Did This Open The Newscasts This Evening?

[Kathianne]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jGv4cEqc-wRw_6Mt57psjGEs9lLgD9AAO06G0


2 US troops killed in Afghanistan
(AP) – 13 hours ago

KABUL — The NATO-led force in Afghanistan says attacks have killed two U.S. troops, keeping August on track to be the deadliest month of the war for the U.S. military.

NATO says one American died Wednesday after an improvised explosive device detonated in southern Afghanistan. A second service member was killed in an attack in the east. No other information was released.

The two deaths bring to 43 the number of U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan this month. July was the deadliest month of the nearly eight-year war — 44 U.S. troops died. But with five days left in August, this month could again set a new record.

The Taliban insurgency is more violent than ever. A record number of U.S. troops are now in the country — more than 60,000 — one of the reasons death tolls have climbed.

(This version CORRECTS APNewsNow. corrects number of US troops who died in July to 44)

[Psychoblues]

Regardless, war ain't really shit for those that don't fight it.

Or maybe you were trying to say something juvenile and disrespectful about another topic of national importance.

Someday you and I might talk about the smell of burning flesh, herbicides, simple pistol shots to the temples, the stench of entire villages going up in flames, happy hour at 0600 hours. You don't have a freaking clue, do you, kitty?

If there is one thing I ever learned in Viet Nam it is that I will always hate to the bottom of my heart anything that aproaches what we now consider right wing politics. America is far better than any of what those bastards represent.

Do you have any excuses? Carry on, girlies. I'm listening.

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[Kathianne]

Not making Yahoo front page:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090827/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan;_ylt=AkpJ3keUFgadoUwwycBV.rKs0NUE;_ ylu=X3oDMTJzazN2ODUxBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkwODI3L2FzX2 FmZ2hhbmlzdGFuBGNwb3MDMQRwb3MDMgRwdANob21lX2Nva2UE c2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDYXVndXN0dGllZGZv


August tied for deadliest month in Afghanistan

By AMIR SHAH, Associated Press Writer
1 hr 7 mins ago

KABUL – A U.S. service member died Thursday in a militant attack involving a roadside bomb and gunfire, a death that pushed August into a tie with July as the deadliest months of the eight-year war.

The death brings to 44 the number of U.S. troops who have died in Afghanistan this month. But with four days left in the month, August is likely to set a new record....

[Noir]

Our death toll has been steadily increasing the past few months aswell, 22 in July, and 9 so far this month, which is about 15% of our deaths since the star if the conflit in 2 months.

[Gaffer]

Our death toll has been steadily increasing the past few months aswell, 22 in July, and 9 so far this month, which is about 15% of our deaths since the star if the conflit in 2 months.

Are the folks there outraged about the war with Bush gone, or is it all being swept under the rug now? Here it's all swept under the rug. Military deaths are not reported any more.

[Noir]

Are the folks there outraged about the war with Bush gone, or is it all being swept under the rug now? Here it's all swept under the rug. Military deaths are not reported any more.


On the whole the public are quite supportive of the Afgan mission, and all 3 big parties agree that we are in it for the long haul, the deaths have been publisised quite a bit because of the increase.

There was muchmore public disaproveal over the Iraq war, as we were lead into that under the threat (which later turned out to be a lie) that Saddam could launch bio-tech weapons against us in 45 minutes.

[Kathianne]

On the whole the public are quite supportive of the Afgan mission, and all 3 big parties agree that we are in it for the long haul, the deaths have been publisised quite a bit because of the increase.

There was muchmore public disaproveal over the Iraq war, as we were lead into that under the threat (which later turned out to be a lie) that Saddam could launch bio-tech weapons against us in 45 minutes.

Noir, Gaffer's correct, which was my original point. When Bush was in office there was a daily, weekly, and monthly count posted on Yahoo's front page. All the news shows opened with the 'casualties/fatalities' in Iraq/Afghanistan. Not anymore. Not with Afghanistan casualties mounting by days.

[Noir]

Noir, Gaffer's correct, which was my original point. When Bush was in office there was a daily, weekly, and monthly count posted on Yahoo's front page. All the news shows opened with the 'casualties/fatalities' in Iraq/Afghanistan. Not anymore. Not with Afghanistan casualties mounting by days.


I know, I never said he wasn't right.

[Kathianne]

I know, I never said he wasn't right.

Ok. With that said, do you see equal coverage in the areas today as opposed to a couple years ago?

[Noir]

Ok. With that said, do you see equal coverage in the areas today as opposed to a couple years ago?

For a few years over here Afgan was never really mentioned, deaths were low, and in general the public believe in the reason we are there for, promoing civil rights. However, with us now having left Iraq, and the death count mounting in Afgan, the media over here is giving it much more attention.

Likewise Iraq hasn't been talked about in depth in ages, were it would have dominated the news a few years ago, I think allot of the problems associated with Iraq, i.e the lies which lead us there, became less important when Tony Blair left office, as it was really under his command, and his sexes up documents, that took us to Iraq.

[Kathianne]

For a few years over here Afgan was never really mentioned, deaths were low, and in general the public believe in the reason we are there for, promoing civil rights. However, with us now having left Iraq, and the death count mounting in Afgan, the media over here is giving it much more attention.

Likewise Iraq hasn't been talked about in depth in ages, were it would have dominated the news a few years ago, I think allot of the problems associated with Iraq, i.e the lies which lead us there, became less important when Tony Blair left office, as it was really under his command, and his sexes up documents, that took us to Iraq.

I'll admit to a gap in knowledge. Seems if memory serves right, Uk was in Southern iraq, at first to show US how 'meeting the indigenous folks on their terms was superior' would work out. It didn't for UK. Then they chose to follow US model, much later. Then pull out, well after all other 'allies'. Now only US and 'UN' are in Iraq?

Afghanistan is another kettle of fish. US and 'real allies' always understood under Bush there was a reason USSR/Russia couldn't 'win'. Well we could, but means turning to glass, which GW wouldn't do, my lol, guess neither would the current admin. So where do we go? Pakistan? Foothills? Hope for a lucky hit?

Where the hell is OBL?

[Gaffer]

For a few years over here Afgan was never really mentioned, deaths were low, and in general the public believe in the reason we are there for, promoing civil rights. However, with us now having left Iraq, and the death count mounting in Afgan, the media over here is giving it much more attention.

Likewise Iraq hasn't been talked about in depth in ages, were it would have dominated the news a few years ago, I think allot of the problems associated with Iraq, i.e the lies which lead us there, became less important when Tony Blair left office, as it was really under his command, and his sexes up documents, that took us to Iraq.

In that sense your wrong. The liberals are in power now. Their media will not mention anything bad that goes on in iraq or afghan. No matter how high casualties go or how much fighting goes on there will be no mention of it.

Bush did not lie. He went to war in iraq based on intelligence and support from the former administration and the congress that said saddam had those weapons and needed to be taken out. Seems to me they couldn't wait for him to invade just so they could turn on him immediately afterward. If anyone lied it was the clintons, kennedy, kerry, polosi, reid murtha and most of the rest of congress. They were the liars pointing fingers at Bush. Blair didn't get threatened into anything. He did what was right instead of what was easy. You really need to look long and hard at what was going on prior to the invasion. Hind sight is 20/20, look back to 2002.

[darin]

^^^ Spot on.

[emmett]

300,000 kurds didn't die of mosquito bites people. He had weapons. He fired plenty of them during the 90's. He invaded Kuwait, signed a treaty when he got his ass kicked out and then rebuffed it 100 times without incident. He refused to allow weapons inspectors to do what he had agreed in that treaty. Reason enough ...right there without any intelligence.

A liberal president would have done what Bush did and the press would have been a whole new game. Look at them now.

Turn the tide. If Barry asks for troops, will Republicans support it? Of course. No question. Will they recieve credit....NO!


I say light the place up and come on home. Screw it.

[Kathianne]

300,000 kurds didn't die of mosquito bites people. He had weapons. He fired plenty of them during the 90's. He invaded Kuwait, signed a treaty when he got his ass kicked out and then rebuffed it 100 times without incident. He refused to allow weapons inspectors to do what he had agreed in that treaty. Reason enough ...right there without any intelligence.

A liberal president would have done what Bush did and the press would have been a whole new game. Look at them now.

Turn the tide. If Barry asks for troops, will Republicans support it? Of course. No question. Will they recieve credit....NO!


I say light the place up and come on home. Screw it.

Truly not a dig, but this isn't sounding like a Libertarian post. Just saying.

[emmett]

Truly not a dig, but this isn't sounding like a Libertarian post. Just saying.



:laugh2:


Maybe not. I just realize we can't just "leave". I would like to but only to clear the zone.

[Joyful HoneyBee]

I can't stand the thought of my son going over there, yet, when DOD says go, he'll go. He knew what he was signing up for; and, the recruiter made him tell me why he chose this path. He felt that too many soldiers were being deployed multiple times because there weren't enough specialists in their field(s) to relieve them. Before he had ever even raised his hand to pledge himself, he already engendered a sense of selfless duty. This is what our troops are about....selfless duty first and foremost.

Every flag draped casket that comes back from there makes my heart ache for the mother who has lost her son or daughter. I weep for every father who has lost the child they brought up to value freedom. I know I am not the only one who sits in front of the TV and cries over this.

The thing about this whole situation over there that American's just don't get, even after 9/11, is that Radical Muslims want to kill us, plain and simple. They'll kill us on our turf, on their turf and anywhere they can. They've killed people all over the world, and from our perspective it has been random and for no apparent reason. But, Madrid, London, Thailand, New York...these were not random acts of violence. These extremists are orchestrating a war against the entire free world, and people are stunned because they just don't get why. Most people don't make the connection between the Radical Muslim extremist and the pirates in Somalia, but those guys learned their tactics in Al Queda training camps; as did the militants who exacted genocide, rape and pillaging in Dufar.

We have to look back to Hitler and his regime to see the bigger picture. These extremist adhere to a similar concept of genocide against everyone who isn't in their bloodline, and they have no qualms about killing other tribes within their own society. Their goal is to take over the freakin world and this is not some Pinky and the Brain cartoon.

I agree with Emmett, untie the hands of our troops and let them do the job that must be done. Viet Nam has shown us what kind of results of 'police action' gives us. I say, light the suckers up! Make it clear that anyone who harbors those freaks will be treated as a war criminal, including the women. They're teaching hatred to their children at unprecedented levels. Those kids make Hitler youth look like cub scouts.

If we don't like the laws our own government passes, how much less would we like Sharia law? I know one thing for sure....there is no room in my closet for a burkha.

[Noir]

In what sense am I wrong? I post refers only the the UK public, the UK media and the UK goverment, there is nothing to do with the US.


In that sense your wrong. The liberals are in power now. Their media will not mention anything bad that goes on in iraq or afghan. No matter how high casualties go or how much fighting goes on there will be no mention of it.

All throghout the campain we had, and still have, the same goverment. The only difference for us is not Tony Blair has left,


Bush did not lie. He went to war in iraq based on intelligence and support from the former administration and the congress that said saddam had those weapons and needed to be taken out.

Where in my post did I say Bush lied? Tony Blair lied, he used the 45 minute threat (the threat that said within 45 minutes of Saddam pressing a button bio-tech weapons would be hitting major English cities, with a massive death till) this information was later deemed to be 'sexed up' for the media.



Seems to me they couldn't wait for him to invade just so they could turn on him immediately afterward. If anyone lied it was the clintons, kennedy, kerry, polosi, reid murtha and most of the rest of congress. They were the liars pointing fingers at Bush.

I didn't know much of anyhing about American politics back then, hence I haven't commented on it.


Blair didn't get threatened into anything. He did what was right instead of what was easy.

I did no say Blair was threatened, I said he threatened us (the British public) by causing mass panic with the 45 minute claim. If the war in Iraq had been waged for civil liberties, like afgan, then I think the public and the media would of been much kinder to Blair, but he didn't, he lied.


You really need to look long and hard at what was going on prior to the invasion. Hind sight is 20/20, look back to 2002.

I have looked long and hard, (afterall I was only 12 when that was happening, I'm not going by memory) but I'll admit I've only really looked at the British reasons, and lies, for war. And haven't looked into America too much, again, this is why I did not once mention America, Bush, or anything like that in my post.

[Gaffer]

Noir, ever stop to think Blair was telling what he thought was accurate? His intelligence system told him the same thing ours told Bush. And you are a lot closer to iraq than we are.

Bush decided to go in after saddam. Blair declared he would back Bush as an ally. Honoring a alliance.

Did he truly lie or did he speak based on what he knew? Our media and liberals all declared Bush a liar. If he was wrong about something, he was a liar. If he made a bad call he was a liar. It's the one thing they drummed over and over again. So look again at what Blair said. He may have been wrong, but that does not make him a liar. He may have made bad decisions, that doesn't make him a liar.

I didn't follow all that was going on over there. We have limited reporting on your politics here, just as you have limited reporting on ours there.

My understanding is that the liberals in the UK would be considered conservatives over here. Don't know how true that is. The libs here hated Blair so the media only showed him in a bad light or as a puppet. And if our media doesn't like him then he must be a good guy.

[Noir]

Noir, ever stop to think Blair was telling what he thought was accurate? His intelligence system told him the same thing ours told Bush. And you are a lot closer to iraq than we are.

The main arguement that gave Blair the support from the public to go to war was the 45 minute claim. Since it's release we have had judical enquiries and the media have poured over the documents, and it is widly accepted that the figures in the documents were sexed up to be media friendly. It may never be known just how badly the figures were sexedup, as on of the key players investigating the documents, Dr David Kelly, decided to walk into some woods near his house, and kill himself, or was murdered by MI5 depending on how much you think Kelly knew.


Bush decided to go in after saddam. Blair declared he would back Bush as an ally. Honoring a alliance.

indeed he did.


Did he truly lie or did he speak based on what he knew? Our media and liberals all declared Bush a liar. If he was wrong about something, he was a liar. If he made a bad call he was a liar. It's the one thing they drummed over and over again. So look again at what Blair said. He may have been wrong, but that does not make him a liar. He may have made bad decisions, that doesn't make him a liar.

Only Blair and those close to him will really know the answer, but it's widly accepted that the reasons for war were spun to look worse than they were.


I didn't follow all that was going on over there. We have limited reporting on your politics here, just as you have limited reporting on ours there.

My understanding is that the liberals in the UK would be considered conservatives over here. Don't know how true that is. The libs here hated Blair so the media only showed him in a bad light or as a puppet. And if our media doesn't like him then he must be a good guy.

Erm, it's kinda complex, but basicly there are 3 major parties; Labour, Conservitives and Liberal Democrats.
Labour use to be the party of choice for the working classes and the left, Conservitives for the middle/upper class and the centre right, and liberals for the centrists.
However in 1997 Tony Blair re-branded the labour party 'new-labour' and took a big shift to the right, meaning that allot of the policies they followed were supported by conservitive party. Making ellections since 1997 quite odd affairs, as the two main parties have had very little between them other than tax policy.

[Kathianne]

Update:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090828/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan


August deadliest month for US in Afghanistan

By ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press Writer
2 hrs 32 mins ago

KABUL – An American service member died Friday when his vehicle struck a bomb in eastern Afghanistan, making August the deadliest month for U.S. forces in the nearly eight-year war.

The grim milestone comes as the top U.S. commander prepares to submit his assessment of the conflict — a report expected to trigger intense debate on the Obama administration's strategy in an increasingly unpopular war....
This IS on Yahoo front page!

[Gaffer]

Update:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090828/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan


This IS on Yahoo front page!

Interesting that it's on no one else's front page. Shouldn't the libs and media be screaming bloody murder about the record number of casualties?

This thing has been dragging on for 8 years. Why? Because our military is not allowed to go after the enemy where they are based and supplied.