In light of this report, let's see if some more soldiers see the wisdom of the action taken by a colleague: http://people.bakersfield.c...

Nancy..its Fox news...Im sure they think its a lie..(or they dont care because the *Almighty O* sanctioned it) it scares the crap outta me cause I got a feelin my kids gonna end up over there

You're right Sioux.  If I'd produced the figures from another source I suppose that would have been a lie too.

Who was it again that attacked us?  I'm still waiting for that news brief.

And........who put us in those wars?

The war in Afghanistan was justified. Bin Laden and Al Queda eminated from there with the help of the Taliban.

Meanwhile, George opens up a second front that distracts us from our goal of getting the actual perps.

That's sorta like saying Phil Jackson got ejected from a game down by 25 points with one minute to play, but it was Kurt Rambis' fault the Lakers lost after he took over.

I didn't vote for Obama. I do however, at least think that Afghanistan is the right front to be fighting. If we would have been focused there the whole time in stead of Iraq, we might have already taken care of the problem. I know you guys hate Obama with all your heart and soul, but this is just stupid.

See Nancy.....................ya can't win!!!  No matter what "O" said he would do (bring all of them home ASAP) during his campaign, it is still Bush's fault.  yyaawwwnnnnnnnnnnnn

I'm gone.

Okay. You win. Obama coerced Bush into starting two wars, and now it's his fault we are in the middle east losing our kids.

Obama is a traitor for wanting to pull out, and he's also a liar for not pulling out the day after his oath.

You do know what ASAP means right?

Obama has an obligation to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan to at least try to get them on their feet. He in fact has a timetable of 2011 for Iraq. George couldn't do it in 6 years, but you want Obama to do it in 3 months. It would seem that Obama is the one that can't win here.

umm how many years was russia in afghanistan before they said screw it?? so we are gonna do any better?? shifting the blame wont quell whats happening now anti..

just another 3rd world country that will be fighting for ever..they dont know any different..its a way of life..well that and harvesting a quality hashish product for years.... 

Nancy....I completely agree with you.  It seems there was always a lot of anger towards Bush for the war and the deaths of our soldiers...now it's "Well, if he would have gone to Afghanistan first...." It woudn't have been any different.  People would have villified Bush and called him a murderer no matter what front he started on, it's just convenient for those who support Obama to be able to brush off any criticism.  Oh, Bush started the war, Obama has to finish it.  Oh, Bush went to the wrong front, Obama has to fix it.  How about Obama promised he would end the war, and now we are on a new front with more brave military dying...and no one calls him a murderer.  Here is a listing of the deaths ONLY IN AFGHANISTAN since June...I'd like to see someone argue with pictures as not being factual.  Information obtained from http://www.militarycity.com...

June 1st:

Army Staff Sgt. Jeffrey A. Hall, 28, of Huntsville, Ala.; assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 87th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry) Fort Drum, N.Y.; died June 1 in Nerkh, Afghanistan, of wounds sustained when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle. Also killed were Pfc. Matthew D. Ogden and Pfc. Matthew W. Wilson.

• Army Pfc. Matthew W. Wilson, 19, of Miller, Mo.; assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 87th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry) Fort Drum, N.Y.; died June 1 in Nerkh, Afghanistan, of wounds sustained when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle. Also killed were Pfc. Matthew D. Ogden and Staff Sgt. Jeffrey A. Hall.
  
   
• Army Pfc. Matthew D. Ogden, 33, of Corpus Christi, Texas; assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 87th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry) Fort Drum, N.Y.; died June 1 in Nerkh, Afghanistan, of wounds sustained when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle. Also killed were Staff Sgt. Jeffrey A. Hall and Pfc. Matthew W. Wilson.
  
   
• Army Sgt. Jasper K. Obakrairur, 26, of Hilo, Hawaii; assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 87th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry), Fort Drum, N.Y.; died June 1 in Nerkh, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle.

June 2nd:

• Army Spc. Roberto A. Hernandez, 21, of Far Rockaway, N.Y.; assigned to the 549th MP Co, 385th MP Bn, 16th MP Bde (Abn), Fort Stewart, Ga.; died June 2 in Paktya, Afghanistan, of wounds sustained when his mounted patrol was attacked with an improvised explosive device and small-arms fire.
  
   
• Army Sgt. Justin J. Duffy, 31, of Cozad, Neb.; assigned the 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, N.C.; died June 2 in Baghdad when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle.

June 3rd:

Army Spc. Jarrett P. Griemel, 20, of La Porte, Texas; assigned to the 425th Brigade Special Troops Battalion, 4th Brigade Combat Team (Airborne), 25th Infantry Division, Fort Richardson, Alaska; died June 3 at Forward Operating Base Salerno, Afghanistan, of injuries suffered from a noncombat-related incident.
 

June 4th:

• Army Maj. Rocco M. Barnes, 50, of Los Angeles; a member of the Tactical Command Post, 40th Infantry Division, California Army National Guard, assigned as an individual augmentee to the 3rd Marine Regiment, 3rd Marine Division, III Marine Expeditionary Force; died June 4 in Bagram, Afghanistan, of injuries sustained during a vehicle roll-over.
  
  
  
  Army Sgt. Jeffrey W. Jordan, 21, of Rome, Ga.; assigned to the 1st Battalion, 108th Reconnaissance, Surveillance and Target Acquisition Squadron, 48th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, Georgia Army National Guard, Calhoun, Ga.; died June 4 near Kapisa, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered from an improvised explosive device and small-arms fire. Also killed were Sgt. 1st Class John C. Beale and Maj. Kevin M. Jenrette.
  
   
• Army Sgt. 1st Class John C. Beale, 39, of Riverdale, Ga.; assigned to the 1st Battalion, 108th Reconnaissance, Surveillance and Target Acquisition Squadron, 48th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, Georgia Army National Guard, Calhoun, Ga.; died June 4 near Kapisa, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered from an improvised explosive device and small-arms fire. Also killed were Maj. Kevin M. Jenrette and Spc. Jeffrey W. Jordan.
  
   
• Army Maj. Kevin M. Jenrette, 37, of Lula, Ga.; assigned to the 1st Battalion, 108th Reconnaissance, Surveillance and Target Acquisition Squadron, 48th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, Georgia Army National Guard, Calhoun, Ga.; died June 4 near Kapisa, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered from an improvised explosive device and small-arms fire. Also killed were Sgt. 1st Class John C. Beale and Spc. Jeffrey W. Jordan.
   

June 6th:

Marine Lance Cpl. Joshua R. Whittle, 20, of Downey, Calif.; assigned to 2nd Battalion, 3rd Marines, 3rd Marine Division, III Marine Expeditionary Force, Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii; died June 6 while supporting combat operations in Now Zad, Afghanistan.
 

June 9th:

Army Spc. Eduardo S. Silva, 25, of Greenland, Calif.; assigned to the 563rd Aviation Support Battalion, 159th Combat Aviation Brigade, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), Fort Campbell, Ky.; died June 9 at Bagram Airfield, Afghanistan, of a non-combat-related incident.
 

June 10th:

Marine Chief Warrant Officer 2 Ricky L. Richardson Jr., 33, of Franklin, Mo.; assigned to 9th Engineer Support Battalion, 3rd Marine Logistics Group, III Marine Expeditionary Force, Okinawa, Japan; died June 10 while supporting combat operations in Delaram, Afghanistan.
 

June 15th:

Army Spc. Jonathan C. O’Neill, 22, of Zephyr Hills, Fla.; assigned to the 549th Military Police Company, 385th Military Police Battalion, 16th Military Police Brigade (Airborne) at Fort Stewart, Ga.; died June 15 at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, Texas, of wounds sustained June 2 in Paktya, Afghanistan, when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle.
 

• June 17th:

Army Sgt. 1st Class Kevin A. Dupont, 52, of Templeton, Mass.; assigned to the 79th Troop Command, Rehoboth, Mass.; died June 17 at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, Texas, of wounds suffered March 8 in Kandau, Afghanistan, when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle.

June 19th:

• Army Sgt. Paul G. Smith, 43, of Peoria, Ill.; assigned to the 2nd Squadron, 106th Cavalry Regiment, Illinois Army National Guard, Aurora, Ill.; died June 19 in Kandahar, Afghanistan, when his vehicle was hit by an improvised explosive device. Also killed was Staff Sgt. Joshua A. Melton.
  
   
• Army Staff Sgt. Joshua A. Melton, 26, of Carlyle, Ill.; assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 130th Infantry Regiment, Illinois National Guard, Marion, Ill.; died June 19 in Kandahar, Afghanistan, of wounds sustained when his vehicle was hit by an improvised explosive device. Also killed was Sgt. Paul G. Smith.

June 20th:

Army 1st Sgt. John D. Blair, 38, of Calhoun, Ga.; assigned to the 1st Battalion, 121st Infantry Regiment, Army National Guard, Lawrenceville, Ga.; died June 20 in Mado Zayi, Afghanistan, of wounds sustained when a rocket-propelled grenade struck his vehicle.
 

June 21st:

• Army Sgt. Ricky D. Jones, 26, of Plantersville, Ala.; assigned to the 1st Maneuver Enhancement Brigade, Fort Polk, La.; died June 21 in Bagram, Afghanistan, of wounds sustained when his unit was attacked by indirect fire. Also killed was Spc. Rodrigo A. Munguia Rivas.
  
   
• Army Spc. Rodrigo A. Munguia Rivas, 27, of Germantown, Md.; assigned to the 710th Brigade Support Battalion, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry), Fort Drum, N.Y.; died June 21 in Bagram, Afghanistan, of wounds sustained when his unit was attacked by indirect fire. Also killed was Sgt. Ricky D. Jones.

June 25th:

Army 1st Lt. Brian N. Bradshaw, 24, of Steilacoom, Wash.; assigned to the 1st Battalion, 501st Parachute Infantry Regiment, 4th Airborne Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division, Fort Richardson, Alaska; died June 25 in Kheyl, Afghanistan, of wounds sustained when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle.

June 26th:

Army Pfc. Peter K. Cross, 20, of Saginaw, Texas; assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 87th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry), Fort Drum, N.Y.; died June 26 at Combat Outpost Carwile, Afghanistan, of injuries sustained during a vehicle roll-over.

June 28:

Army Pvt. Steven T. Drees, 19, of Peshtigo, Wis; assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 12th Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson, Colo.; died June 28 at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, in Landstuhl, Germany, of injuries sustained June 24 in Konar Province, Afghanistan, when insurgents attacked his unit using small arms fire and a rocket-propelled-grenade launcher.

July 2nd:

Marine Lance Cpl. Charles S. Sharp, 20, of Adairsville, Ga.; assigned to 2nd Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejeune, N.C.; died July 2 while supporting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

July 4th:

• Army Pfc. Aaron E. Fairbairn, 20, of Aberdeen, Wash.; died July 4 at Combat Outpost Zerok, Afghanistan, of wounds sustained when insurgents attacked the outpost using small arms and indirect fires; assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 509th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team (Airborne), 25th Infantry Division, Fort Richardson, Alaska. Also killed was Pfc. Justin A. Casillas.
  
   
• Army Pfc. Justin A. Casillas, 19, of Dunnigan, Calif.; assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 509th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team (Airborne), 25th Infantry Division, Fort Richardson, Alaska; died July 4 at Combat Outpost Zerok, Afghanistan, of wounds sustained when insurgents attacked the outpost using small arms and indirect fires. Also killed was Pfc. Aaron E. Fairbairn.

July 6th:

• Army Pfc. Nicolas H.J. Gideon, 20, of Murrieta, Calif.; assigned to the 1st Squadron, 40th Cavalry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team (Airborne), 25th Infantry Division, Fort Richardson, Alaska; died July 6 at Forward Operating Base Salerno, Afghanistan, of injuries suffered earlier that day in Paktya, Afghanistan, when insurgents attacked his unit using small arms and rocket-propelled grenade fires.
  
   
• Army Spc. Issac L. Johnson, 24, of Columbus, Ga.; assigned to the 1st Battalion, 108th Reconnaissance, Surveillance and Target Acquisition Squadron, Georgia National Guard, Rome, Ga.; died July 6 in Konduz, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle.
  
   
• Army Capt. Mark A. Garner, 30, of North Carolina; assigned to the 1st Battalion, 4th Infantry Regiment, Joint Multinational Readiness Center, Hohenfels, Germany; died July 6 in Argandab District, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle.
  
   
• Army 2nd Lt. Derwin I. Williams, 41, of Glenwood, Ill.; assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 106th Cavalry Regiment, Illinois National Guard, Dixon, Ill.; died July 6 in Konduz, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle.
  
   
• Army Sgt. Chester W. Hosford, 35, of Hastings, Minn.; assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 106th Cavalry Regiment, Illinois National Guard, Dixon, Ill.; died July 6 in Konduz, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle.
  
   
• Army Sgt. Brock H. Chavers, 25, of Bulloch, Ga.; assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 121st Infantry Regiment, Georgia National Guard, Americus, Ga.; died July 6 in Konduz, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle.
  
   
• Navy Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technician 2nd Class Tony Michael Randolph, 22, of Henryetta, Okla.; assigned to Explosive Ordnance Disposal Mobile Unit Eight, Sigonella, Italy, and was deployed with his platoon to Joint Task Force South conducting counter-improvised explosive device operations in support of Task Force Zabul in Afghanistan; died July 6 in an improvised explosive device attack on his convoy in northern Afghanistan.

July 7th:

Army Spc. Christopher M. Talbert, 24, of Galesburg, Ill.; assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 130th Infantry Regiment, Marion, Ill.; died July 7 in Shindad, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle.
 

July 8th:

• Marine Sgt. Michael C. Roy, 25, of North Fort Myers, Fla.; assigned to 3rd Marine Special Operations Battalion, Marine Special Operations Advisor Group, Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command, Camp Lejeune, N.C.; died July 8 while supporting combat operations in Nimroz province, Afghanistan.
  
   
• Army Spc. Gregory J. Missman, 36, of Batavia, Ohio; assigned to the 704th Brigade Support Battalion, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson, Colo.; died July 8 at Bagram, Afghanistan, of wounds sustained elsewhere in Afghanistan, when enemy forces attacked his unit using small arms fire.

• Marine Lance Cpl. Roger G. Hager, 20, of Gibsonville, N.C.; assigned to 2nd Reconnaissance Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejeune, N.C.; died July 8 while supporting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan.
  
   
• Marine Master Sgt. John E. Hayes, 36, of Middleburg, Fla.; assigned to 2nd Reconnaissance Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejeune, N.C.; died July 8 while supporting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan.
   

July 9th:

Army Spc. Joshua R. Farris, 22, of La Grange, Texas; assigned to 2nd Battalion, 87th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry), Fort Drum, N.Y.; died July 9 in Wardak Province, Afghanistan, of wounds sustained when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle.

July 10th:

Marine Cpl. Matthew R. Lembke, 22, of Tualatin, Ore.; assigned to 2nd Battalion, 3rd Marine Division, III Marine Expeditionary Force, Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii; died July 10 of wounds sustained on June 24 while supporting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

July 11th:

• Marine Lance Cpl. Pedro A. Barbozaflores, 27, of Glendale, Calif.; assigned to 2nd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejeune, N.C.; died July 11 while supporting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan. Also killed was Master Sgt. Jerome D. Hatfield.
  
   
• Marine Master Sgt. Jerome D. Hatfield, 36, of Axton, Va.; assigned to 2nd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejeune, N.C.; died July 11 while supporting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan. Also killed was Cpl. Pedro A. Barbozaflores.

Anti, for probably a year we were subjected to daily, if not hourly, counts of the dead in Iraq right here on the blog.  Who's keeping track of the dead in Afganistan?  Do these brave men and women not matter?   Or was it just a protest against Bush?  I think we both know the answer to that one.    Why is no one on the left crying "Mr President, bring them home?"  I think we know the answer to that one as well.

Wndrwoman, thank you for posting the names and the pictures.

edited

wnderwoman - we did go to Afghanistan first, and while Bush's approval ratings did go down a bit (lowest around 55% prior to Iraq), they went back up to around 75% when we invaded Iraq.  However, as time went on and people began to realize the truth (i.e. lack of credible proof about WMD's in Iraq), the approval ratings went down again.

I'd also like to point out that we're not "in a new front" as you suggest - we're merely shifting troops out of Iraq and into Afghanistan (figuratively speaking).  What many people aren't willing to understand is that no President can ever keep all of his promises, especially as it pertains to a war zone. 

I'm not surprised that we're seeing increased casualties in Afghanistan - it's to be expected when you begin a major offensive.  I'm pleased with Obama's leadership on this because unlike under the Bush regime, we're actually intending to hold all ground that we gain in the region.  That's essential for increasing both troop & civilian morale, and it's strategically sound.

If we did not make this push in Afghanistan right now, we would honestly be risking losing the entire conflict, since the Taliban have taken advantage of the political issues in Pakistan which have made it easier for them to take control of the Northwestern Frontier Province, as well as spreading violence throughout just about every region of the country.  Interestingly enough, there have been reports as of last week that the Pakistani government has been talking with Taliban officials (including Omar, the leader of the Taliban), and there's talk that the Taliban are considering coming to the table if Pakistan can be the middle man.  However, Pakistan would only do it if we can influence India to make some concessions, which won't happen, since we don't really have any sway with them.  The point I'm making, however, is that this makes it clearly obvious that the physical pressure we're putting on the Taliban is working.

Anyone who thinks that we should everend a military conflict such as the offensive against the Taliban as soon as the White House has a new occupant is a fool. 

The fool in the white house is the one who said he'd end it.  On his timetable of course.

As long as there are aggressors and people being oppressed, we will always be fighting somewhere.  Wars are generally fought over religion, land or resources and we will continue to struggle over those as well.    There will never be total peace anywhere... Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.

And loss of life is always sad. If there is no hope for peace then war is a fools errand.

I do not  believe it to be.

I can't argue with that Sioux. You are right. These are tribes and religious factions who will ALWAYS be fighting over something. You cannot force democracy on anyone.

And wonderwoman, I never villified Bush for going into Afghanistan. Going into Iraq was a different story. It's like slapping Larry for what Curly did. We took our eye off the prize,. BIN LADEN, to go into Iraq UNDER FALSE AND MADE UP  reasons. In case you forgot, we went to Afghanistan first.

Tell me why Iraq should EVER have been a bigger target than say, North Korea. Both had despot murdering leaders, although Il Jung probably has more kills. The difference is that NK HAS nukes, and NK has missles. Iraq has no nukes, and their best missles were scuds who couldn't hit Magic Mountain from Edwards air force base.

I know people are tired of Bush bashing, but when you blame Obama for the war it's ridiculous. There will be plenty to bash him about after he's given a chance. The more conservative you are, the more you should have hated George Bush. He was NEVER a conservative. It's okay if you voted for him, but that doesn't mean you have to think he was worth a damn after 8 years. I may decide Obama isn't worh a damn a lot sooner. But it's going to take more than three months for me to make that decision. I gave Bush a whole term before I passed judgement.

Nancy - I seem to recall that Obama's campaign promise was to move at least two brigades into Afghanistan, which he's done. 

Please show me where he was promising a complete troop withdrawal from Afghanistan immediately?

My mistake for not finishing my sentence.  I didn't mean home from Afganistan.  I realize he said he WOULD send more troops there.

And now Nancy, the Pengtagon has recently announced: "The Pentagon's chief said Thursday he could send more U.S. troops to Afghanistan this year than he'd initially expected and is considering increasing the number of soldiers in the Army."  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/...

The point isn't blaming Obama for the war, or blaming Bush for the war.  Nancy asked why there is no public outcry over these military dead when there was so much when Bush was in charge.  During Bush's terms (and after) people have villified him for this war and the military  members who were lost doing their jobs.  He was called a murderer, protested and villified because of our military dead.  Now we have a new President and one of the deadliest months in recent memory for foreign troops in the area (47 killed this month) and we don't hear anything.  Not one peep about these military dead.  It seems it's now more acceptable because people think Obama has us on the correct front, so obviously he isn't responsible for these dead like Bush was for his or that these dead are STILL Bush's fault.  If everyone thought the war was bad under Bush and protested and wanted our men and women home, WHY IS IT ANY DIFFERENT NOW?  Why doesn't anyone protest the Pentagon possibly wanting to send MORE troops to the area?

The point isn't whether the decision is right or wrong about the front we are fighting, but why it seems that no one is protesting or angry anymore, no one mentions the new deaths or the amazing amounts of money being spent to continue to finance the war everyone was against just a few months ago.  I personally believe it's wrong to villify Bush for something when you don't hold the next person to the same standards.

Nancy,

You're welcome for the pictures, I know it was a lot to post but I believe it is important to recognize the sacrifice being made by out military.  When I look at the faces of these soliders/sailors/Marines, it never ceases to occur to me how young so many of them look. 

 The point isn't blaming Obama for the war, or blaming Bush for the war.  Nancy asked why there is no public outcry over these military dead when there was so much when Bush was in charge. 

I don't recall anyone ever outcrying about military deaths in Afghanistan, because as pointed out above, the vast majority of Americans support our operations in that country.  

During Bush's terms (and after) people have villified him for this war and the military  members who were lost doing their jobs.  He was called a murderer, protested and villified because of our military dead.

Those words were specifically about the quagmire in Iraq. 

  Now we have a new President and one of the deadliest months in recent memory for foreign troops in the area (47 killed this month) and we don't hear anything.  Not one peep about these military dead.  It seems it's now more acceptable because people think Obama has us on the correct front, so obviously he isn't responsible for these dead like Bush was for his or that these dead are STILL Bush's fault.  If everyone thought the war was bad under Bush and protested and wanted our men and women home, WHY IS IT ANY DIFFERENT NOW?  Why doesn't anyone protest the Pentagon possibly wanting to send MORE troops to the area?

You seem to have an issue with separating the war in Iraq from the war in Afghanistan.  I think it's a shame that anyone is dying, and I respect and honor those who've laid down their lives for our country.  However, there's no reason for the public to decry these deaths because the war in Afghanistan is justified.  The Taliban supported and harbored Bin Laden.  We went in there to nab him and oust the Taliban.  This is a completely separate conflict from the war in Iraq, in which we used faulty intelligence and obvious smoke and mirror tactics to justify the invasion.

The point isn't whether the decision is right or wrong about the front we are fighting, but why it seems that no one is protesting or angry anymore, no one mentions the new deaths or the amazing amounts of money being spent to continue to finance the war everyone was against just a few months ago.  I personally believe it's wrong to villify Bush for something when you don't hold the next person to the same standards.

So, you'd prefer that we shout, hoot and hollar about the war in Afghanistan?  Do you want us to fail?  Do you want Bin Laden to roam the earth free?

War is war. Dead is dead. It does not matter WHAT country it is in.

FSG,

Ah, the attempts of a poster to take what I said and twist it into having another meaning.  That's always a fun game!  Let me make this simple for you:

"Do I want us to fail?  Do I want Bin Laden to roam the earth free?"  Please, let me know where I said I wanted us to fail or Bin Laden to "roam free."  Never said that.  Actually, I never expressed my personal view on the war, so you can't really act as if you know what it is.  For the record, I think that whatever we need to do to get the job done is what should be done.  But that's just me.  I'm sure later when the fad becomes not supporting the conflict, you can accuse me of hating the people of Afghanistan and wanting to go to far to catch Bin Laden.  My fiance was deployed for ten months in that area and when he came back here we had quite a few experiences when people told him that being "over there" was "wrong" and he was a "killer."  I'm sorry I never thought to ask them if they would be more supportive of him if he had been in Afghanistan instead (oddly, they never asked).  People just hated the "war" in general, they never said, "If you had been somewhere else...."  Which brings me to my next point.

So let me make sure I understand you:  All the protests that I saw, decrying Bush for BOTH wars, demanding to bring our soldiers home, really meant, "Hey, just bring them home from that one war, but the other one, that's okay, they can die there."  Many people who were protesting were protesting ANY military involvement in the Middle East really meant "Stop the Iraq war, move to Afghanistan."  To clafiry my point to you (I'm going to try to make it really easy to understand): Those people who were protesting any involvement by the United States and her troops, using the number of U.S. military dead as a reason for why we should bring our men/women home and protesting the ENTIRE WAR should be doing the same for this President JUST LIKE THEY DID FOR BUSH. 

Don't assume to know my feelings on a subject.

Yes, Witter - war is war, and dead is dead - however there is a major difference between our soldiers who die in a justified conflict and those who die in a conflict that was perpetrated based off of lies and deceit.  The men and women who have died in Iraq payed the ultimate price for politics - and it is unjust that they were pressed into such a conflict to begin with.

 Please, let me know where I said I wanted us to fail or Bin Laden to "roam free."  Never said that.  Actually, I never expressed my personal view on the war, so you can't really act as if you know what it is.

You're right - you never said any of that, nor did you give your personal view.  I used those questions in the hope that it would make you realize that most people in this country want Bin Laden captured, and therefore aren't going to protest when a predicable increase in troop deaths follows an increase in troop size in that specific area, whereby a large offensive has been taking place.

  For the record, I think that whatever we need to do to get the job done is what should be done.  But that's just me.  I'm sure later when the fad becomes not supporting the conflict, you can accuse me of hating the people of Afghanistan and wanting to go to far to catch Bin Laden. 

I won't accuse you of anything, and I haven't (except that you were throwing both conflicts together) - hence why I've posed questions to you.  Here's another honest question for you that has no ill intentions: what do you think the "job" is?  What do you think should be done to get "the job done?"

My fiance was deployed for ten months in that area and when he came back here we had quite a few experiences when people told him that being "over there" was "wrong" and he was a "killer." 

If he was in Iraq, then they were right to say that being over there was wrong.  I wouldn't call him a killer though - I think that's disrespectful to all the men and women who fight for us.

I'm sorry that your fiance had to go through that.  The people who treated him that way are obviously misled and confused.  Their ideology is not representative of most Americans.

People just hated the "war" in general, they never said, "If you had been somewhere else...."  Which brings me to my next point.

Yes, some people who are unwilling or unable to comprehend why we went to Afghanistan probably have and do throw it into the same bag as Iraq.

So let me make sure I understand you:  All the protests that I saw, decrying Bush for BOTH wars, demanding to bring our soldiers home, really meant, "Hey, just bring them home from that one war, but the other one, that's okay, they can die there."  Many people who were protesting were protesting ANY military involvement in the Middle East really meant "Stop the Iraq war, move to Afghanistan."  To clafiry my point to you (I'm going to try to make it really easy to understand): Those people who were protesting any involvement by the United States and her troops, using the number of U.S. military dead as a reason for why we should bring our men/women home and protesting the ENTIRE WAR should be doing the same for this President JUST LIKE THEY DID FOR BUSH.

In all honesty, those protests decrying both wars were small and insignificant, and were not litmus tests of the general opinion on the wars.  While I would say that the majority of Americans did not support the war in Iraq (and still don't), the majority of Americans do support the war in Afghanistan.  As to your claims that no one is protesting the wars under Obama, there have been protests in D.C., LA, NYC and other cities in the past few months - specifically speaking out against Afghanistan.  The reason you don't hear much of it is probably due to the fact that the majority of Americans aren't upset with our current involvement.

My point in all of this is that the majority of us who were critical of Bush were being critical of 2 things:

1) The invasion of Iraq, which should never have taken place

2) The way in which Bush handled the war in Afghanistan.  By creating a multi-conflict with the invasion of Iraq, Bush took the focus off the Taliban and Bin Laden.  There was no real Al Qaeda presence in Iraq (besides Al Zarqawi himself, who was in hiding) until we invaded and created a relative bulls-eye for the fighting.  This gave Bin Laden a chance to hide deeper in the mountains (it's pretty safe to say he's somewhere up there), and the Taliban an opportunity to regain much of the regions they originally lost during the original US occupation.

Therefore, for people to make an assumption that because the majority of Obama supporters aren't decrying an increase in troop deaths in Afghanistan, it must be because they like him and not Bush, thereby giving Obama of preferential treatment is bull honkey.  In reality, Obama is making a very good strategic move which can ultimately end this conflict sooner than later - and that's why those of us who are informed aren't crying out that there's an increase in deaths.  It's sad that anyone has to die - and I wish none of our men or women to be harmed, but I'm a realist and realize that it's essential for our current victory.

Now, once we've secured all regions, if we still surge regular troops, that's when I'll be at odds against Obama.  From everything I know, including discussions with a best friend of mine who's been to Iraq and Afghanistan on multiple deployments since 2003, who happens to be special forces, once we've secured the country, we need to scale back on regular troops and push more special forces into the mountains, as these are the troops that are trained for such combat.

Anti and FSG, perhaps a good book on the events that led up to the Iraq War would do you some good. Unlike yourself, I clearly recall Saddam, his sons and their goons violating time and again the rules that were put in place after we drove 'em out of Kuwait. Time and again we saw the U.N. inspectors being blocked from inspecting one site or another when they were supposed to have unfettered access. Plus there were the numerous pot shots taken at us while patrolling the no-fly zones (not to mention them invading those zones).  I was all too happy to see us go in there and kick some asses.

As for the notion that those who got all bent out of shape over the Iraq War casualties but not so much with the Afghan War casualties, perhaps we can cut them some slack at this time. They are still mourning over Michael Jackson, after all.

Anti and FSG, perhaps a good book on the events that led up to the Iraq War would do you some good. Unlike yourself, I clearly recall Saddam, his sons and their goons violating time and again the rules that were put in place after we drove 'em out of Kuwait. Time and again we saw the U.N. inspectors being blocked from inspecting one site or another when they were supposed to have unfettered access. Plus there were the numerous pot shots taken at us while patrolling the no-fly zones (not to mention them invading those zones).  I was all too happy to see us go in there and kick some asses.

Funny you should mention such a thing Pax, considering I wrote my Senior Thesis in college on US involvement in Iraq during the 1980's and it's affect on the politics of the country, specifically regarding crimes against humanity perpetrated by Saddam against the Kurds.

How about we brush over the fact that in December of 1982, there was a discussion in congress regarding the maltreatment of the Kurdish peoples by Saddam Hussein.  Even though the U.S. Senate voted overwhelmingly 91-0 (9 abstained) to support a resolution condemning Iraqi gassing of the Kurds in 1988, and claimed it a violation of international law, the Reagan Administration did nothing. 

We could talk about the secret funding of chemical and biological weapons that we gave to Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war.  We could talk about the intel we shared with Saddam.  We could talk about turning a blind eye all in the name of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."  We could also talk about how Saddam had been the agressor in the Iran-Iraq war, invading Iran after the Islamic Revolution of 1979 in an attempt to take control of the oil-rich western half of the country, since the Ayatollah had dismantled the Iranian military.  Why didn't we cry foul then, like we did a decade later when he invaded Kuwait.  Oh yeah - the enemy of our enemy is our friend. 

It's all about global politics.  We were not "doing the right thing" - we were playing a chess match.

Do you know why the no-fly zones were put into place?  Bush Sr. promised the Kurds to the North and the Shi'ites to the south air support if they would revolt against Saddam after we had invaded Iraq.  Revolts in the northern and southern regions took place, but we never delivered what we promised, and Saddam easily crushed both rebellions.  So, instead of coming to the aid of the people we promised to help, instead we established what was technically an illegal "no-fly zone" in an attempt to save face and show that we were attempting to prevent Saddam from gassing the Kurds or the Shi'ites (funny.. we knew he was gassing the Kurds the decade prior and never once did anything.. why would we all of a sudden "come to our senses?")

As far as WMD's and UN inspecters, the FBI agent who spent a number of months interviewing Saddam post-capture reported on 60-minutes (I think it was last year) that Saddam admitted that his WMD program had been destroyed, but he had wanted to make it appear as if he had chemical & biological weapons in an attempt to intimidate Iran, who was and is still bitter about the war in the 80's.

I think Saddam and his supporters were/are evil, but don't you dare try and create the illusion that the US was doing what was just and right.  If that were the case, we would have done something in 1982 when we first knew of his crimes against humanity. Instead, we did what any country would do - we acted in our best interest and chose to look the other way - that is, until we no longer needed Iraq for any real strategic purpose.

As for the notion that those who got all bent out of shape over the Iraq War casualties but not so much with the Afghan War casualties, perhaps we can cut them some slack at this time. They are still mourning over Michael Jackson, after all.

I think you fear intelligence.

BTW - I posted the majority of that paper I mentioned on my blog last year.  Unfortunately, it wasn't the whole paper, and I'd have to dig it up, but I'd be glad to email you a copy of it, with full citations, much of the information coming directly from our digitized national security archives, further proving the validity of my analysis.

FSG,

what do you think the "job" is?  What do you think should be done to get "the job done?" I believe that the Taliban is a very serious threat to our country and should be taken out, if that is at all possible anymore.  Bin Laden should be hunted to the ends of the earth for the murder he committed against thousands of innocent victims on 9-11.  To me, the Taliban and hunting Bin Laden should be the job.  However, I think the government (including Obama) doesn't exactly know what the job is themselves.  How are they going to find Osama?  What are they planning to do in Afghanistan?  In my opinion, we should just send in some Seals and take out the Taliban leaders, call it quits. 

"If he was in Iraq, then they were right to say that being over there was wrong.  I wouldn't call him a killer though - I think that's disrespectful to all the men and women who fight for us."

He was doing his job.  No one, not one person, can tell him that being over there was wrong.  He didn't have a choice, he was sent where his government sent him.  To come up to him and tell him it was wrong is not only seriously misled, but infuriating.  No one ever said, "The government sent you to the wrong place."  It was always a personal attack and insult leveled towards HIM as if he had any choice.  The number of times this has happened to us, quite a few when he was in uniform and lead to unprovoked comments from complete strangers who went out of their way to give him and us their opinion, makes me believe from my personal experience that you may be mistaken when you imply that this behavior and ideology is only representative of a few Americans.  This happened to us in a military town, it's happened to us here, this does not seem to be some belief of a small group of people. 

however there is a major difference between our soldiers who die in a justified conflict and those who die in a conflict that was perpetrated based off of lies and deceit. 

It almost seems that you are saying their deaths in Iraq are not as important because they occured in Iraq, which you believe to be based on lies/deceit.  I don't want to assume, so I hope you can clear this up.

The men and women of our military do not have a choice in where they go.  If someone wants to protest, they should protest the government that is sending the military places, not approach the men and women who are just doing their jobs.  As you believe many people are not protesting these deaths because the Iraq conflict was unjustified, I believe that some people see the Afghanistan war differently because of party politics, meaning that since Obama is doing it, it must be right.  I honestly think if Bush was still in charge and doing this same thing, people would still be calling him a murderer for moving into Afghanistan.  I think we may just have to agree to disagree on this one.

FGS~ how quickly they forget. Excellent reminder.

I think you'll find facts and Pax are like oil  and water.

I believe that the Taliban is a very serious threat to our country and should be taken out, if that is at all possible anymore.  Bin Laden should be hunted to the ends of the earth for the murder he committed against thousands of innocent victims on 9-11.  To me, the Taliban and hunting Bin Laden should be the job. 

I agree with you.

However, I think the government (including Obama) doesn't exactly know what the job is themselves.  How are they going to find Osama?  What are they planning to do in Afghanistan?  In my opinion, we should just send in some Seals and take out the Taliban leaders, call it quits. 

The problem with your proposition is that the ideology that the Taliban follow probably won't die if we were to take out their leaders.  Even if that were the plan, how do you propose to take out someone whom you can't find? 

To answer your question of the plans in Afghanistan, the major difference between what we've done in the past and what we're doing now is that before, we didn't hold the territory we gained - we kept moving.  This allowed for Taliban to come back into the cities and towns and reassert much of it's authority.  Now, we have enough troops to begin holding territory so the Taliban can't regain control. I'm not sure what the plans are after that  - I would assume they are to remain secret for obvious reasons.

He was doing his job.  No one, not one person, can tell him that being over there was wrong.  He didn't have a choice, he was sent where his government sent him.  To come up to him and tell him it was wrong is not only seriously misled, but infuriating.  No one ever said, "The government sent you to the wrong place."  It was always a personal attack and insult leveled towards HIM as if he had any choice.  The number of times this has happened to us, quite a few when he was in uniform and lead to unprovoked comments from complete strangers who went out of their way to give him and us their opinion, makes me believe from my personal experience that you may be mistaken when you imply that this behavior and ideology is only representative of a few Americans.  This happened to us in a military town, it's happened to us here, this does not seem to be some belief of a small group of people. 

It's a shame that people are acting that way, and I don't support such actions.  I think you probably think many people believe that ideology because your fiance is in essence a target and bulls-eye any time he's in uniform.  I associate myself with many people, including quite a few "liberals" - and I know not one person who would agree with these people. 

It almost seems that you are saying their deaths in Iraq are not as important because they occured in Iraq, which you believe to be based on lies/deceit.  I don't want to assume, so I hope you can clear this up.

No - any death is important, but when it is a death for a just cause, people are less likely to be "outraged" with their government for the death.  Here's a historical example: during WWII, there were not many anti-war protests, as the majority of Americans identified that the loss of life was due to a just cause.  However, Vietnam saw heavy protests because many Americans did not believe that our presence was justified.  Regardless of the conflict, our brave soldiers fought and died for our country, and we should respect them, but when deaths occur for a cause that has validity and purpose, citizens are usually saddened, but not angry, as the conflict is something which must happen.  We were attacked prior to entering WWII.  We were not attacked before we entered 'Nam.  We were attacked prior to Afghanistan.  We were not attacked prior to Iraq.

The men and women of our military do not have a choice in where they go.  If someone wants to protest, they should protest the government that is sending the military places, not approach the men and women who are just doing their jobs. 

You're correct. 

As you believe many people are not protesting these deaths because the Iraq conflict was unjustified, I believe that some people see the Afghanistan war differently because of party politics, meaning that since Obama is doing it, it must be right. 

Some people, probably, but not the majority.

I honestly think if Bush was still in charge and doing this same thing, people would still be calling him a murderer for moving into Afghanistan.

To those who aren't educated on the issues, you're probably right.  To those of us who understand why we're in Afghanistan, and what the costs must be to suceed, you're very wrong.  I never liked Bush.  I was literally 4 months too young to vote in 2000 - I would have voted for Gore.  However, after 9/11, I rallied behind the President because I agreed with his will and resolve to bring Bin Laden to justice.  I have always supported the war in Afghanistan, just as many on the left have.  What I have not supported (and what many have not supported) is the way in which the war in Afghanistan was directed.

As I stated earlier, if Obama wasn't centering on Afghanistan right now, I'd be upset with him.  If he falls into some of the same traps Bush fell into, I will be upset with him.  If after we suceed in the current surge, he continues to poor regular troops in, I will be upset with him.

However, as it stands right now, with all my knowledge regarding military strategy and tactics, I know that he's making the right moves.

i find it quite embarrassing that the STATE RUN media alphabet crew hasnt mentioned this one iota

TBC???    TBC???  who told you not to run THIS story?  BHO?

 I think you'll find facts and Pax are like oil  and water.

Wouldn't be the first time..

Let's see how the facts play out. I predict the Iraqi people will be grateful that we came in and stomped the baddies so they could enjoy the things that we take for granted. And the Mideast, and America as well, will be better and safer for it.

Not a chance, Pax.  At absolute best, they'll forgive us someday.  But let's see how *BOTH* play out.

.

As I stated earlier, if Obama wasn't centering on Afghanistan right now, I'd be upset with him.

I'm upset with him over this *ANYWAY*, but he's been boxed into a corner by the idiots who preceded him.  We may be out ahead of schedule just because we can't afford to pith away any more money and lives.

So Hussein's (the Iraqi one) behavior with the weapons inspectors and the subsequent invasion that leveled his karma was the US fault because we supported him against our bigger enemies in Iran.  So I guess the entire cold war and the virtual imprisonment of Eastern Europe under the Soviets was our fault too since we helped Stalin defeat that other bad guy in WW2.  At least this time no one cited the Crusades to blame us.  

I think it's pretty obvious the main stream media is still so deeply in the tank for Hussein (the One) that they try not to give any news that might make it hard for him.  Unlike Bush, who they could rip on over every American (and Afghan civilian) that died. 

Let's see how the facts play out.

There's that mention of facts again...

I predict the Iraqi people will be grateful that we came in and stomped the baddies so they could enjoy the things that we take for granted.

You're somewhat wrong already.  I've spoken with Iraqi expats in person who've told me that the consensus is that while it's good that Saddam is gone, we've not really replaced him with a government that's that much better.  We took advantage of the Iraqi people from the outset, ensuring that many would remain unemployed after the invasion by hiring US contractors and companies to do their jobs for them.  Instead of hiring Iraqi's to rebuild bridges, they hired American firms.  Instead of giving Iraqi printing presses the job of printing textbooks for the schools, we gave the contract to an American firm.

The only way we can really resolve the Iraq issue is going to be to keep holding their hands for decades to come.  If we were to pull out every last one of our troops tomorrow, I'll make an educated guess that the entire country would slowly collapse into civil war - but with multiple regions all fighting each other. 

And the Mideast, and America as well, will be better and safer for it.

I love how you continue to blindly justify everything without even addressing one of my factual arguments.  This leads me to believe that either you know that you're wrong and you're not willing to admit it, or that you're just completely unwilling to accept reality. 

I'm upset with him over this *ANYWAY*, but he's been boxed into a corner by the idiots who preceded him.  We may be out ahead of schedule just because we can't afford to pith away any more money and lives.

We don't have much choice - if we pull out of Afghanistan without a clear victory, we'll end up right back where we started 8 years ago.

So Hussein's (the Iraqi one) behavior with the weapons inspectors and the subsequent invasion that leveled his karma was the US fault because we supported him against our bigger enemies in Iran. 

No. What I'm saying is that the argument that we were the "saviours" of the Iraqi people is bull donkey.  That argument is nothing more than a blind-patriotism piece of propaganda used to brainwash the average American into thinking that we're the most righteous nation in the world, and that we're always on the "good" side of every conflict.  If you do enough historical research, you come to the realization that while the ideals and basic concept of America is built upon the framework of promoting justice and freedom, in many cases we are no different than any other nation in that we will do what is in our national interest to survive, even if that means doing the unethical, the immoral or the complete wrong.

So I guess the entire cold war and the virtual imprisonment of Eastern Europe under the Soviets was our fault too since we helped Stalin defeat that other bad guy in WW2. 

There were some mistakes that we made at the end of WWII as it pertains to our relationship with Russia.  FDR & Churchill, while making attempts to prevent Stalin from pushing communism into Eastern Europe, made major missteps and miscalculations.  Stalin honestly won the game of political chicanery.

At least this time no one cited the Crusades to blame us.  

So melodramatic..

I think it's pretty obvious the main stream media is still so deeply in the tank for Hussein (the One) that they try not to give any news that might make it hard for him.  Unlike Bush, who they could rip on over every American (and Afghan civilian) that died.

I think it's pretty obvious that you don't have a real argument.