U.S. Marines storm Taliban town in Afghanistan
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
N Korea stages mass military parade for late leader
( 2 )
-
Maid kills Singaporean widow after being called stupid
( 2 )
-
At least 356 killed in Honduras prison fire
( 3 )
-
Republicans oppose any cuts in nuclear weapons
( 23 )
-
Russia: West 'slammed door' on Syria at U.N.
( 11 )
-
- Financial Advisor
- Select Asset Management KK, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥100,000 ~ ¥999,999 Paid Training Commission Based
-
- Corporate Business English Trainers
- ACT Systems, Inc.（株式会社アクト・システムズ）, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥269,500 ~ ¥280,000 / Month
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
Order by Time Order by Popularity
21 Comments
Login to comment
0
smithinjapan
It's such a shame the US had to go on a joy-ride to Iraq when the job in Afghanistan is so far from completion, and it was much more possible before. Thanks to the illegal invasion of Iraq, however, and taking the focus off Afghanistan, the has been more support for terrorists, better grounds for reestablishment of the Taliban, and a much more spread out US military. Now we see the fruit of such 'mission accomplished' rewards, and it's all the harder to stamp out.
0
drink_more_milk
Iraq has been talked to death and nothing can be done about spilt milk. I just wonder if the American public learnt anything from it? Unlikely....
I still recall many Americans back in 2002 aggressively championing attacking Iraq even though it was clear as day that it was pointless and illegal. They just wanted to show that they're the boss.
0
JoeBigs
You are correct when you say the magic word,"Unlikely". Many on the far right, to this day can not and will not accept the "fact" that Saddam had zilch to do with the Sept 11th attacks.
They will jump and yell how the world and Iraq are better off with him gone. But as the fanatics keep blowing themselves up, the same question rings out, were the Iraqis safer under Saddam than now?
All the deaths just to pay back friends in the Energy sector like good old Enron....Sad
Moderator: Readers, stay on topic please. Iraq is not relevant to this discussion.
0
smithinjapan
Let me reverse it for you a little bit and ask where you think Afghanistan would be right now if the US had actually 'stayed the course' when they should have?
But hey, can't talk about very, very recent history and direct causes for current woes lest it offend someone who would rather forget, eh? I'm sorry, but you CANNOT ignore what led to the current situation at least in part being what it is. It would be like saying, "Don't talk about the Taliban because they are no longer in power" even though they are clearly quite relevant to the discussion today. Granted, they are actually conducted much of the terrorism being carried out in these cases, but that doesn't change the fact that we are where we are because of the past. Can we never talk about 9/11 again because it was in the past? or can we still use that as an excuse for the war in Afghanistan -- I mean, it's in the past and all, and don't want to sound like a broken record.
0
tungincheke
obama's vietnam.
0
Jbizzle
Bush's vietnam
0
JoeBigs
If assets had not been diverted to to Iraq we would have taken out the Taliban by now. But the Bush administration was under pressure from his backers that he had to invade Iraq. He needed to pay back his friends and get them the oil fields in Iraq.
Now President Obama has made good on his promise and begun to move assets where we need to be. Now the far right is claiming that this is his war, rather than saying the truth, "He has to clean up the far rights mess".
I just wish some on the far right would support our efforts in the real war against Terrorist rather than crusade for oil.
0
Noliving
You can deny it all you want joe bigs but it is his war. Obama is in charge now, he is the commander in chief, he could order the withdrawal of afghanistan today but he hasn't which means that this war that he is pursueing is now his war. If he didn't want it to be his war then he would withdraw.
0
JoeBigs
Who is dening that this is his war now? Where the argument lies is that the far right will not admit that it was a mistake to take assets away for the real war on terror and move it to the war on Oil.
President Obama has done what needs to be done to win the war on terror. Fight the enemy where they live.
Dare I say he has done an outstanding job fighting the terrorist where they are, Afghanistan.
Why would he order a withdraw? We need to fight our enemies where they are, Afghanistan.
I hate to break it to you but our troops have been in Afghanistan waaaaaay before Obama became President. This may come as a shock to you but we were attacked by Al-Qaeda with support by the Taliban way back in 2001.
We were not attacked Saddam and Iraq did not back the attacks with aide. We were attacked by Al-Qaeda with aide coming from the Taliban.
The Taliban is not in Iraq nor was Al-Qaeda until Bush invaded there.
If he had kept his promise to the People and taken care of both the Taliban and Al-qaeda when he said he would. We would have been out of Afghanistan long long long ago.
But he did not and now it is up to President Obama to go after our enemies and take care of business.
Ever read or heard his promise concerning Afghanistan? If you have not I can give you many links to some of his speeches. Just ask and you will see he never said he was going to get us out of Afghanistan.
He did say he was getting us out Iraq.......
0
Jbizzle
Joebiggs thank you for that breakdown, but I think "noliving" understands this just fine. Anybody should with common sence. Kudos to president Obama for living up to his word.
0
Sarge
JoeBigs: "Fight the enemy where they live"
Our enemies live in places other than Afghanistan.
0
JoeBigs
Let me make sure I understand ya Sarge, your saying our enemies are not in Afghanistan? If the Taliban is not in Afghanistan then where are they?
0
Helter_Skelter
Too funny. When there were offensives like this in Afghanistan when Bush was president, the leftists were calling for him to be brought up on war crimes charges since innocent civilians were being killed. Now with Obama as president, not only are they praising these military offensives, but they apparently no longer care about the innocent civilians anymore. Just another example of leftist hypocrisy and their faux concern about civilian casualties, which they simply use when politically expedient.
But good to hear they're now so enthusiastic about US military operations. They almost sound like hawks. Semper Fi! :-D
0
JoeBigs
Problem was we were wasting our assets in the wrong place. Instead of focusing on the real enemy, we turned our attention to Iraq. After we did that we opened the Saudi and other area fanatic flood gates and our so called simple war for oil turned into a mess.
Whenever we turned our attention to Afghanistan is was too little too late. Now after 7 years of mismanagement a new President is left to clean up the mess.
0
Sarge
JoeBigs - ( sigh ) No, I'm not sayin' that our enemies are not in Afghanistan, I'm sayin' that besides Afghanistan, they live in other places too.
0
JoeBigs
I agree with you wholeheartedly, I believe that many of our so called friends would throw us under the bus if they had a chance.
Funny how the main buggy man in Afghanistan is the Iranians. But we fail to ask,"Where is the Taliban getting all it's support from?". They make money in the opium drug trade, then use the profits to buy weapons and tribal leaders.
Where are they buying their guns from? Main weapon of the Taliban is the AK-47 and 74. Too many countries produce those weapons to actually figure out who. But it does make you wonder.........
Back to top