracy doesn't have to be that great to do some serious damage.

    Parent
    And everybody makes and sells them (none / 0) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 02:35:13 PM EST
    they are very easy to come by

    Parent
    The exit plan is to win (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 05:42:15 PM EST


    Parent
    Yeah. I heard that one in (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by oldpro on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 11:13:52 PM EST
    '65, '66, '67, '68, '69, 70, '71, '72, '73 ...

    I didn't believe it then and I don't believe it now.  And how are things going in Iraq, by the way?

    Parent

    That we dishonored ourselves then (1.00 / 0) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:42:27 AM EST
    by cutting and running while leaving millions to be killed by the communist North means only that the radical Muslims believe that we will do it again.

    And by golly you are wanting to prove them right.

    Parent

    The dishonor was in sending (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by oldpro on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 11:55:59 AM EST
    combat forces to Vietnam in the first place.

    Parent
    A stable Afghanistan that (none / 0) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 07:50:56 PM EST
    is not exporting terrorists would be a start.

    A country that is secular would be a win win.

    Whether or not we have the will to do what is necessary to get their full attention, re Japan before/after WWII, is questionable.

    Whenever I hear "Graveyard of empires" shtik I remember that people though the world to be flat, man would never fly and make it to the moon.  Essentially it is used to set the stage for surrender.

    Parent

    Is it possible (3.00 / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:40:12 AM EST
    for you to make a comment in less than 5000 words?

    :-)

    Of course you don't believe in winning. We knew that.

    Parent

    Well done! n/t (none / 0) (#75)
    by oldpro on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 11:46:18 AM EST


    Parent
    Comparisons with Vietnam (none / 0) (#27)
    by Politalkix on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 03:25:22 PM EST
    do not help. Never heard of the Vietnamese attacking the WTC or the Pentagon, however the people that we are fighting in Afghanistan did that in 2001 and will do so again if they get an opportunity. Vietnam was a war that the Vietnamese could not afford to lose, Afghanistan is a war that we cannot afford to lose. The Iraq war was a war of choice, the AfPak war is not. We should learn the lessons of history; withdrawal of the Soviets from Afghanistan and lack of real American involvement in that region for a decade enabled the rise of the Taliban, culminating in the attack on the WTC.
    Withdrawal is not an option for us in Afghanistan, IMO!

    Parent
    Given the U.S. turned its attention from (none / 0) (#32)
    by oculus on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 03:46:05 PM EST
    Afghanistan to Iraq for so many years, who, in your opinion, have there been no follow-up attacks in the U.S.?  

    Also, from what I've read, the potential attackers have moved into Pakistan and possibly other countries.  Agree?

    Parent

    The oeratives (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by Salo on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 04:10:17 PM EST
    Are almost all Arabs too.  It's possible that the very bloody war in Iraq settled most of the scores that created Saudi hostilty to the US in some weird round about way. All the willing shaheeds in Saudi Arabia drove up to ramadi and either got killed or killed GIs.

    Parent
    I would say that we have kept them (2.00 / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 05:46:55 PM EST
    otherwise engaged. We also had a foreign policy that discouraged many of their sponsors and reduced "moderate" support.

    Obama's apologies, etc., have been read as a sign of weakness.  You are seeing the result of being seen as weak by the radicals.

    Parent

    On an ideological level? (none / 0) (#73)
    by Salo on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 03:00:33 PM EST
     Of course there were numerous Communist acts of espionage in the US and elsewhere.  Part of the fight was about capitalism and communism too.

    Parent
    I probably won't hear from my husband (none / 0) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 12:04:01 PM EST
    today.  They have to shut down phones home so that God forbid no family would find out they lost a loved one through a grapevine.  I can't say that no buildup has taken place and is still taking place.  They've just found different ways to do it outside of moving regiments and divisions that would be reported by the press.  The strategy has already been chosen.  Obama is just looking for a way to break to everyone that isn't going to cause a leftwing firestorm.  And as many soldiers as you have in Afghanistan now you have that many American contractors and it is predicted that it will climb to times two.

    To me, it seems the U.S. military or (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 12:50:35 PM EST
    maybe the money guys, aren't carrying over knowledge gained in Iraq to Afghanistan.  First reason I think this is reading an article in NYT about the need for more armored vehicles, due to roadside IEDs in Afghanistan.  Second reason is another article in NYT about our military staking out an area with slim no. of forces and being overrun. Why weren't those armored vehicles on the ground before?  

    Parent
    From the first family to lose a loved one (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Cream City on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 01:29:48 PM EST
    in this attack, a fine young Guardsman from my state who was the first one killed, we learn this today from my local paper.  Do read to the end:

    Sgt. Ryan Adams, 26 . . . joined the Guard in 2001 after he graduated from Rhinelander High School because he wanted to serve his country, his uncle, Patrick Adams of West Bend, said Saturday. . . . "He was incredibly proud to be a soldier, and he loved doing what he did," said Patrick Adams, who was with Ryan Adams' parents in Rhinelander on Saturday. . . .

    Ryan Adams was deployed with the Guard's 951st Engineer Company (Sapper). About 100 soldiers from the Rhinelander and Tomahawk-based unit were sent to Afghanistan, where they conduct route-clearance operations for the Army's 101st Airborne Division, the Guard said.

    It was the second tour of duty for Adams and his unit. It was deployed to Iraq from May 2003 to April 2004 when it was Company C, 724th Engineer Battalion, the Guard said.

    At Rhinelander High School, Ryan Adams was a quarterback on the football team and also played baseball, Patrick Adams said.

    Ryan Adams also volunteered with Angels on My Shoulder, a nonprofit cancer support group in St. Germain. The group runs camps for children affected by cancer, visits cancer patients at hospitals and clinics, provides weekend retreats for cancer caregivers, and has programs for cancer survivors.  "It was an important cause to him," Patrick Adams said.



    Parent
    Quite poignant. Plus, I didn't realize (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 01:41:00 PM EST
    the National Guard is now being deployed to Afghanistan.

    Parent
    Oh, yes -- for some time now (none / 0) (#12)
    by Cream City on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 01:45:04 PM EST
    I have been seeing my students -- at an urban, commuter (read underprivileged students) campus, and in one of the states sending more troops than most others -- head over there.  I have quite a few Afghanistan (and Iraq) vets in my classes, too, so I'm glad to see how many do come back to college, which is the reason so many sign up.  

    But many come back with terrible injuries, of course, so more of a challenge to us on campuses.  They are great students, though -- and they really get into American history, as you can imagine.

    Every one of them, though, reminds me of the many former students of mine who have come back in boxes.

    Parent

    I send moments of peace and clarity (none / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 01:46:04 PM EST
    to his family however they may come by those in the next days, weeks, months, and years.  What an amazing person living in service to others.  That is what makes it so hard these days.  We are being represented by some hellaciously courageous people these days in the disasters that Bush created and then just walked away from and left for all other Americans to sort out.  So many of them are hellaciously courageous, but it really hurts to lose someone so fine.

    Parent
    MT, you are a mensch. (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 03:49:09 PM EST
    link

    It is hard to even imagine how difficult it must be for you to see bad news re Afghanistan.

    Parent

    Thx friend (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 06:38:26 PM EST
    I really don't know how terrific a person I am though.  The last time I saw my husband I told him that as a woman I don't expect myself to be a warrior.  I will hurt someone meaning to hurt my family without a lash blink, but when it comes to large scale violence and solutions and sometimes violent solutions when it comes to terrorism...I don't know if I would be as courageous as he is even if I had been born a man.  I tend to think that when real a$$e$ needed to show up for hard realities I would hang back, tell myself I was playing it smart, that real courage doesn't involve the risk of dying and that I could leave the dying for those silly enough to go and do it.  The people involved in this fight now, after eight years, you cannot believe their resumes when it comes to life lived.  It is as if they understand harder things than most of us are willing to understand and they still move out.  I suppose their life resumes are so stunning because they have known how to do this and applied it to other things in their lives.  Also stunningly, my spouse shows up only to meet two people he has served with previously.  He isn't flying over there.  It isn't something that should have happened because the Army in general isn't small.  Put there they were, certain people willing to volunteer to fight this fight and to go willfully to Afghanistan.

    Parent
    What was learned (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 05:48:35 PM EST
    in Iraq was "boots on the ground."

    We await the musings of our President regarding the commanding general's request for same.

    Parent

    Change of administration (none / 0) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 01:03:46 PM EST
    Bush wasn't putting anything into Afghanistan except what he absolutely had to.  All armoured vehicles were in Iraq too, and they didn't even get serious about making them until we began taking large troop casualties.  When everyone was screaming for them there were still design flaws too.  They are slowly manufactured, huge, weigh tons, so we have to move what we have from another place and that takes at least 90 days to do...or we must buy more and then ship them in (shipping once again takes at least 90 days).  Also, IEDs were not a big deal until we began stocking people into the area.  Now the fight is on.  Now IEDs are an issue.  If anyone really wants to know when we began plussing up our real troop numbers, take a look at when IEDs began to become an issue there.  When we hit the roads moving larger numbers of troops, that's when you can get a big score by putting your time and energy into some IEDs.

    Parent
    I still think it is pretty short-sighted (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 01:06:04 PM EST
    not to send armored vehicles with the arriving troops.  

    Parent
    It was, but at the time, the exact same (none / 0) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 01:20:37 PM EST
    situation was going down that went down when General McChrystal and Petraeus had to step in and Petraeus had to fight for an Iraq surge and we were about to lose control of Baghdad.  We were about to lose Kabul and it was about to have a brand new Taliban takeover. We were very close to being overrun the day Obama was inaugurated.  Bush didn't give two sh*ts either.

    Parent
    The armored vehicles made for Iraq, (none / 0) (#14)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 02:06:23 PM EST
    which does have a passable road system, are too heavy for the off road stuff in Afghanistan.  

    Parent
    It isn't as if Bush couldn't have built (none / 0) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 02:16:32 PM EST
    what would suit all of Afghanistan needs perfectly though in most given situations Wile....come on.  He just didn't friggin want to.  It took Obama to do that and they started on those this summer. It's a little late in the Afghanistan war game though isn't it?  I'll take better late than never though.

    Parent
    And many roads in Afghanistan take (none / 0) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 02:17:46 PM EST
    heavy equipment just fine.  It is the mountain terrain that is the challenge.

    Parent
    Compare the miles of (2.00 / 0) (#29)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 03:40:14 PM EST
    roads in A'stan to Iraq.  Not even close.  Compare the state of said roads.  

    Parent
    Most of the roads in Afghanistan (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 06:19:49 PM EST
    are not paved.  It is my understanding that those that are paved aren't well made and our armored vehicles did tear those up.  But we sent them over there anyhow.  They just didn't get very many because Bush wasn't going to give Afghan troops anything when all he could think about was his lost cause in Iraq.  You can dig up the Stars and Stripes article from 2006 that makes all that clear if you want to too.

    Parent
    bmp's the soviets use (none / 0) (#18)
    by Salo on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 02:34:46 PM EST
    Were peeled open real easy by IEd's in the 80s. Enough explosive and you get severe internal bleeding from shockwaves. No matter what sort of apc you have.

    Parent
    The 80's aren't today by a long long shot (none / 0) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 02:43:06 PM EST
    The number of people who have been saved by our new uparmored vehicles compared to those who have been killed by their failures makes down talking our current vehicles silly.  They work, they save lots and lots of lives where people like to build roadside bombs.  The technology involved is very guarded too.  They don't easily peel...period.  The Brits have led the way in the development of such vehicles in Afghanistan.  It is a longterm investment for them though I suppose.  And I'm sure they've loaned us a few when we have needed some loaning. But the Brits will simply be dealing with more Islamic terrorism than we will and this sort of investment would seem to be a given for them.

    Parent
    The 80's aren't today by a long long shot (none / 0) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 02:43:06 PM EST
    The number of people who have been saved by our new uparmored vehicles compared to those who have been killed by their failures makes down talking our current vehicles silly.  They work, they save lots and lots of lives where people like to build roadside bombs.  The technology involved is very guarded too.  They don't easily peel...period.  The Brits have led the way in the development of such vehicles in Afghanistan.  It is a longterm investment for them though I suppose.  And I'm sure they've loaned us a few when we have needed some loaning. But the Brits will simply be dealing with more Islamic terrorism than we will and this sort of investment would seem to be a given for them.

    Parent
    The Arden vickers stuff (none / 0) (#25)
    by Salo on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 03:17:28 PM EST
    Just encourages politicians into insane deployments. Like northern Ireland.

    Parent
    My name is Tracy (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 03:25:22 PM EST
    My husband is an active duty United States soldier fighting Islamic terrorists in the year 2009.  My name is not Arden and I haven't had skin in Ireland for over more than 200 years I'm guessing.

    Parent
    If you mention British stuff (none / 0) (#36)
    by Salo on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 03:58:53 PM EST
    I'll mention the
    manufacturers  of that British stuff and why the British built that stuff.  

    Parent
    Why did they build it? (none / 0) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 06:06:55 PM EST
    I don't see why it would be horrible for you to say why they built it.  Go ahead and mention it, why would that be horrible?  Did you notice that the troops killed were listed as ISAF troops.  That means they were there to assist NATO.  I dislike the American left blogosphere's dishonesty about Afghanistan being only a United States problem.  They do that to simplify their arguments as to why they think we need to leave immrdiately.  And they also practice a sort of intellectual dishonesty with themselves that every factual indicator we have out there indicates that Obama is going to give McChrystal exactly what he needs and has already begun to do so.  If more antiescalation bloggers were honest with themselves about Obama's actions on Afghanistan perhaps they could also practice a form of intellectual honesty about how he really would rather that there was no public option but will provide it if we the people literally spank him hard enough.

    Parent
    The Mastiff was designed (none / 0) (#62)
    by Salo on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 08:28:25 AM EST
    to put donw urban rioting in places like Soweto and Belfast.

    My apologies to you t must be nerve wracking to have the old man in harms way.

    Parent

    What ails the op isn't technical. (none / 0) (#20)
    by Salo on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 02:37:10 PM EST
    It is strategic.

    Parent
    What strategy is needed? (none / 0) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 02:44:18 PM EST
    I'm curious what strategic changes you would like.  Most people I'm told just want us to leave.

    Parent
    Charles esche Van abbé museum Harald szeeman MassL (none / 0) (#24)
    by Salo on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 03:14:56 PM EST
    Leaving is good strategy.

    Parent
    You think if we all went to the museum (none / 0) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 03:19:16 PM EST
    together that Islamic terrorism being visited upon nonMuslim based nations will just stop?

    Parent
    New cut and paste (none / 0) (#31)
    by Salo on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 03:45:42 PM EST
    On iPhone is tricky. Arden and vickers are the designers of the armour you are talking about. Technical solution to Afghanistan do not exist. Someone was mad enough to mention Pakistan too upthread ( last count there are over 150 million pakistanis. Too many people to think about as 5 million Sunnis were too much to handle in iraq ).  There's something called a mastiff that the south Africans designed to get them in and out of soweto that the Americans call the cougar. That's designed on lessons learned during aparthied and the troubles in the 1980s.  

    Parent
    We left in the 1990s (none / 0) (#30)
    by Politalkix on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 03:41:46 PM EST
    after the Soviets withdrew. The withdrawal did not help, the WTC attack happened a decade after that. There were numerous other attacks in between (USS Cole, bombing of US Consulates in East Africa, etc).

    Parent
    Al Qaeda is based (none / 0) (#33)
    by Salo on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 03:49:01 PM EST
    Anywhere and funded and staffed by Arabs mainly Saudis. No afghans on those planes. No pakistanis.  No Iraqis. Some egyptians  though.

    Parent
    Al Qaeda (none / 0) (#39)
    by Politalkix on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 04:16:01 PM EST
    funding may mostly come from Arabs, however it is a travesty of the truth to say that Pakistanis and Afghans do not provide a significant portion of Al Qaeda labor. Al Qaeda training camps in the AfPak region also possibly have an Ivy League pedigree among terrorist training camps, otherwise why would so many wannabe Islamic terrorists from various parts of the globe travel to Pakistan and Afghanistan to get trained!

    Parent
    My grandad fought these (none / 0) (#41)
    by Salo on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 04:50:24 PM EST
    People in the 1920s it's a shame him and the raj pulled out according to your logic.

    Parent
    Indeed they are (none / 0) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 06:12:35 PM EST
    and our forces just took one down in Somalia too. That would have been President Obama's doing.

    Parent
    The war in iraq in 1991 (none / 0) (#35)
    by Salo on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 03:55:12 PM EST
    Was the proximal cause of a lot of that terrorism. Afghanistan only began to host al Qaeda (  bin laden) after he was chased out of Sudan.  The formal wars the us has fought against the arabs in Arabia proper are the causus belli.

    Parent
    It's like you missed the facts (none / 0) (#37)
    by Salo on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 04:02:53 PM EST
    In order to carry your own prejudgement.  You also missed the 1990's in any coherent way.

    Parent
    You are going out of your way (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Politalkix on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 04:38:59 PM EST
    to downplay the fact that the goal of establishment of theocratic Islamic States wherever they can, binds Al Qaeda operatives collectively, in their missions. The rest is simply incidental or just apologia!

    Parent
    It's a yawner (none / 0) (#42)
    by Salo on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 04:52:25 PM EST
    Are tribes hostile to the Taliban and piss off.

    Parent
    Arm tribes hostile to the taliban (none / 0) (#43)
    by Salo on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 04:53:59 PM EST
    And piss off asap.

    Parent
    I don't know who needs to catch up (none / 0) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 06:17:22 PM EST
    on history here the most but have you read anything recent?  Did you read that the Taliban is going to be discipling some of the people involved in that latest attack that coalition didn't kill.  Apparently we will work with Taliban that are interested in learning a different way of life outside of nourishing terrorism.  There are probably a few more standards they need to meet other than that, but have you noticed that some Taliban have shown up to negotiate?

    Parent
    The tribes there... (none / 0) (#63)
    by Salo on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 08:30:28 AM EST
    ...are amenable to anyone who will give them heavy weapons and cash.   This is no mysterious secret.  What is your point?

    Parent
    That you don't have one (none / 0) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 08:38:45 AM EST


    Parent
    Afghanistan will end in tears. (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by Salo on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 08:43:13 AM EST
    I think that's the point. it's not worth the bones of a single infantry man.

    Parent
    And me thinks you missed (2.00 / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 06:50:47 PM EST
    1979 and Carter's birthing of radical Muslims in Iran... and the lack of any real attention paid to them through various attacks, kidnappings, etc., etc. right on through the USS Cole.

    Parent
    It's a stretch for me Jim (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 07:28:34 PM EST
    to claim that Carter birthed radical Muslims.

    Parent
    I know (none / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 07:52:19 PM EST
    but as you get older there is hope your vision and understanding will improve.

    Parent
    Really? (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 07:57:33 PM EST
    You hope that between cataracts and alzheimers that I'll wake up one morning seeing the same things that you do and making the same analysis of Jimmy Carter?

    Parent
    Do you not believe (2.00 / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:45:14 AM EST
    that Obama's health plan will raise the dead and open the eyes while strengthening the mind??

    Oh ye of little faith.

    In the meantime, try studying some history.

    Parent

    You have almost everything backwards. (none / 0) (#74)
    by Salo on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 03:02:07 PM EST
    It's laughable. You actually think Obama's pushing for healthacre reform that matters as well!  You are simply making strawmen.

    Parent
    lack of attention? (none / 0) (#64)
    by Salo on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 08:31:42 AM EST
    bwahahahahahaha.

    The big donut hole here is Iraq.  Like Osama happened in a vacuum.

    Parent

    NATOs participation has changed a lot (none / 0) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 08:10:13 PM EST
    Germany is having a tough time being able to stay on with us though.  Things are not even close to the same though in Afghanistan compaed to even six months ago.  We have many NATO special forces fighting with us now too.  A strategy is in play.  New armored vehicles are also being delivered along with a lot of other things.  All provided through "emergency" war funding legislation.  My husband can't tell me much but told me yesterday that the food is extremely good too in the chow hall.  He is lucky though.  He gets a chow hall, but must wear all of his body armor and carry a weapon to get to it though.  He does complain that rules designed to protect everyone are very strictly enforced.

    8 U.S. Soldiers Killed in Afghanistan Battle | 69 comments (69 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment