world

7 U.S. troops among 9 NATO dead in Afghanistan

26 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

26 Comments
Login to comment

7 more lives wasted on Obamas stupid policy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"7 more lives wasted on Obamas stupid policy." You mean 9 more lives wasted by the stupid US policies and the other fool countries following the US lead.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The U.S. and NATO should immediately withdraw from Afghanistan and let the Taliban take it over again.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

History is repeating itself again and it appears that unfortunately nobody has learnt from history. Russia invaded Afghanistan, fought there with 115,000 troops. Lost 9500 killed in 9 years. Britain has invaded twice in the past. The first time with 21,000 troops and lost 4500 killed. The second time they used 40,000 and lost 3400.

Now the US and allies have 132,000 troops and have lost 2300+ and like previous invasions they are no closer to winning this unwinnable war.

There needs to be a point where enough is enough and the allies realise its a lost cause.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bamian is wanting the rest of its giant Buddha statues blown up.

The minorities in Afghanistan will be wanting the good ole ethnic cleansing to start again.

Go Talibs!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

AdamB, the 'war on terrorism' will never end no matter how or where it's fought.

Maybe you have some ideas on fighting it better, excludin' playin' a John Lennon tune ad infinitum.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

AdamB:

" You mean 9 more lives wasted by the stupid US policies and the other fool countries following the US lead. "

In this case, specifically Obamas policies. He advocated ramping up the Afghan war ("the right war" in his words all through his campaign), and refused to stop it even after killing OBL (which would have been a perfect excuse to get out).

Plus, he is now bombing Lebanon, open-endedly, on similarly futile mission, the money for which he has to borrow from China... getting the US involved inother endless quagmire.

No point in deflecting... this is Obamas policy you are witnessing here.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

USARonin,

"AdamB, the 'war on terrorism' will never end no matter how or where it's fought." Sadly you are so right this is a war without end. The reason is neither side can afford to give in. And the more Muslim countries the west attacks, the more civilians it kills the more impressionable people can be swayed to the terrorists side.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WilliB,

You are right, and until the rest of the allies pull their troops out and say enoughs enough. And yes it is now Obama's policies that we are witnessing and not only is he getting Americans killed but other nationalities as well.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

nandakamanda:

" Bamian is wanting the rest of its giant Buddha statues blown up. "

So what? The US can not babysit every islamic country in the world. And on borrowed money, to boot.

Especially not since they really should be watching the home-grown jihad in their own country.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

AdamB, let's take whackin' Bin laden for example...

There's already countless folks who want to slowly saw your and my heads off. They don't need an excuse or martyr to salivate at the thought. (Those heads also include Muslims of the Islamic non-Wahabbi sect.)

You indicated doin' nothin' is an option. I don't agree. Doin' nothin' only encourages more bad behavior. Bin Laden saw that when President Reagan pulled the Marines out of Lebanon followin' horrific suicide bombin' of their barracks. He saw any kind of weakness or compromise as an incentive to become more aggressive, and he's on video for sayin' exactly that... 'America is weak and will do nothing'. He said this as his reasonin' for pullin' 9-11 and gettin' away with it.

Well, he's assumed ocean temperature. Saddam's been hung. And the Taliban are still a problem, but now they're no longer the recognized government of Afghanistan.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WilliB quote: "Plus, he is now bombing Lebanon, open-endedly, on similarly futile mission"

Where do you get your information? Are you wanting to say that Obama is supporting a NATO bombing campaign on Libya, but with cruise missiles?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

USARonin,

"You indicated doin' nothin' is an option" No l actually didnt, I have said numerous times that doing nothing is not an option. I have said this many times. What l have said is the current methods being employed are making more enemies than bringing the conflict closer to an end. You are right about 1 thing, the US and western allies are viewed as weak. They always have been right back through Vietnam and Korea. Infact it was a well documented strategy by the Vietnamese against both the French and later US and Australia that if they could increase the body count the public in those nations would demand a pull out. This isnt something that these muslim terrorist groups developed its been around long before they came along.

As for the Taliban, l will say this right now the US and allies will NEVER pervail in Afghanistan, they cant. They are fighting the same sort of war that the USSR did and the British before them. They have their firebases and protected hubs that they are bottled up in, they venture outside them and the Taliban still rule the land. They lay traps and kill the troops at will often without firing a shot. This sort of war can never be one by the side bottled up. To win it the allies would need to flood Afghanistan with troops and leave them there and that will never happen the public wouldnt accept it. Lets face facts its a lost cause the best outcome a planned wind down, and within a couple of years the Taliban are back in control.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

AdamB, the US military and allied militaries (Australia, Germany, et al) did not lose in either Korea or Vietnam if that's what you're suggestin'.

You'e still talkin' 19th Century history and the Khaiber Pass. What do you suggest so you won't eventually be annihilated by vaporization or coughing up your lungs? An Afghani goatherd will someday be able to buy WMDs in a Pakistani bazaar if the West (and Japan) aren't tryin' to prevent it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

USARonin,

"the US military and allied militaries (Australia, Germany, et al) did not lose in either Korea or Vietnam if that's what you're suggestin'." Ya what???? Please tell me your version of this then because lets see: Korea, stalemate!. Vietnam, withdrew due to increased opposition to the war at home and within very short time S Vietnam was invaded and conquered. That sounds like a loss to me.

No im not talking 19th century, l am talking learn from history that is what im saying. Look at the history of the place, the current strategy in Afghanistan isnt that much different to the strategy used by the British and Russians there and it got them no where. They stayed in fortified outposts, and when they ventured out they where ambushed. The same is happening here. The US tried this in Vietnam and it didnt work, they are doing it here and its not working. Sure casualties are low when they are safe in their bases but they venture out and get hit. The strategy isnt working and wont work. The best they can hope for is similar to the Vietnamisation program and bug out.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

l am not saying do nothing l am saying learn from the past, who needs supercarriers, stealth bombers, cruise missiles etc. They will not win this war on terror. Why? You may kill a terrorist but for every civilian you kill, house you destroy, crop you ruin you are creating a potential enemy. This the US military cant see, they never have, they havent learnt the lessons of their past actions. If you dont believe me (and frankly l couldnt care less) pick up a history book (not a 9th grade school book). Read a book like We are soldiers still (that has a good narrative about the shortcomings of the current strategy by a former US general), or theres Spiders of Allah, The looming Towers, Taliban. Any of these will open your eyes to the why's and hows.

But seriously holding the line if thats what you call the current situation didnt work for the USSR, didnt work for the British, and will not work now.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You may kill a terrorist but for every civilian you kill, house you destroy, crop you ruin you are creating a potential enemy.

AdamB, so you still insist doin' nothin' is the best policy because you're basically concerned that whatever we do will have a worse impact.

The Allies do their best to minimize non-combatant kills and destruction. Those who you philosophically support through inaction do not. Please come down firmly on one team or the other.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

USARonin,

"Please come down firmly on one team or the other" Yeah and the world is really that black and white......

"The Allies do their best to minimize non-combatant kills and destruction"

Explain that to the 14,000 to 34,000 civilians dead from it already.

To answer your question l support the principle behind the war, l do not support the US method of executing the war. Do l believe it can be one? No.

Is that good enough for you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"I support the principle behnd the war, I do not support the US method of executing the war"

OK, AdamB, please tell us in detail your method of executing the war.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

USARonin says:

Maybe you have some ideas on fighting it better

There comes a time that you really should take a long, hard look at the actual reasons behind why someone, or some group, dislike you enough to want you dead. The time for the USA to think is now.

The longer you people hide behind the belief that they hate you for your 'freedoms', etc, the longer you will suffer.

A few American dead no longer bother me. I still don't hear any Americans, or Japan today, counting Afghan, Iraqi or Libyan dead. Does this mean they are just not meaningful deaths?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The time for the USA to think is now."

We did that on September 11, 2001. Hence, we are in Afghanistan, even two years and four months after Barack Obama took office.   

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Serrano says:

We did that on September 11, 2001. Hence, we are in Afghanistan, even two years and four months after Barack Obama took office.

No. What you did after Sept 11, 2001 was cynically invade a country which had no hope of defending itself and which posed no threat to the USA. There was very little thought involved.

Afghamistan was mere reaction rather than thought.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"No. What you did after Sept 11, 2001 was cynically invade a country which had no hope of defending itself..."

Are you kidding? The Taliban continue to kick butt and are poised to retake the country as soon as Obama orders our withdrawal.

"... and which posed no threat to the USA"

Lessee... over 3,000 dead in NY, Wash D.C. and Pennsylvania... yes, no threat whatsoever!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

AdamB: No im not talking 19th century, l am talking learn from history that is what im saying. Look at the history of the place, the current strategy in Afghanistan isnt that much different to the strategy used by the British and Russians there and it got them no where.

The Brits and Russians were there to set up a democracy and train the people on how to govern, with the end goal of getting out as quickly as possible? Maybe you're saying, "Hey, all 3 parties use the word 'invasion' so obviously it's all the same thing.'"

You may kill a terrorist but for every civilian you kill, house you destroy, crop you ruin you are creating a potential enemy.

So by your logic it's only a matter of time before the Taliban fall since they target and kill far more civilians that NATO ever will. But something tells me you're not going to say that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

After the NATO input to Afghanistan, heroin manufacture has increased in 40 times. The NATO has two purposes in Afghanistan: working out of minerals and manufacture of drugs, as a way to destroy Russia. The western civilization always used simple and cruel methods for occupation of territories and resources.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

AntiAmerican, I feel you could be the next Secretary General of the UN!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites