Four Soldiers Die in Afghanistan

Monday, November 23, 2009

Four US servicemen have been killed in Afghanistan -- three in southern Afghanistan on Sunday and the fourth in the east in a bomb explosion on Monday.

Posted by rcade at 09:16 AM | 42 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry

Front Page
News Weblog
Comments
Flagged Comments
User Blogs
Write a Blog Entry
Create a Poll
Edit Account
Stats Page
RSS Feed
Back Page

Subscriptions

RSS Feed

Author Info

rcade

Private E-mail
Visit Home Page

Joined 2003/04/04
Visited 2010/02/09

Status: editor

MORE STORIES

Retort: The Tuesday Nooner (22 comments) ...

Repub Senator Releases Some Holds (17 comments) ...

Jailbird Becomes Supreme Court Filing Expert (19 comments) ...

Saletan: The Truth About the Tebow Ad (86 comments) ...

New Fed Agency Formed to Study Climate (70 comments) ...

Jackson's Doctor Charged with Manslaughter (29 comments) ...

Obama Invites Repubs to Summit on Health Care (92 comments) ...

Retort: The Monday Nooner (40 comments) ...

Sinatra Still Slays 'Em in the Philippines (10 comments) ...

WW II Vet Became Atheist in Foxhole (340 comments) ...

Retort: The Sunday Nooner (3 comments) ...

O'Keefe Article May Explain Senate Stunt (10 comments) ...

Emmitt Smith, Jerry Rice Join Hall of Fame (7 comments) ...

Palin Addresses Tea Party (313 comments) ...

Dying Teen Tackles Bucket List (43 comments) ...

Special Features

Daily Nooner

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

This "war" should have been finished years ago.

Another four brave heros. May god welcome you into his open arms and comfort you.

#1 | Posted by 726 at 2009-11-23 10:01 AM | Reply | Flag:

2003-

desired goal in Afghanistan:

desired end date:

2010-

desired goal in Afghanistan:

desired end date:

it's always nice to have a plan.

#2 | Posted by 19boxcutters at 2009-11-23 10:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

#3 | Posted by Lee_Atwater at 2009-11-23 10:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

The only thing that's changed is the cheerleaders.

#4 | Posted by IraqiBukkake at 2009-11-23 10:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

It would be nice if Obama would at least make a decision on this one since it is costing lives. Tell his generals to crash one of his weekly white house rap parties, that may be the only way that they could get him to see them.

#5 | Posted by fishpaw at 2009-11-23 11:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

I watched Bill Moyers Journal this weekend where he played audiotapes of Johnson speaking about Vietnam with McNamara, Bundy and others. It was depressing as hell to realize that we could basically replace all the Vietnam references with Afghanistan/Iraq references and all the communism references with terrorism references without any difficulty.

Yeah, we learn nothing.

#6 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2009-11-23 11:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

Four more American lives lost while Obama slowly figures out which exit plan he likes best.

Obama has no intentions on doing what it would take to win, therefore, Bring them all home Now.
.

#7 | Posted by 2008ATL at 2009-11-23 11:50 AM | Reply | Flag:

Yes, bring them all home now.

#8 | Posted by UpL8 at 2009-11-23 12:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

bring them home is a tiring catchphrase because we never address the real reasons we send them out in the first place.

as far as i'm concerned, doesn't matter, they'll just go somewhere else in a few years and suck up more lives and taxpayer $$$

#9 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2009-11-23 12:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

You don't mean that people are getting killed in bho's 'just war'?

#10 | Posted by Sniper at 2009-11-23 12:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

Maybe this will motivate - Rep. David Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat proposes Afgan war tax on income $200K above! www.cbsnews.com"www.cbsnews.com/a">
The Florentines did similar 600 years ago - tax the rich for wars they had more to gain - seems logical. I see it every day, the higher up the income chain the more people are occupied/consumed with their own lives - SUV's, kid's soccer oblivious. And don't get me started on up-scale foreigners who revel and snicker at the war(s) costs to America their kids will never be in the military.

#11 | Posted by RADICALRANDY at 2009-11-23 12:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

How is it that the "rich" benifit more from the war in Afagastan?

#12 | Posted by Sniper at 2009-11-23 12:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

The more anyone takes care of something you don't want to the less you have to. Isn't it right-wing war-mongering mentality to feel your kids are safe at soccer/karate/band practice now that someone else's are dying to protect them from some terrorist act at the mall or something?

#13 | Posted by RADICALRANDY at 2009-11-23 12:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

rad, you make no sense at all. A vast majority of the people in the military are conservative, not flaming libs like you.

#14 | Posted by Sniper at 2009-11-23 12:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yes - Sniper - I believe you are correct "vast majority..." aka fools who believe the same crap you do and can be duped into dying for it, while you and others who give them lip service go to the movies this weekend and wonder what your Thanksgiving day menu will consist of. My point is, when you and/or anyone making more than $200K have more at stake in this war then maybe you will change your tune?

#15 | Posted by RADICALRANDY at 2009-11-23 12:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

You don't mean that people are getting killed in bho's 'just war'?

#10 | Posted by Sniper

Just as they did in Ike and Nixon's wars against communism. Using your logic, neither Truman or LBJ hold any responsibility for the wars started under them. Right?

I do enjoy reading the comments of the once supportive righties who are now the cut and runner defeaticans and those who supported Bush's endless wars without exit plans now demanding one. Where were you guys in 2001-2008?

Oh yeah, drinking draft-dodger Rush's koolaide...

And Hag-that was pretty depressing. The only difference is LBJ created that war, just as Bush created Iraq and afghanistan. Bush didn't worry about the costs or casualties because he was just doing what God told him to do.

#16 | Posted by northguy3 at 2009-11-23 01:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

rad, I was drafted into the army. We were fighting LBJ's war which the government wouldn't allow us to win, yet... I am a conservative. What have you done for your country?

I still don't understand why the rich benifit more.

#17 | Posted by Sniper at 2009-11-23 01:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

What have you done for your country?

Yes, because that is the only yardstick to measure whether someone has the right of free speech.

#18 | Posted by 726 at 2009-11-23 01:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

Approx 89 days since obama was asked for more troops. The dithere- in-chief still can not decide. You mocked the 'decider' Well, i'd rather have a POTUS who can make a decision.

#19 | Posted by MSgt at 2009-11-23 01:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

I do enjoy reading the comments of the once supportive righties who are now the cut and runner defeaticans and those who supported Bush's endless wars without exit plans now demanding one. Where were you guys in 2001-2008?

#16 | Posted by northguy3 at 2009-11-23 01:10 PM

Um, the right largely wants B.O. to follow the requests of the generals and escalate further.

#20 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2009-11-23 01:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

Not disputed. The interesting thing was getting to hear that he was looking for a way not to send troops such that he could preserve his job. And look what happened. By 68 he was definitely kicking himself.
The program really humanized Johnson for me. Damn that Moyers.

#21 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2009-11-23 01:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Present"

-President Obama

#22 | Posted by SpokaneJim at 2009-11-23 01:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

#16 | Posted by northguy3

Um, the right largely wants B.O. to follow the requests of the generals and escalate further.

#20 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

Personally, I rather pull out and nuke the place from orbit, only way to be sure.

#23 | Posted by STIRSUMUP at 2009-11-23 01:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

Personally, I rather pull out and nuke the place from orbit, only way to be sure.
Posted by STIRSUMUP

A Taiwanese associate of mine advocates that very thing. He calls it Operation Green Glass.

#24 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2009-11-23 01:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

#24 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine

Fix a lot of problems...fewer terrorist, cheaper than borrowing the money to pay for it and cut down on global warming. A lot less goats and it will reflect the rays of the sun.

#25 | Posted by STIRSUMUP at 2009-11-23 01:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

Who the hell else is left to consult with? George C. Fucking Scott?

#26 | Posted by wisgod at 2009-11-23 01:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Might this explain the dithering?"

"Is Obama really looking to surrender provinces to the Taliban in exchange for a cessation of attacks on our troops?"

"an article from the Saudi _al-Watan_ in Arabic that - according to an Afghan source - the United States is talking to the Taliban seeking to trade control of 5 provinces in exchange for the cessation of attacks on US bases. MEMRI summarizes: "
wizbangblog.com

#27 | Posted by KBM at 2009-11-23 02:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yes, because that is the only yardstick to measure whether someone has the right of free speech.

#18 | Posted by 726

That is a lame statement.

#28 | Posted by Sniper at 2009-11-23 02:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

and EVEN ON cnn

they show obama practicing his putting..

#29 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2009-11-23 02:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

But they never give his scores.

#30 | Posted by Sniper at 2009-11-23 03:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

Approx 89 days since obama was asked for more troops.

Bush sat on a request for 20,000 more troops for afghanistan for six months and left office instead of supplying the troops. Sucking and blowing on the right...
And we're still waiting for an explanation why Bush the war prezdunce couldn't defeat a small bunch of donkey-riding guys with WW2 vintage weapons. Or those dead-enders in Iraq, either.

Every time a KIA is reported in afghanistan or Iraq everybody who voted for Bush needs to apologize to the next of kin for voting in the worst C-in-C ever. Then again, since no Republican has won a war since Lincoln, it would have been ludicrous to assume Bush wouldn't lose both his wars. It's not like you ever heard of combat KIAs in the mid 1920s or late 40s from WW1 or 2.

Karsai and the taliban have been talking for some time, even while Preident Mission Accomplished was still wasting WH air. Rumor has it, the taliban will be invited to the next loyal jurga. All sides, including the US, Pakistan and NATO, are looking for a face-saving way to end the fighting. Sort of a Peace with Honorable Mention II.

#31 | Posted by northguy3 at 2009-11-23 04:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

Who the hell else is left to consult with? George C. Fucking Scott?

Maybe he's waiting for advice from the Republican's favorite Sec. Def., Rummy, who is trying to put it into iambic pentameter.

#32 | Posted by northguy3 at 2009-11-23 04:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

LBJ was inwardly tortured for months on what to do about Vietnam. He was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. It was the right wing - including Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon - who were screaming we needed to escalate troop levels. LBJ discussed his options with everyone under the sun the thought offered credible opinions for months before finally deciding, after the Gulf of Tonkin incident, to send more troops.

President Obama is being far more careful and considered about what to do in Afghanistan - especially an 'end game' - than the Bush Administration was about starting an unnecessary war in Iraq and ignoring what has become a huge problem in Afghanistan after years of neglect. It could have been so differently good.

Had Bush focused on Afghanistan that country could have been well on it's way to prospering in peace. The Afghani people wanted it, we had a lot of offers of help from the Middle East, the Taliban were on the run in 2001. Bush blew it. Also blew Iraq by not planning an 'end game' or any post invasion plan. It's best to learn from history and not repeat mistakes of the past.

#33 | Posted by Timex at 2009-11-23 05:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

"End game". Look, call it what it is: surrender. We surrendered in Vietnam, surrendered in Lebanon, and we'll surrender Afghanistan. Next time you see someone with a t-shirt with an American flag on it with the caption, "These colors don't run", please remind him that, yes, they do. Obama will call it something else, something clever like "constructive disengagement" or something equally obtuse to convince the TimexWokeDanniGuy's of the world we're not throwing in the towel, and throwing our allies to the wolves. But it'll all mean the same to our friends, and to our enemies.

#34 | Posted by rightisright at 2009-11-23 06:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

He is down to 4 options--

Leave

Stay

Bomb Pakistan

uh--ummm--oh crap--can't remember...

#35 | Posted by MURPHY at 2009-11-23 09:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

Northguy3-You can't blame these four soldiers on Bush so zip it, you sound like a dunce trying to cast OLoudmouth's blame on Bush.

OLoudmouth has their blood on his hands, he and his sicko Demogogs are responsible, he's had plenty of time to have brought them all home, but no he couldn't spend trillions of dollars if he did something as sensible and simple as that, the ssob has to make sure he redistributes the wealth around, he could care less about peoples lives...

#36 | Posted by Dr_Feelgood at 2009-11-23 09:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Northguy3-You can't blame these four soldiers on Bush so zip it, you sound like a dunce trying to cast OLoudmouth's blame on Bush.

He can't help himself. He is afflicted with an uncontrollable jerking left knee. No amount of common sense seems to help. He is a lost cause. Frank2.5 has the same horrible affliction.

#37 | Posted by goatman at 2009-11-23 09:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

He is down to 4 options--

Leave

Stay

Bomb Pakistan

According to a retired Pak General, Mirza Aslam Baig, the US can't leave Afghanistan until Pakistan wants it to.

And Pakistan wants you to stay. hahahahahahahahahaha

#38 | Posted by Tosser at 2009-11-23 11:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

#34 | Posted by rightisright

Um, that was before LBJ increased our commitment in Vietnam. You know, just as I typed. Best to read all of a post before commenting. Richard Nixon, one of the two I mentioned was hollering the loudest about increasing our commitment in Vietnam in 1964 was the one who pulled us o-u-t in the end. Another GOP schmuck who didn't have a clue.

#39 | Posted by Timex at 2009-11-24 02:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

Another GOP schmuck who didn't have a clue.

???

Nixon knew Americans wanted out of Vietnam. He got us out. I'd say he "had a clue". I suppose you would have been happier if that war dragged on since it was a democrat who got us in the deepest. Partianship sure fucks up a person's thinking, doesn't it, timex?

#40 | Posted by goatman at 2009-11-24 05:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

Um, the right largely wants B.O. to follow the requests of the generals and escalate further.

#20 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

You have oversimplified the facts again.

10little o told the generals what the policy was going to be.
2)The general told the little o what he needed to carry out that policy.
3)little o can't seem to make up his mind if that is what he wants to do NOW>

#41 | Posted by Sniper at 2009-11-24 11:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

"little o told the generals what the policy was going to be. "

What?!?

The superior officer giving orders to the subordinate officer?

Stop the presses!!!

#42 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-11-24 11:20 AM | Reply | Flag: