Thursday February 16, 2012

JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

Afghan bomb kills 4 U.S. troops

World Feb. 25, 2009 - 05:02AM JST ( 7 )

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

Order by Time Order by Popularity

7 Comments

0

adaydreamFeb. 25, 2009 - 01:53PM JST

Let's get the troops in, do our job and get the hell out. < :-)
0

SezWho2Feb. 25, 2009 - 04:31PM JST

We have to figure out what that job is. Not knowing what it is before we put troops in is a formula for failure.
0

WilliBFeb. 25, 2009 - 04:57PM JST

Ah, Obamas war is going splendidly.

He is going to send 50,000 more soldiers to Afghanistan on a wild goose chase... 50,000 more targets for the jihadists.
0

SezWho2Feb. 25, 2009 - 05:36PM JST

I don't think this is exactly Obama's war. I think it is the war that most Americans thought they wanted at one time. I also think it is the war that Obama thinks he needs to continue to fight in order to keep the hawks at bay. After all, a President has to look like he's doing something.
0

MadvertsFeb. 25, 2009 - 05:55PM JST

"Ah, Obamas war is going splendidly"

This is the only reply the Bush faithful can vomit up since the repubs took a thumping in November. Obama inherited the war from Bush Co, but blaming the new President for the old President's mess is at best laughable.
0

smithinjapanFeb. 25, 2009 - 06:15PM JST

You have to absolutely laugh at the logic of bush's few remaining fans:

1) the economy: despite Clinton creating a surplus after inheriting a deficit, the crash, which happened on bush's watch, was somehow the Democrats fault. Now that Obama is in office? "bush is gone; this is Obama's problem". It seems to have skipped bush entirely.

2) 9/11: Not bush's fault at all; it all started with Clinton. Who's watch did it happen on? you guessed it, bush.

3) the wars: One loyal bush fan (I won't name names) actually came on here a week ago and suggested bush did not start the war in Iraq! Despite him starting it and the wars in Afghanistan, somehow bush is 'off topic' if you mention him in relation to the wars, and suddenly Republicans are of the opinion that these wars started 5 weeks ago, and they're all Obama's fault (unless of course there's an election in one of the countries... then all the purple fingers are 'thanks to bush')

Again, it's really funny, and quite astounding at the same time, how everything bad that's happening seems to have bypassed bush completely, despite ALL of the above occuring on his watch. NONE of these began on Obama's, but suddenly you have people like WilliB taking the typical bush-lover's line of:

"Ah, Obamas war is going splendidly."

Simply amazing.

It's quite sad, finally, that I have to point this out to people, because it makes them seem completely delusional and stuck somewhere in a world that surpasses denial, but the wars started on bush's watch, and were in fact started by the man. These boys who died were put there more than 5 weeks prior to this day. Obama should work hard to SOLVE the messes created by the last government, of course, but they were not started by him.

"He is going to send 50,000 more soldiers to Afghanistan on a wild goose chase... 50,000 more targets for the jihadists."

Pure hypocrisy. At least if that many more had been in Afghanistan to begin with and not sent into the lunacy called the Iraq war they might have caught OBL.
0

WayneRooney10Feb. 25, 2009 - 06:18PM JST

Obama will smash em! Terrormakers will get with the showgramme.