When is "an eye for an eye" enough for Afghanis? 10 humans per Koran??

I think you're right, gusotto. This has happened too many times now. When our so called "friends" start killing us, it's already past time to have left.

yle.fi reports that the shooting victims were American soldiers. This happened in southern Kandahar province. One of the shooters was a TEACHER who wrested a gun from the soldier and shot- other soldiers opened fire and killed the teacher. When a situation is so volatile- wouldn't it be better to delay the buddy-buddy system for a while and not endanger the ISAF soldiers- although DoD Panetta only asked the NATO soldiers to be protected by the Afghan g'ment?

It is just crazy that we are still in this country!!!

This War cannot be won! How many lives and BILLIONS of $$$ is it going to cost, before someone realizes this? If we stayed another 100 years (As McCain said) you still couldn't win.....

Our young men and women put their lives on the line every day, for people who "anymore" JUST DON'T GIVE A RATS ASS! I do think their are some that HAD welcomed us to start with, but even most of those have turned on us over events that happened the last year or so.

Please Mr. President....BRING OUR TROOPS HOME! We can use them here at home, to defend our own borders, and leave these people to their own governing and way of life.

Really now, when you cannot even trust those we've trained to protect their own land, I'd say it's time to leave. WE CANNOT MAKE THEM, WHAT THEY DO NOT WANT TO BE.....

I honestly don't know what these 'tards in Washington think we're gaining by staying in that filthy cat litter box.

And to think, these morons want war with Iran???? Fighting the Iranians with the same rules of engagement as THIS? Wow. Just wow.

I think 'overstayed our welcome' kinda says it all...

Bring our troops home.

Yup we are winning their hearts and minds. Sound familiar gang? Does VietCong ring a bell?

Mike Krotch,

"Does VietCong ring a bell?"

Yes, it does, and just as the Viet Cong were South Vietnamese who were communist sympathizers, I think many of these Afghan soldiers who are turning their weapons on their trainers are Taliban sympathizers. I really don't think the Quran burning has much to do with it.

Yesterday I heard our military advisers say we will try and win their hearts and minds again,Why..?

They don't want us their:

From npr;

The Afghans remember what happened when they did not have a strong international partner after the Soviet evacuation, and we need to remember what happened when we left Afghanistan to its own devices. Because, you know, they went through a vicious civil war, the rise of the Taliban, and that was the road to 9/11. 9/11 came out of this country because it basically was abandoned after the Soviet defeat. We do not want to make that mistake again.

@ Mickey

Like another poster (sorry I dont recall your name) stated when the first two American soldiers were shot; (paraphrasing) "the Quran has nothing to do with it. They blow each others Mosques up all the the time. How many Qurans were destroyed in those acts?"

It has nothing to do with the Quran. It's just an excuse. More butt kissing from the Commander in Chief won't stop anything.

@Lusitania

I understand those are not your words, but our assistance in the Soviet-Afgan conflict was semi-covert and should have never been done in the first place. This new conflict had a direct and overt purpose that the entire world can see. We cant just be expected to 'forever' occupy a country once we've gone in.

End the war, monetary support and bring the troops home. There are plenty of Korans here in the USA to start burning in protest of violence against our troops.

What makes this government think any of these sand boxes are worth even one of our troops?

Actually Riley, the similarities between one asymmetric war in the 1960's and this asymmetric war abound. Don't be so down on Mike because he wants to point out that there are similarities. In fact there will be those same similarities in every asymmetric war we decide to fight.

There will be a dfficult time telling frendly from enemy,

there will be no front line,

troops will fall prey to booby traps and mines,

atrocities will be comitted by frendly forces who are subject to unremitting stress in this situation,

the world will learn of these and American fighting forces will suffer a loss of respect,

drug abuse will become more prevalent inside the armed forces as a result of lack of pride in the job.

Those similartities come immediately to mind Riley, if you put your mind to it you can find more if you wish.

I imagine those arabs will give us a big fat apology. !

LEAVE NOW!!!! If you can't take it with you, burn and/or destroy what remains. No more troops on the ground, launch missles "Glass Factory". Next time anyone wants U.S. assistance, they pay up front. Now I can't wait for O'Bama to get down on his knees and apologize to the Afghans once more, he's pathetic.

Riley, it is exactly like our VietNam experience FOOL!

Obama needs to go over there, and give a personal apology and kiss Karzai's rear in public, so everyone can see. Maybe they will give him a holy rug to kneel on.

jolly joker,

"I imagine those arabs will give us a big fat apology. !"

No, I don't imagine they will, but the Afghans are not Arabs; they are Indo-Europeans closely related to the Indians (of India), the Pakistanis, and the Iranians (Persians).

WAR!... What is it good for?... Absolutely NOTHING!

Enough already! Out now! This war should have ended 9 years ago. Back then we could have negotiated a much better peace with Taliban. US politicians in BOTH parties only serve the military-industrial complex!

The apology cost us nothing, if it saves any lives it was well and truely made. Suport our troops and don't get all wrapped up in false pride.

How many times do I have to tell you ? Hamid Karzai was once a card carrying member of the Taliban.

Mike Krotch, yes, the Vietnam War does bring back memories and a Deja Vu of a deadly and costly quagmire that finally ended in a hasty pullout. The Viet Cong were the Vietnamese people just like the Taliban are the Afghans. Couldn't tell friend from foe at times until it was too late.

Time to leave Afghanistan and this ancient culture and ideolology that will never fully accept any foreign infidels and or invaders upon their land. We don't belong there and never did as history repeats itself.

I agree with most of the posts here.

Bring those Americans back, besides Mr. Bush had no business sending anyone there in the first place. You need to take care of your own country before you start worrying about everyone else. Not everyone wants to eat MCDonalds.

Get a clue please, there is very little in common between the Vietnam War and this engagement. We've all heard that dribble before.

First, the word is "drivel", unless you are slobbering ... then again, maybe you are.

Second, Joe Glenn is correct ... there are many parallels between the two "wars". I'll add a few more:

* We never declared war in either country. Both are "military engagements authorized by Congress" and yes, there IS a difference.

* Both countries were fighting OTHER countries before we got involved. In Vietnam's case, it was the French; in Afghanistan, the USSR. We didn't learn a lesson from the experiences of either one.

* Length of involvement/engagement over 10 years. Vietnam (1956-1975). Afghanistan (2001- ). These long, drawn out conflicts are an immense strain on not just the economy, but the U.S. psyche as well.

* Support for the war, diminishing in both conflicts.

* No clear goal. What does "winning" look like?

* Sanctuary for enemy forces in other countries. In Vietnam, it was Laos, Cambodia and even China. In Afghanistan, it's Pakistan.

No, Afghanistan is NOT Vietnam, but any thinking person is going to note the historical parallels and see that we are getting ourselves into a quagmire from which extraction is more and more difficult.

Riley, I'll leave you with a pertinent Clausewitz quote:

"No one starts a war--or rather, no one in his senses ought to do so--without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by that war and how he intends to conduct it.

I understand where both Mike and Riley are coming from. There are similarities, but there are also stark differences-- neither should be ignored.

Similarities include: an embedded enemy with support from the public, chameleon like ability to blend in with the crowd, front lines are obscure at best or non-existent at worse, booby traps (IEDs instead of punji pits), political pressure creates rules of engagement that are detrimental to our troops' well being, "nation building" which fails miserably, the American public has grown weary of it and wants it to end.

Differences include: terrain (a superficial consideration, perhaps, but there it is), literacy in Afghanistan is even lower than in Vietnam, tribal alliances create a delicate political web that is easily snarled, neither government (the Taliban nor Karzai's abortion) have the support of the entire country with the people largely deferring to tribal elders, and, perhaps most importantly, this war has not been anywhere near as lethal to American forces as Vietnam was: Afghanistan War: 1,908 American troops have been killed (2,907 total coalition troops) whereas Vietnam claimed over 58,000 American lives (not sure about other allied countries' totals). That is a significant difference. Even when considering Iraq's casualties, we're still not even at 1/8 the total-- and the war in Afghanistan has been going on longer than Vietnam (it is officially America's longest running conflict).

So yeah, I see where both of you are coming from. I feel that we need to address the restrictive ROE that our troops are subject to, I think we need to abandon nation building as a tactic (it has only ever worked once, in South Korea, and has failed miserably everywhere else... well, the jury is still out on Iraq, but the opening salvos of their self-governance leaves much to be desired), I think we need to either commit to a tangible goal and follow through, or else we need to withdraw and let them slit each others' throats.

GET THE HELL OUT!

Leave them to the Taliban!

Wasn't Obama just bragging yesterday that his apology "calmed things down". Guess he took unwarrented credit too fast on that one. But then the majority of the credit he claims is totally unwarrented. When will we figure out that power to crush them is the only thing a bunch of cave people who worship books instead of what is written in them understand. Most of them can't even read the book.

Our own people do without jobs while he refuses to let us gain any independence from the backward countries that use the money we pay for oil to kill our people. Then he builds a $750,000.00 soccer field for the detainees at GITMO? How can anyone not understand this is the worst person to ever step foot in the Whitehouse, much less live there and it is definitely time to send him and his cronie czars back to Chicago.

Another important difference is that in Vietnam we were fighting Russian Communism in a proxy war-- in Afghanistan there are no proxies, although the Taliban enjoy tacit support from Iran and covert support from Pakistan. I feel that that is a difference worth mentioning.

Ok - enough of the comparison drivel. I had 4 combat tours of duty in Vietnam and two in Afganistan. There is very little similarity between the two in a strategic or tactical sense; and THAT is all that matters in a War. If there IS a similarity it will be that we will LOSE this one as well because of politicians emeshing us in a war and then letting politics determine the strategy. This nation has forgetton how to fight wars as our grandfathers found out the hard way in WW2. If the USA had fought in Vietnam, Iraq and Afganistan with the same tactical objectives and intensity of warfare as in WW2; Vietnam would have been over in about 3 years and Afganistan in about 2. This is what happens when you concentrate on nation-building, ignoring non-combatant infrastructure, and conveying weakness of resolve at every turn to our enemies. Get the friggin hell out NOW because the way we play "war games" there will only get more of our soldiers killed, but make it understood that as soon as the fundamentalists take over and start allying with more of our enemies in that region of the world we will make Kabul a flat piece of desert no more than an inch high. THAT is the only kind of behavior they understand. Enough said.

Send in more troops! Lets force them to love us! Operation hugs and kisses

Joe Glenn: I can add to your list....

- a safe haven for the insurgents (Laos, Cambodia vs Pakistan)

- Less respect of life (Ho Chi Minh was will to accept a loss of 10 of his soldiers for every American lost)

- The side "we" are supporting are less interested in "winning" then we are...(Vietnam didn't draft 18 year olds until after we pulled out)

- Outside support for the insurgents

Yeah, nothing like Vietnam. I guess we really don't teach that sort of history in school.

From what I read, those Korans were burned because they had "messages" inside. Why didn't they thy to decipher them instead? Or at least ship them our of country for disposal. I doubt "hadgie" would of found them on Ft. Bragg. After all this time I'd thought someone would of learned something.

By the way, one of the solders killed was the son of a co-worker. Really brings home the consequences.

How is that apology working out?

Pull our troops out already. Then, send a couple bombers over there, drop a couple A-bombs and be done with these desert freaks already. I say whipe them all out, even women and children, they are all psycho.

WMG -- actually Vietnam was a proxy war against Soviet (USSR) communism and Chinese communism, more the latter. Neither of them actually put boots on the ground in Vietnam (at least overtly).

Coincidentally, the first Afghan war was ALSO a proxy war, except it was the Soviets with boots on the ground and we were providing the weapons and training.

All we did was burn some desecrated Qurans and in return they pretend they have the right murder our troops. Seems like WE'RE THE ONES that should be demanding the appology and a great deal of reparation.

We need to get our troops out of the country ASAP! And before we leave, we tell them there will be no more murdering of our troops or people of our country or they will pay mightily for it. And MEAN it so they'll respect us.

No more pantywaist behavior (which they interpret as weakness) from our country.

Not surprising is the deafening silence from President Obama with more deadly events that will continue as long as we're still there.

Fed, print up some more money, we gots some schools to build! Why dont we send some of our illegal workers over and build them some nice houses too! We can buy their love. We just have to keep at it....dont give up!

Do we know how to help ourselves?

Even while this Afghanistan is going on, war drum beatings are going in full swing on Syria and Iran.

Sunni Saudis and their Arab League, oil companies, lobbyists and those on their payrolls are busy on full throttle!

Do we learn anything from the past blunders of Iraq wars and now this Afghanistan?

The afghans are barbarians.! USA cannot change another countries ways unless they want the change themselves. All that tax $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ wasted for what so more of our people get killed. These people want to live backwards so let them. America is stupid. President Obama use your brain moron and bring our troops home and use the that aid money for our own people.

Where is that President that in the cover of darkness sneaked into Afghanistan and singlehandly killed Bin Laden?

Thursday's killings raised to six the number of Americans killed in less than two weeks

Enough is enough. It's time to draw a line in the sand; any more killings, and we should be out of there destroying all of America's built infrastructure in the process.

Is there anything in the Quran that tells it's readers that they should not murder other human beings ???

Yup...these people are sooooooo very religious !

We should break out the MOABS now...like I felt we should have ten years back so we could have avoided putting America's finest young men's and women's lives at risk. When the dust settles, our government can print new Qurans for whoever made it thru the MOAB shower.

We never seem to learn! I came on an encyclopedia item about "The Archangel Expedition". Never heard of it, right? US troops were stationed in Russia, at the end of WWI, called "The Archangel Expedition", and they lost their mission, when Russia dropped out of the war.

According to the story (1920) the troops were dispirited, didn't know why they had been there, didn't know what they were supposed to have accomplished, felt that the folks back home had forgotten them, the people they were supposed to be helping had other ideas, nobody knew or understood what they had been fighting for. OBTW, they hadn't "lost" either, nor had they won. Ring any bells?

Wasn't that the story in Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, etc?? Ninety years later, we still rush into wars, not knowing what we are doing, with unclear goals, not understanding the complex situations that we are blundering into. Often as not, our braggadocio arrogance falters (remember "Shock and Awe"?), and leaves us completely befuddled.

The lessons are numerous, it seems to me. (1) The world is a lot more complicated than our bumper-sticker mentality can deal with, (2) Some people may not like being made into carbon copies of us, (3) Even if you "Win", people still hate the "big guy", (4) Just because you grossly out-gun them, doesn't mean they can't beat you, etc., etc.

My suggestions? (1) Congress should demand a complete budget for post-fighting costs, before giving any president a go ahead. At least, we need to look at what wars will cost us (and imho, we way undercompensate our fighting warriors), before we jump in, (2) Defence & State should have equal input on war decisions, Having somebody speak, who knows a little about the politics, cultures, governments, etc involved, might throw a little light on things. (3) We really need to develope some rational outlook about why we go to war, what we want to accomplish, NOW, IN PEACE TIME. We are not good at making complicated decisions like going to war, or not, in the heat of the moment. Haven't we learned anything in 100 years?

Its funny, They burn our flag over i the middle east and its done on purpose yet when we burn something of theirs "by mistake" they kill our people. An eye for an eye i say. Im sorry if this upsets anyone here but im tired of two different standards. They can do to us but yet we need to restrain from doing he same. Barbarians, and cruel cruel people. What about the soldiers families and their loss. If it was my family member that was killed over there for this reason, Id be buying a plane ticket and hunt down the people who killed them. Its beginning to be a joke. we need to leave and let them wipe each other out. We go there and help them and this is the thanks we get. The funny thing is, our government said sorry multiple times but NO they never make mistakes so to hell with americans huh they r perfect people i guess. The funny thing is the taliban is taking this thing and running with it. Its the stupid people who act b4 thinking. If they want the taliban back well i say let them have them and good luck. SIGNED "SICK AND TIRED". My prayers are with the families of the murdered soldiers who were not responsible for the burning i might add.

It's very obvious that the Afghans do not want us there, and killing people over some defaced books is an example of the 'stone-age' mentality of those people, so it's time to pull out and let them sort it out.

If the aftermath is like Vietnam, then millions of civilians will be killed and the women will return to their status as uneducated 'chattel', but that's the price they pay for their ignorance and extreme beliefs.

If we don't like the government they set up, send in the drones and tell them "Nope, try again". Sooner or later, we'll get something we can live with.

Maybe Bush was right not to put a lot of effort into 'nation building' there - after all, it was Obama that decided to dramatically increase the number of troops there.

PS - It was Bush that also negotiated the end of the Iraq war - All Obama did was not change the withdrawal date of 12/31/11 (although Obama did try to stay longer, but the Iraqi's said NO).

Obama had NO business apologizing for the burning of the Korans!!!!!!!!! This is a HUGE point that no one is catching here, regardless of your feelings on if we should be there or not. By his apology, we admit that we were totally wrong in doing it, which is NOT TRUE!!!

According to Muslim faith, IT IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED TO WRITE ANYTHING IN A KORAN AT ANY TIME. KORANS MUST BE BURNED IF THIS HAPPENS TO PRESERVE THE SANCTITY OF THE BOOK.

If he had all his information/facts straight before he got on a world stage, and once again, thrown the US military under the buss, he could have gotten in front of this thing and done 2 things.

1) Shown to the Muslims that we have compassion for their traditions while we are on their soil.

2) Not caused so much heat to come down on US soldiers and put their lives in more peril.

Instead, our "commander and chief" gets up on the microphone and expects "oops my bad, the US screwed up on this one" to make everything go away. Once again, absolutely terrible judgement by someone who's primary (and most important) responsibility is to lead the US military by making the right decisions.

As someone who has served and had a third of my family members serve in different branches of the military in every major conflict since WW2, I have NEVER seen a more incompetent and more recless President in regards to foreign policy and putting our troops in harms way.

It is absolutely embarrassing how uninformed the President of the United States is on how to handle difficult situations around the world, and especially in the middle east in a time when we need every decision to be on point.

JP-345944

Great post.

I just wonder what we Americans would do if we had China, Russia, or any other country come and take over our country? We need to learn to mind our own business and get out now. I know, some of you will mention what about 9/11 and the 3,000 that died, well, what about the thousands of soldiers that have died/dying/injured already and we have bankrupted this country for the rest of us.

Lusitania

Yesterday I heard our military advisers say we will try and win their hearts and minds again,Why..?

I agree. Beyond that, you can't win what they DO NOT have.............!!!!!

They are like a pack of dogs. One attacks and the rest just join in and they don't even know why.

They have killed 30 of their own people during these "protests."

War is dirty business, but big business. Afghanistan is a catch 22 as far as an immediate pull out as everyone knows, it's all about saving face versus doing the logical thing. One must wonder how our involvement here and other hopeless pits of despair manages to cross political lines in the US with action condoned by both parties, is there an ulterior motive for being in these places? I wonder.....while reading and thinking about this and other stories like it how often do we think of jobs or the economy here at home? Sometimes war is warranted sometimes not, and when it makes no sense the love of money usually lies at the root of the situation.

Do those in charge of our country really care about the Afghans, and have their best interest at heart, or is our presence there more so for our sake and the effort to keep the problem out of our back yard? Both are good reasons to to engage the enemy which is Islam whether anyone wants to admit it or not. Not everyone there wants war and hates America....to many we are their only hope of a better life and freedom. While I do not desire the loss of another American life or otherwise, any knee-jerk reaction in terms of a solution would be a mistake. Poor thinking is what gets us into these messes. Sometimes I wonder if more covert operations wouldn't be the way to go, this is one place where a "don't ask, don't tell" type practice could be warranted. Again war is dirty business and sometimes the end justifies the means. The trick is knowing where to draw the lines and is susceptible to the morals of those who wield the power......good luck with that!

75 percent of the more than 45 insider attacks since 2007 occurred in the last two years.

Under who's watch as CIC? Obama the clown, your inexperience is showing. How's that on the job training going. A weak CIC = stupid rules of engagement = no fear or respect from the enemy = dead Americans. I'd like to thank Obama for emboldening our enemy's by apologizing for our soldiers doing their job. The troops are doing the best they can since you've tied their hands behind their backs. The similarities to Vietnam jumped exponentially since this became Obama's "The right war".

@Head Priest of temple of Syrinx

If you were any dumber, you'd need a damn helmet.

Allow to remind you, Obama was not the one who started a war with Iraq before finishing the job in Afghanistan.

It never ceases me to amaze me how idiotic you people are. Short term memory for everything that may go against your stupid ideas. You probably think that Palin can indeed see Russia from her house. That Romney is not a crook and that Newt's values are second to none.

That's it... your computer privileges have been revoked. Now, just walk away... nice and easy

Crazy as it sounds it almost seems like the right and left are in agreement on this - let's get the hell out now. Is there anyone in this country that thinks staying there is productive?

Let see, we build their roads, sewer, power and water systems... we build them schools and try to educate these goat humpers... and they shoot our guys. Obama wants to get rid of most of our nukes.., why don't we drop them in the 'Stan? Solves both problems.

Well, Gee, tontosh, I guess that would depend if we were stupid enough not to hand over someone who was responsible for killing 3000 people in Beijing? Please, hyperbole is fine, as long as its used to emphasize a poitn that makes SENSE.

Now, the deal here is Bin Laden is dead. Bush failed to kill him before he fled to Pakistan. Obama killed him in Pakistan, yet for some reason we a) are still in Afghanistan, and b) Pakistan is still our friend.

You know some moron could just as well have put those Koran's in the garbage on purpose, knowing that they'd get burned. Having said that, however, Afghanistan is a country of MORONS who still have enough people thinking its okay to burn someone over a 'holy' piece of paper.

It wouldn't matter if they were Christians, Jews, or any other religion. And it isn't like there aren't other countries with the same kinds of people, like Saudi Arabia or any number of our 'allies.' Remember, this is a country that has been through decades of war and the people who are there are the people who STAYED there and their kids. How thick does your skull have to be to do that?

This country doesn't have the stomach for genocide, and it shouldn't. You can only regress a nation so far with bombing, and then like in Afghanistan, you just have a buch of mutants running around who have found a society that likes to live with bombs. Don't worry, when we leave, they'll keep blowing themselves up. They love being killed.

'President Obama said his formal apology to Afghan President Hamid Karzai for the burning of Korans by U.S. troops last week has "calmed things down" after the incident sparked an outbreak of violence across the country.' (ABC News 02/29/12).

Really? How did it calm down? Seems like things got worse.

Just being me..
How is that apology working out?

You want to blame someone, OK, blame Obama for not getting us out of there fast enough. Or you can blame your hero GW Bush for sending us there in the first place...and Iraq!

Remember the Republicans want to stay in every country forever. Maybe John Boehner could go over and start a hardware store and staff it with other Republicans when Obama pulls the troops out

Remember the Republicans want to stay in every country forever. Maybe John Boehner could go over and start a hardware store and staff it with other Republicans when Obama pulls the troops out

Herm, I cant tell the difference. They all seem the same to me. O'bama hasn't pulled us out of anything. In fact, he has gotten us involved with additional conflicts. We will have bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. We never go to war without leaving a permanent outpost. We still have 30,000 troops in South Korea for Christ's sake.

I want to read how some fed up volunteer with a European NGO wrestles a GPMG or M-30 away from their protective detail and then goes postal. Perhaps when one of OUR fanatics takes out eight-hundred and fifty of their unsuspecting citizens in a joyful five-minute burst of instant justice that POS Karzai will see the light.

Unfortunately, the Quran Burning incident degraded an already unstable situation to a hopeless stage. If this is the general mindset of Afghanis, then we need to make one last call to civility with them and let them know that if we must now fight the civilian base and the military folks that we have armed, trained and are paying their salaries, we will pull up every ounce of assets and leave them to their own devices, of which includes return to violent and oppressive Taliban rule and terror organizations that will seek vengance on anyone that allied themselves with the coalition over the last 10 years. This could be a strategic and tactical move whereby we leave so fast that we create a vacuum for terror organizations to rapidly move into the nation and then we fly over and blow the entire nation off the map.

I thought thats why we collectively hired O'bama...to get us the hell out. We dont need to be training or arming these guys...building their infrastructure ect ect. While I agree with Republicans that we need to tone it down on our social programs, how can they have a leg to stand on when we have Iraq and Afghanistan hanging off our nipples as well? This is all so @!$%#ing ridiculous...we are broke!!!! If we need to give our military something to do, lets stick them on our southern @!$%#ing border for the love of @!$%#ing God!!!!

jmonarchy,

I totally agree, we must insure with one last effort that we are here to help, that our personnel are valued more than a book. I understand their respect for the book, but what about the knowledge contained in the book, since the majority of these people cannot read, I guess just the book represents all they need to know.

One last effort and lets pack up!

jumpmaster82, I suspect that the Muslims are much like the base of Christians we have in this nation; they either can't read or just let the preachers and others read the book and tell them what's inside. That is why we have such a high percentage of birthers and folks that claim Obama is a Muslim and democrats are secret society socialists. It is because most of the nation are a bunch of lazy people that have no idea how to find out for themselves, so they put all of their faith in the folks they trust the most; their pastors, teachers, relatives and friends. Damn shame.

I bet the comments from all the right-wingers here would be a lot different if it was a bunch of BIBLES that were burned by the Afghani army. After all -- IT'S JUST A BOOK!

Obama won't bring troops home..will increase unemplyoment...bad for presidential campaign

JoeD Glenn, I suspect that the biggest difference between Viet Nam and Afghanistan other than casualties is that our returning military personnel from the mid east are unlikely to be spit upon and denigrated like the war protesters did during Viet Nam. Those were the darkest days for our military.

Are you going to hail Obama, kiss your Charger goodbye

jmonarchy,

You hit it out the park, you must have turned America to the mirror, Change starts with the man in the mirror.

Tired of it? Show up to Washington D.C. in overwhelming numbers and scream No More troops in the Middle East! Complaining on the internet will accomplish nothing. I know I am a pro at complaining on the internet.

jmonarchy,

Your post has merit. talking about biblical truth without reading the Bible is like telling someone how good the burger was you never tasted.

We need to remove the usa troops. Screw the Quran- those people do not need an excuse to kill Americans. Get our troops out now.

Obama wants to get rid of most of our nukes.., why don't we drop them in the 'Stan? Solves both problems.

No, no. That just wouldn't be right. What would that say about America's values?

We should share our excess nukes with every country in the middle east. After all...it's only fair! Ship them sub-orbital express. Same day delivery guaranteed!

Riley- when were you in-country bud? I was there in 71-72.

Afghanistan is EXACTLY like Vietnam- our guys are surrounded by the enemy, who all look alike, and who are willing to kill themselves, women, and children to kill us.

We are hindered in actually fighting the battle by a bunch of moronic, corrupt, know-nothing politicians who have set up "rules" for our guys to get shot at by, while the enemy has none. We do nothing for large-scale operations, because that might give some Taliban supporter who actually isn't carrying a gun, a hangnail- can't hurt the "civilians" (you pick them out- nobody else can...) .

We also have a slew of liberal kumbaya idiots that think foreigners are "just like us", so they impede the effort by insisting that we are the bad guys, that we should surrender and get out, give up, and let terror win. (this is until the terrorists attack US, then the libs want to know why we aren't protecting them enough. ).

The only differance is that the public now realizes that the individual grunt is not responsible for making policy- just for suffering under it.

It's people like you that keep the war going, just like Jane Fonda did. Aiding and abetting the enemy.

American, yes there was total disrespect for our guys returning home. Hell that disrespect lasted far into the 80's I'd say. I EST'd in 79 and didn't seem like anyone but the older generation even acknowledge the sacrifices made by these men and women who decided to serve their country.

I would like for Mr. Obama too apologize just three more times via- airmail, maybe then they'd get the idea not to mistake meakness for weakness.

The Associated Press quoted a U.S. official as saying three attackers were believed to be involved, two of whom were subsequently killed. He said the third may be in custody. Yeah right, I don't know about this. It sure doesn't excuse their actions in any way!

We need to immediately cease training the Afghans to defend themselves. We need to stop building schools and other infrastructure. We need to stop financial aid. We need to pack up an leave sooner rather than later. Forget waiting until 2014. We have lost to many lives over there. We got Bin Laden, now let's bring our soldiers home NOW! Burn a pile of Qurans on the way out of the country to show our appreciation for everything they've done for us....and to us.

* Both countries were fighting OTHER countries before we got involved. In Vietnam's case, it was the French; in Afghanistan, the USSR. We didn't learn a lesson from the experiences of either one.

Completely False. ODA teams and the Northern Alliance destroyed the Taliban in weeks. It was a simple change in TTP involving the deployments of additional troops that brought this quick victory to a standstill.

* No clear goal. What does "winning" look like?

The goal has been changed by POTUS, along with giving a drawdown date invigorates our enemies. They will simply wait. McChrystal and Petraeus intial Counter-Insurgency plan was rather effective. It just hasnt been utilized.

* Sanctuary for enemy forces in other countries. In Vietnam, it was Laos, Cambodia and even China. In Afghanistan, it's Pakistan.

MQ9s are hitting them in their so-called sanctuaries and their high and mid-level leadership has been gutted. In addition, after the Paki Taliban's so-called "truce" against state forces, they have initiated a limited offensive. There is no permanent REDOUBT.

Riley- when were you in-country bud? I was there in 71-72.

I am "there" right now. Camp Leatherneck, 1st recon bn., 1st div, live from the MWR

It's people like you that keep the war going, just like Jane Fonda did. Aiding and abetting the enemy.

Ill let this slide probably because you dont know any better. I am keeping the war going because I am in it and see successes (and failures) day to day. Mostly the successes MSNBC doesnt publish...just BS and the general evisceration of our Scout Snipers or basically the defeatist mentality that everyone buying generally by what they read vs. what they experience.

Riley, how's the rules of engagement coming along? Any similarities with Nam there? Probably not. In Nam, we had one hand tied behind our back. In the middle east you have two hands tied behind your back. Is that how you were trained to fight a war?

Hosfac - great post. Love it!

This is the time for our troops to Beg their (Afghans) pardon for burning their Holy book, and leave Afghanistan immediately. Otherwise I am scared that they will do the same what Vietnamese did with us couple of decades back.[ though reason for going to Vietnam was not oil, it was our over estimation about our selves that we can do what ever we want]We can declare victory for this single good reason that we spent there almost a decade. And no one is ready to buy our this story that we went there for their selves. As every body knows that we went there to be present in Asia and try to control Iran, China and Russia. But we shouldn't forget 2000 years history of Afghanistan, that no one can conquer them, even USSR who could remain there but ended in the ending of it and becoming Russia. If we are waiting for that tipping point of what they did with USSR then they have done their job already that is collapse of our economy and again every body knows that where are we standing internally. So save our troops and shedding off our country.Otherwise no one will remember even that we were used to be so called "god father" of this world.

If you want to bring peace to this country we our Military should set up schools, bring in scholars and Teach them their own book the Koran.. I Truly believe they do not know it, meaning rebels.

I saw the clip on the news last night where Mr. Obama said his apology to Afghanistan had "calmed things down".

I do believe that this guy truly thinks that whatever he says is 'gospel'. What a dolt.

Great job with that apology, Mr. President. Does this politician think that any of that mob of Afghani rabble throwing rocks gives one hoot about what he has to say ?

Play by play armchair generaling. Rilley, winning a war is what we did from 1941 to 1945, not what we did in Vietnam after the french got sick and left and not spending 10 years in Afghanistan and we should have never gone into Iraq. You should never use the miltary as a humanitarian or protector of US contractors building infrastructure that the civilians don't even want. I'd lay a hundred dollars to your dime if we stayed there another decade, spent another 2 trillion dollars and last another 4000 soldiers that things would not look vastly different than they do now. Only someone of limited intelligence thinks that a foreign invader can occupy a nation that is predominantly of a different culture and religon and that the citizens will warm up to them. These people are willing to commit suicide just to take out one American. Occupation by a foreign government would not go over in this nation so why would you think it would somewhere else? That is the truest meaning of insanity.

@JP Monarchy

In response to Comment 1.71

I've sat and done Mosques Monitoring missions in Iraq on all three tours. Imam's would broadcast over the Minerette loud speakers that peace between the infidel and Muslims is impossible and an abomination. They would also suggest (veiled) killing Americans at any oppurtunity.

Your telling me Christian Pastors are doing this too? Many Pastors are making an effort to reach out to Imam's here in America to improve relations.

Your comment on Christians in this country being uneducated and blindly following their pastors orders is absurd.

How do you not see that as a complete fabrication of your ego and over active emotions?

And I have heard Pastors use the podiums and pulpits to broadcast a polluted view of their own brand of religon that is not Biblical and to use their positions to sway congregations to believe that only republicans are Christians and anyone that doesn't believe in the principles of militant fighting against another religon is a socialist. Well, read the 4 Gospels and if Jesus wasn't a liberal and a loving God that commanded all to give to the poor and if the Kingdom that is to come to Earth in His return isn't going to be socialist, what is it? I assure you Heaven is not going to be a capitalistic republic or democracy. When these Radical Christians bomb abortion clinics, they are exercising their own vengance and Biblically, God is the judge. God gave every man a free will to choose his own path and direction and to either accept hrist or not. He does not force Himself on anyone. Why do Christians believe they can do that through legislation? many so-called Christians are very uneducated, especially to the religon they supposedly follow. They worship a Pastor and not the Living God of the new Testament. Thank you for your service. i am not upholding Islam nor its leaders. Understand though, it is not the mission of this nation to use our military men and women to try and change the religous views of any people. That is unconstitutional. I don't think anyone should have done 3 tours in respinse to 9-11. The mission of our defense department should have been swift destruction of Afghanistan, a Nato coalition of special forces and intelligence to assassinate all the leaders of Al Qada, put a strong strangle hold on saudi Arabia, (The birth of 15 of the 19 hijackers and Osama Bin Laden) and not protecting American contractors to build infrastructure in nations where the people do not want us. Most Christians do not understand the true religon of Christianity. It is as humble and forgiving as Ghandi, so hoping to kill in retalliation is not Biblical, unless you desire to worship the Torah and Old Testament. Therein lies a totally different problem with Christians; the use of the TORAH/Old Testament to explain history and the use of the New Testament that fulfills the law and replaces the Laws of leviticus and Moses.

It is an Americans right, Christian or otherwise, to vote for legislation that he believes in. As long as it does not infringe on our rights, that legislation has a real chance.

As far as legislation infringing on rights...Christians are not the only one to push unConstitutional legislation. ObamaCare would be a great example of "other than Christian" legislation that was found to be (at least for now) only partially unConstitutional.

As far as separation of religious and relative moral ideas from the State...how is crying greed not the same thing? Greed is a religious/moral idea that is completely protected by the Constitution. How can you suppose to enforce laws that focus on "the greedy" when there is no Constitutional basis for such action?

Capitalism isn't in heaven?...Nor is any other man made (flawed) social construct. That seems rather redundant. Democracy and/or Capitalism is hardly perfect but it has provided the best opportunity's the human race has seen to date.

"...the Kingdom that is to come to Earth in His return isn't going to be socialist, what is it?" Karl Marx stated in the Communist Manifesto that "Nothing is easier than to give Christian asceticism a Socialist tinge." He also continue to explain why and cited ownership of property, against marriage and being against the State. These are all patently false. Jesus stated that you must obey the laws of the land as long as they do not trump the laws of God. Jesus, his family and friends all owned property to one degree or another. This was never considered a sin. It was said that to not marry is the best path a man can choose to be near God, but if a man should have desires he should marry.

Communism failed for a reason. It doesn't work. Working for your place was stated when we fell...that we would work by the sweat of our brow or we would parish from hunger. Is this God giving freely? No.

I do however agree the military should not be used for peace keeping. On this you and I are in agreement.

Great conversation. Take care.

Greed isn't the crime. It is crime when greedy folks defraud and decieve for gain.

@JMonarchy

Fraud is already illegal. There is no need for new legislation against the rich (or any other income bracket) over this topic. The existing laws only need be enforced.

Deception to a certain extent is legal because deception in many ways is in the eye of the beholder. If I tell you your getting (A) for money but I give you (B) that's fraud. If I tell you your getting (A) and I give you (A) but it doesn't work as great as the commercial might lead you to believe...well that's advertising in general and completely legal.

No one could sell anything if 75% of the advertisement had the shortcomings and disappointments listed. Even with that being said most of the time there is small print that does just that. Most people choose to ignore that stuff though.

If your the one who bought (A), you may feel deceived but it wont always constitute a case.

We need to enforce the laws that exist and stop screaming for laws against "Greed!"

Solution...LEAVE NOW, take our weapons, all our money, put drones overhead and when they identify enemy personnel, KILL THEM, pull out of Pka, secure the nukes in that country, LEAVE NOW, cut off all foreign aid to these two countries and give all our support to India. Let India be our proxy in the region. Game over! Our President and his State Department don't have a clue. How many times do we have to learn the lesson...if your going to fight a war, FIGHT IT WITHOUT RESTRAINTS AND GET THE JOB DONE, THEN LEAVE. Question, if you were a marine over their right now..would you put your head up to be shot at? For what?

Everyone write and call your Senators, Reps, & POTUS... tell them to get us out of Afghanistan now!!! No more American blood. Ten years is enough!!!

LEAVE NOW, take our weapons, all our money, put drones overhead and when they identify enemy personnel, KILL THEM

Uh, how do you expect to launch drones without a military base, eh John?

Why does it take more than ten years to come to this conclusion?

What about Iraq? We fought two wars one in 1991 and again in 2003.

Has Iraq been stablized to withdraw after getting badly booted from all sides in 2011?

If people are understanding the futility of stationing ground troops in Muslim nations and fighting battles, why are people not opposing the planned interventions in Syria and Iran?

Ultimately, soldiers will be put on grounds as many wake up with human rights manuals after intevening!

I have a very hard time believing that this latest loss of life was related to the burning of the Qur'ans. As the title of the article points out, the shooters fired "indiscriminately." They didn't care if they hit an American or an Afghan.

Two American soldiers were killed - I sincerely feel for their family and friends. Not one post has mentioned the 30 Afghani people killed - they were working with the NATO forces, or they wouldn't be in that area. It is disrespectful to forget that they also put their life on the line - I also, sincerely feel for their family and friends.

I can think of only two reasons why these shooters didn't care who they killed (American or not) - obviously, again, it has nothing to do with the Qur'an or Afghan citizens would have been spared.... So, is it possible that this is a "rope a dope," perhaps initiated by a US ally who wants the US to remain in the region? So that said ally can attack Iran and draw the US into the battle by using our bases and making our bases targets? Or did these "indiscriminate" murderers simply want to say "go home?" I think the former is more likely.

As for the comments about nuking the country, it's in the stone age, it's a litter box - if you haven't been there, you have no idea and putting down an entire country and it's 32 million people is (because of the actions of a few) is simply not right. The US has also committed atrocities against unarmed civilians - no one seems to remember that...

http://www.rollingstone.com/kill-team

We do not belong in Afghanistan, yet we stay, as if a hidden hand were pulling strings to keep us attached there.

At the end of the day there are 32 people dead, all equal, all loved by someone. It would be nice if the posts here reflected some courtesy to both the dead and to a nation we invaded and we just won't leave.

What enemy are you talking about NJ? Seems the afgan police, military and any government worker is now our enemy. I am with you. Need to get out, take our stuff, money and let the Drones do their thing.

Remember the Republicans want to stay in every country forever. Maybe John Boehner could go over and start a hardware store and staff it with other Republicans when Obama pulls the troops out

It's time to replace all Qurans with a new Quran that has been altered to teach these people to respect others, to treat women equally, to appreciate the gift of life, to know they won't get any "virgins", that this is their heaven right here on earth, that where they go from here depends on their performance while they were here, and that "though shall not kill another human being.

We ought to be able to manufacture some authentic looking qurans, and gradually replace the old ones that teach them to hate and kill. We could retrain all the Afghan women who have been treated so badly to teach from these new books and make the world a better place for everyone.

Oh, yeah, then slip an oral contraceptive into their water supply so population growth will slow down and they can enjoy a better quality of life than their parents on the meager resources their country has to offer.

In the meantime, take every adult male out back and shoot them.

I don't think these soldiers (the ones that were killed and those that remain in that area) are coming home - they are US soldiers, but they are operating as NATO soldiers -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/01/nato-soldiers-shot-dead-afghanistan

The incidents have become more frequent since the US sent tens of thousands more soldiers to Afghanistan as part of a surge of troops to fight in Taliban strongholds.

The US hopes Afghan security forces will be able to confront the Taliban and handle security on their own before Nato combat troops' scheduled departure by the end of 2014.

Attacks by Afghan forces on Nato troops have deepened doubts about their capabilities.

Did I miss something about the US sending MORE troops to Afghanistan??? Great reporting MSNBC

If only Boehner would leave.... (which derived from the German can absolutely not be pronounced "Bane er" ... it is more like "Boner" in reality)

My son is over there and I worry all the time, while being so very proud of what he has given up for our country. But, there comes a time when our country needs to realize and make a change reflecting that realization! THEY DON"T WANT US THERE!! Therefore, send my son outta of that place before he CAN'T come home again! That goes for ALL of OUR Americans over there......let them enjoy their American freedom they have been working so hard to preserve before that opportunity is ripped right out from under them!

Sydszoo - you are correct, they do not want us there. For a father, 2 more years must seem like an eternity. I wish your son a speed and safe return home, sincerely.

Our coalition is pulling out now, it's past time we did the same - for all the soldiers, from all the countries - let them leave NOW. Putting more soldiers in will only add fuel to the fire.

Black kettle the 30 dead Afghans they were referring to were protesters, not innocent Afghans. Go Obama,as far away as possible.

THEY DON"T WANT US THERE!!

The Nazi's didn't want us in Europe when they were doing their thing. Maybe we should have left them alone, too.

Time to wake up and realize we don't live in the 1600's anymore. America is not isolated from the rest of the world. We're part of it and the world's problems are our problems.

Hosfac, excellent post

I'm fine with leaving, but lets send all the arabs here back home !

Joel, as in we leave their country and in turn, they all leave ours? I can go for that...

Mike, Muslims don't generally appreciate the holy tribe of Dogs enough to reward them the privelage of such an association.

Only in the sense that the public there is turning against us, not in terms of combat. We lost over 50,000 American lives in Vietnam, thankfully we are nowhere near close to that same number in Afghanistan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war

You have brought the point about Vietnam!

Hope at least Vietnam veterns like George Bush, Sr and John McCaine knew how the US soldiers were air lifted from Saigon airport!

Still George Bush, Sr led to Iraq war in 1991, George Bush, Jr in Iraq and Afghanistan instead Saudi Arabia and Pakistan for 9/11.

John McCain is always a big supporter of wars in Libya, Syria, Iran and other places pointed on map by Saudi Arabia, oil companies and their lobbyists.

It appears that he always has a gun behind his back!

Dogs deserve better than these freaks do.

Jonathan, HUH? Do you have a point?

As long as there is vast mineral wealth to be secured in Afghanistan, we will be there, even if every Talibani were dead.

The minerals are important (crucial?) to the development of new technologies, and our government and the corporate sponsors of war want to secure the mineral rights and keep Russia and China out.

Just as in Africa, religious and tribal differences will be the rubric under which this occupation will go forward, but the real "follow the money" reason is the mineral wealth.

Perhaps a secondary reason is the strategically important location of A'stan next to Iran.

So, we will be "advising" the Afghan military for a very long time, whether they want us to or not.

The various Afghani factions (tribal warlords, Taliban, etc) will go on fighting a guerrilla war, probably armed by Russia/China.

Here's hoping some whackjob doesn't get a nuclear weapon, and/or Pakistani sympathizers in their secret police/ military don't get impatient and more blatant with their involvement.

What a mess. My sympathies to the families of the slain soldiers.

wlee:

I do have some points.

1. Don't do the dirty jobs for Saudi Arabia, oil companies and their lobbyists and puppets and jump into Syria and Iran wars.

2. Till now the US and allies have been dancing as directed by Saudi Arabia, oil companies, lobbyists and their agents. Iraq wars are the glaring examples.

3. 9/11 was due to 1991 Iraq war and Saudis, Pakis and UAE played their roles. Where did Iraq and Afghanistan come in the picture?

4. Give a break for wars at least ten years.

You are justifying the cause effect relationship of the incedental disposing of religious material to the murder and assassination of people. In islamic sharia blasphemy is punishable by death, so is apostasy. Do we let these threats control the way we live? If a library clears out old books on evolution do you see scientists marching on the UN building killing workers and soldiers?

We cannot accept this barbarism and aggression if we are to insult the sensibility of an aggressive bigoted self serving religion. The books were not burned to censor the koran as a book burning is truely intended. The books were burned because they were cleaning out a detainee area and the margins of the korans in question were used by Islamicists to write subversive messages to fellow detainees. The burnt Korans were not even intended to be found.

Further to the Islamicist double standard, it was Calliph Uthman who was first to burn unusable or obsolete Korans. It appears to be acceptable for Muslims, but a capital crime for non-muslims.

The Afghan cuture is a culture of murderers and terrorists, inspired by the inherent bigotry of their bellicose religion. It has become a matter of survival in their society. They have killed off all the healthy minds, and only the sick ones remain...evolution at work.

We cannot accept this barbarism and aggression if we are to insult the sensibility of an aggressive bigoted self serving religion. The books were not burned to censor the koran as a book burning is truely intended. The books were burned because they were cleaning out a detainee area and the margins of the korans in question were used by Islamicists to write subversive messages to fellow detainees. The burnt Korans were not even intended to be found.

Why not just turn over the Korans to an authority in the Afghani government? By now, anyone who doesn't know how Muslims in the Middle East will react to burning a Koran is an absolute fool. But you're right about not accepting their barbarism and aggression. It's high time we got out and let them kill each other, rather than let any more of our men or women die because of someone's stupidity.

And we should learn our lesson from the past 10 years and stay the he|| out of Iran, too. Enough is more than enough, in this case.

It was my understanding that the books were burned because of the things written in them, not because of the books themselves.

Inside the margins, and in blanks spaces were written codes, meeting places, and other intel that couldn't be allowed back in circulation.

The implication being, that since most Afghan Muslims keep a copy of the Quaran on them, they are used for storing important information...sort of like a 3rd world laptop.

The question is, how to eliminate the hand written data without ruining the book? In many cases, you can't. Tearing pages out of the Quaran is a blaspheme....but burning it is their accepted method of disposal. So the books were burned.

Aside from that, I agree with all the above posters that state that we should get out now.

There is no way to communicate to the Afghanistan people the why and wherefores of this action, and even if everyone there had a computer and a television, there would still be hot heads who would'nt listen anyway, but are just cruising for conflict.

It's a bad situation with no solutions, except to just leave.

Primitive cultures always behave primitively. Remember in the 1600's and 1700's in America, women were burned for being "witches". Afghanistan is literally a 18th century culture. We need to leave, now. For us to expect them to behave as a modern civilization is asking the "leopard to change it's spots".

No Hammerhead, we have to accept this cause and effect as totally foreseeable in the environment, now that is not to say that the environment isn't totally whack but foreseeable is foreseeable. These Korans should have been burned totally and in private and not partially burned and left in the dump. That was pure stupidity. Sometimes I don't think Americans are smart enough to fight this type of war and other times I iknow it. We are good at what we do best, use blunt force in order to win like the cowboys we love, but we lack the finesse of a chess master or the patience of a good poker player to win these asymmetrical wars where blunt force is not well rewarded.

I do not see why any intelligent person can call Islam a religion.. It is a cult with self reinforcing rules and penalties that are woven into their government, social and private lives.. Christianity and Islam are completely incompatible for these reasons.. Either leave them to their sickness or kill them all are our only 2 choices.. Some people say moderate Muslims can change these countries populations but I see it the other way around.. They are changing us through deception and lies and will turn on us when the time is right and their cult leaders tell them to.. Which is exactly what is happening now in Afghanistan.. They ignore their own law that defaced books are to be considered unholy and destroyed.. Why?? Because deep down the leaders and people think these animals that bomb markets and schools and kill innocents are cult heroes and those scribbles of hate are sacred..

And yes it could have been staged for the purpose of getting the extreme edge sharp again..

FranklinCarson

Great comment! The puritan witch burners who originally settled in America still maintain a vestigial culture. Rick Santorum is their candidate. If they have their way and infuse their religious superstitions into the science class and into government, then the grandeur of the constitution and bill of rights will be lost. Progress in life is not guaranteed.

The problem with Afghanistan is that their culture enables terrorism, especially the Taliban. They are not a threat to a few "witches", they are a threat to civilian populations, transportation networks, infrastructure, and monumental architecture. Make now mistake, they were fully complicite accessories to the 911 terrorist attacks. they had an opportunity to extradite the conspiritors and they declined, so they were also guilty of harboring the terrorists.

If we leave the threat re-emerges. If we stay, our friends and family in the armed forces return one at a time maimed, disfigured, or in coffins. The dilemma is how to be a moral person and deal with the sick mind that has killed your neighbor, and openly threatens to kill you:

Tabari IX:69 "Arabs are the most noble people in lineage, the most prominent, and the best in deeds. We were the first to respond to the call of the Prophet. We are Allah's helpers and the viziers ofHis Messenger. We fight people until they believe in Allah. He who believes in Allah and His Messenger has protected his life and possessions from us. As for one who disbelieves, we will fight him forever in the Cause of Allah. Killing him is a small matter to us."

FrankinCarson #4.5,

"Afghanistan is literally a 18th century culture."

You give them way too much credit. Islam about 700 AD, hasn't changed a bit. Convert or die mentality.

We should leave Afghanistan ASAP, and the last one out should flip the switch to detonate adequate nukes to transform Afghanistan into one large sheet of glass!

Remember in the 1600's and 1700's in America, women were burned for being "witches".

Actually Franklin, they weren't. There were several "burnings" but they were following slave revolts, not "witches".

A notoriously common myth is that the alleged witches at Salem in colonial Massachusetts were burned. All of the convicted during the Salem Witch Hunt in 1692 died by hanging. Others died by natural causes before conviction or execution, and Giles Corey was pressed to death. In fact, no witches were executed by burning in the English colonies of North America. English law did not permit it.

http://departments.kings.edu/womens_history/witch/werror.html

BTW: Don't mistake my penchant for historical trivia as excusing Afghan behavior.

Train Afgan soldiers?... for target practice, put them in a circle.

We have trained 250,000 soldiers with less then 50 incidents, more then likely Taliban spies. Not all Afghans hate us, but as usual lets all lump them together.

so basically you want to turn to the soldiers against everyone, civilians, afghan soldiers etc.. What do you think will happen if the US/NATO soldiers try to coral 34,385,068 people? The US/NATO forces currently stationed there aren't that big buddy.

Look I agree with you but at the same time I wouldn't want to stroke the flames by having complete anarchy. I with everyone and I completely agree that the US/NATO soldiers need to be pulled out immediately. Screw the middle east.. They're just a bunch of backward, religious people who will never change.

Your username certainly fits the bill. Yikes!

Speaking of 'backward, religious people', how's that Sanitorium campaign shaping up?

WOW! I'm voting for gunny for Secretary of State. He gets the big picture.
Weren't you in the guard at Kent State?

Disarm all Afghans? What are you smoking? And if you're not smoking anything, you should start.

RG....Agreed...couldn´t have said it better myself. If we´re gonna throw money around, let´s throw it around inside the usa for a while. Bring our troops home, secure our own borders, build up our own countrys´infrastructure and economy again.

That's what the National Guard is for and the U.S.S.R. hasn't been around for 20 years.

The people are powerless. The politicians won't let us leave, not until the oil pipeline is secure.

HHholmes, what pipeline? TransAfghan pipeline has nothing to do with us.

Obama blows, but he doesn't deserve to be roasted over a pile of burning Korans.

Haha, whaszup doc? I like your clever humor.

Here here Steve! I couldn't agree more wholeheartedly! Plus, I love a good BBQ. Cheers!

"Entangling alliances" put you at the risk of 'endless war'. That is the real danger of "entangling alliances". - RC

It's a far different world than when George Washington was President.

Who among the posters here knows, for sure, why we involve ourselves in other countries problems. It is certainly not because we had/have money and lives to waste, nor that we are/have been so arrogant to dictate that other countries should think the same way America does.

It is an unpopular "conflict" yet we stay -- hmm -- food for thought -- especially when you consider that President Obama whould be declared a hero should we withdraw and most certaintly be re-elected.

I am not familiar with the muslim religion and wished to remain in a different is interesting state of mind -- but we hear of so much hatred from these people, in the name of religion, that there is little doubt that the teachings of the koran are wrong, wrong, wrong! -- or is it a case where a people, who perhaps cannot read the koran for themselves, are led and preached to by self serving zealots? Who knows? -- if a suicide bomber is considered a martyr by killing and maiming people who don't think as they do, and goes straight to heaven, is too incredible to comprehend.

So, does the religion teach that any person/country who does not adhere to the tenets of the koran be killed? I don't know. I do know that the burning of the korans added fuel to the hatred of a seemingly bored, ignorant people who are told that it is within the dictates the religion to kill for any act that does not come within it's narrow borders.

Tired of: I've read an American Translation (which Muslims would describe as erroneous simply because the translation changes the emphasis of the text from it's purest Poetic Form) and I see not indication that the hatred we observe today is in the book. The Hell is in the perception that the Radical Islamics are preaching.

If you are conversant in World History (not the textbook variety) you realize that anytime a Religion Radicalizes it is for Power, Money or Mind Control (or all of the above). We are seeing today in Islam what we saw in Christianity a millennium ago in Europe; Schisms and Control Freaks revolving around The Holy Roman Empire.

People will condemn me for this but the same Radicalism evolved into Nazi Germany 3/4 of a century ago. Reasons were different on the surface but Mind Control and the hatred were the same. And the easiest way to accomplish what they desired(?); find someone other than themselves to finger as the cause then whip the followers into a frenzy of hatred. Be those someones else Pagans, Muslims, or Jews they all became INFIDELS heinous baby stealing monsters.

Following the Bible the Hebrews did the same when they entered Canaan, the locals became hideous monsters whom THEIR divinity said had to be murdered whether Man, Woman, Child or Animal Owned.

Basically, Religions of Faith do not now, nor ever have existed once they are placed into the hands of Radical Clerics who refuse to see their Deity as one of peace and rather profess Him (or Her, or It) as a vengeful and prejudiced Deity of Hatred for those they acknowledge as Children of God gone astray..... demanding Murder, Mayhem and Destruction for those who won't convert.

"coughs"(BULLSH*T)....Republican election plugs has nothing to do with this...keep your democrat hate to political articles not world affairs...If Bush was still in office we'd still be in Iraq and Afghanistan in full force...and the rest of our Army in Iran with no one in the US left to defend...another million without jobs funding the wars and loosing their homes to Bush's cronies in wallstreet....

Sharp..when are you guys going to get off the 'Bush" comments. BUSH IS NOT IN OFFICE!!! We're talking NOW, NOT THEN. Bush was exactly right to go into AFG for the right reason. Now it's up to Obama to manage the war correctly, which he is not doing. Everytime you start with the 'BUSH DID IT' game, remember, OBAMA been in office over 3 years! It's his war to manage and direct; his state department, his orders to the military what we're talking about. Yes, Bush did not manage the war in Iraq and AFG..give you that. But let's keep the focus on NOW

OH I forgot New Jersey...u Republicans always think that someone should be able to correct and completely turn around problems your Texas clown had 8 years to screw up in a quarter of the time...well...Bush made promises to stay the course...The Afhgan government that Bush help put in expects us to back them. So...why don't we pull out all at once...give the terrorists a recruiting plus...and show all the Middle East countries that Americans will run at the first sign of struggle and not to be trusted...If you read and watch the local news troops are coming home all the time. These are troops connected with NATO...as long as we're with NATO we will have troops there and every trouble spot they decide to go. As long as troops are anywhere where American's are hated..they will be shot at, and sometimes the bullet will be true...part of life being a soldier...but I can't help feeling we are getting out...watching units come home every week...and their not dieing by the hundreds like they were doin during the last administration....

Haha, first sign of struggle, that was ten years ago. And as far as the trust thing goes, they turned on us the first chance they got. I say screw 'em. What's a few more dead Muslims.

WTF r u even talking about Holmes??...If a frickin Muslim army was in my country...and setting up his own government for us...you can bet I'm fighting back guerilla style...10 years ago and the F*cked up policy Bush the Ignorant instilled 10 years ago is affecting us today..like I said...troops are coming home as we speak...this was NATO involved troops...so you fricking Republican plugs want NATO dissolved then so be it...it has nothing to do about troops in Afghanistan...if all troops in
Afghanistan were pulled out....we would still have troops connected with NATO in the country...so really, this is a NATO issue...not a presidential one...I can condone what's a few more terrorists dead...but to sit there and say what's a few more Muslims dead makes you no better than them mister M.D.....what does that stand for...maddog??!!...I say screw you you Republican bullsh*t artist...your kind are the ones sitting around at your country club saying screw all the working class...who do they think they are...equal to us????

Sharp...just curious, since you hate and blame GWB for everything, give a pass to Obama on this situation, thought I might send you a document which contains all the intel President Bush had when he made the decision to go into Iraq. You may agree or disagree, but do your self a favor and at least read it and then ask the question that IF you were President immediately after 911, had this intel to consider, what would you have done?

Connections between Iraq and Al-Qaeda

On August 20, 1998, President Bill Clinton ordered a cruise missile attack against a chemical weapons factory in Sudan. The cruise missle strike was in retaliation for the August 7, 1998 truck bomb attacks on U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya which killed more than 200 people and wounded more than 5,000 others. The chemical weapons factory in Sudan was funded, in part, by Osama bin Laden who the U.S. believed responsible for the embassy bombings. Richard Clarke, a national security advisor to President Clinton, told the Washington Post in a January 23, 1999 article that the U.S. government was "sure" that Iraqi nerve gas experts had produced a powdered substance at that plant for use in making VX nerve gas.

On August 25, 1998 the Fort Worth Star-telegram reported a link between Iraq and the Sudanese chemical weapons factory destroyed by the United States in a cruise missile attack. The chemical weapons factory was hit because of links to Osama bin Laden who the U.S. believed responsible for the recent embassy bombings. A senior intelligence official said one of the leaders of Iraq's chemical weapons program, Emad al-Ani, had close ties with senior Sudanese officials at the factory. The intelligence official also said a number of Iraqi scientists working with al-Ani attended the grand opening of the factory two years earlier. Emad Husayn Abdullah al-Ani surrendered to U.S. military forces on April 18, 2003.

On November 5, 1998 a Federal grand jury in Manhattan returned a 238-count indictment charging Osama bin Laden in the bombings of two United States Embassies in Africa and with conspiring to commit other acts of terrorism against Americans abroad. The grand jury indictment also charged that Al-Qaeda had reached an arrangement with President Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq whereby the group said that it would not work against Iraq, and that the two parties agreed to cooperate in the development of weapons.

On January 11, 1999, Newsweek magazine ran the headline "Saddam + Bin Laden?" The subheadline declared, "It would be a marriage made in hell. And America's two enemies are courting." The article points out that Saddam has a long history ofsupporting terrorism. The article also mentions that, in the prior week, several surface-to-air missiles were fired at U.S. and British planes patrolling the no-fly zones and that Saddam is now fighting for his life now that the United States has made his removal from office a national objective.

On January 14, 1999, ABC News reported, "Saddam Hussein has a long history of harboring terrorists. Carlos the Jackal, Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, the most notorious terrorists of their era, all found shelter and support at one time in Baghdad. Intelligence sources say bin Laden's long relationship with the Iraqis began as he helped Sudan's fundamentalist government in their efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction."

On February 13, 1999, CNN reported, "Osama bin Laden, the Saudi millionaire accused by the United States of plotting bomb attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa, has left Afghanistan, Afghan sources said Saturday. Bin Laden's whereabouts were not known....." The article reports, "Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden....."

On February 14, 1999, an article in the Aberdeen American News claimed U.S. intelligence officials were worried about an alliance between Osama bin Laden and Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. The article said bin Laden had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official near Qandahar, Afghanistan in late December 1998 and that "there has been increasing evidence that bin Laden and Iraq may have begun cooperating in planning attacks against American and British targets around the world." Vincent Cannistraro, former head of counterterrorism at the Central Intelligence Agency said, "It's clear the Iraqis would like to have bin Laden in Iraq." The article said that in addition to Abu Nidal, another Palestinian terrorist by the name of Abu Ibrahim was also believed to be in Iraq.

On February 18, 1999, National Public Radio (NPR) reported, "There have also been reports in recent months that bin Laden might have been considering moving his operations to Iraq. Intelligence agencies in several nations are looking into that. According to Vincent Cannistraro, a former chief of CIA counterterrorism operations, a senior Iraqi intelligence official, Farouk Hijazi, sought out bin Laden in December and invited him to come to Iraq." NPR reported that Iraq's contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at least 1994, when Farouk Hijazi met with bin Laden when he lived in Sudan.

On February 28, 1999, an article was written in The Kansas City Star which said, "He [bin Laden] has a private fortune ranging from $250 million to $500 million and is said to be cultivating a new alliance with Iraq's Saddam Hussein, who has biological and chemical weapons bin Laden would not hesitate to use. An alliance between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein could be deadly. Both men are united in their hatred for the United States....."

On December 28, 1999, an article appeared in The Herald (Glasgow, Scotland) titled, "Iraq tempts bin Laden to attack West." The article starts, "The world's most wanted man, Osama bin Laden, has been offered sanctuary in Iraq....." The article quotes a U.S. counter-terrorism source who said, "Now we are also facing the prospect of an unholy alliance between bin Laden and Saddam. The implications are terrifying."

On April 8, 2001, an informant for Czech counter-intelligence observed an Iraqi intelligence official named al-Ani meeting with an Arab man in his 20s at a restaurant outside Prague. Following the 9/11 attacks, the Czech informant who observed the meeting saw Mohammed Atta’s picture in the papers and identified Mohammed Atta as the man who met with the Iraqi intelligence official.

On July 21, 2001 [less than two months prior to 911] the Iraqi state-controlled newspaper "Al-Nasiriya" predicted that bin Laden would attack the U.S. "with the seriousness of the Bedouin of the desert about the way he will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White House." The same state-approved column also insisted that bin Laden "will strike America on the arm that is already hurting," and that the U.S. "will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs" - an apparent reference to the Sinatra classic, "New York, New York."

After the 9/11 attacks, Saddam became the only world leader to offer praise for bin Laden, even as other terrorist leaders, like Yassir Arafat, went out of their way to make a show of sympathy to the U.S. by donating blood to 9/11 victims on camera. Saddam later pays tribute to 9/11 by having a mural painted depicting the World Trade Center attack at an Iraqi military base in Nasariyah.

On December 3, 2001 USA Today reported that the CIA had convincing evidence from the mid-1990s Saddam Hussein's regime was funneling money through Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network to the Armed Islamic Group (GIA) in Algeria and other terrorist organizations. Stanley Bedlington, a senior analyst in the CIA's counterterrorism center until his retirement in 1994, said "We were convinced that money from Iraq was going to bin Laden, who was then sending it to places that Iraq wanted it to go."

On March 15, 2002 the Christian Science Monitor reported that a Taliban-style group known as Ansar al-Islam was threatening stability in the Kurdish northern region of Iraq. Prior to the start of the Iraq War in 2003, Colin Powell addressed the United Nations and pointed out that both Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida had links with the Ansar al-Islam terrorist group. Saddam had provided arms and funding for this terrorist group waging a jihadist war against the Kurds. One month prior to the formation of Ansar al-Islam, leaders from several Kurdish Islamist factions had visited the al-Qaida leadership in Afghanistan. Ansar al-Islam announced their formation on September 1, 2001 just days prior to the September 11 attacks in the United States.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a director of an al Qaeda training base in Afghanistan, fled to Iraq after being injured as the Taliban fell (prior to the U.S./Iraq war). He received medical care and convalesced for two months in Baghdad. He then opened a terrorist training camp in northern Iraq and arranged the October 2002 assassination of U.S. diplomat Lawrence Foley in Amman, Jordan.

CIA director George Tenet (appointed by President Bill Clinton July 11, 1997) wrote in a letter to Senator Bob Graham dated October 7, 2002. "We have solid reporting of senior level contact between Iraq and al Qaeda going back a decade. Credible information exists that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression. . . . We have credible reporting that al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities."

On October 16, 2002, the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 was signed into law. Theauthorization (Public law 107-243) had passed the House by a vote of 296-133, and the Senate by a vote of 77-23. This resolution stated, "Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;" and "Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens."

Babil, an official newspaper of Saddam Hussein's government, run by his oldest son Uday, published information that appeared to confirm U.S. allegations of the links between the Iraqi regime and al Qaeda. In its November 16, 2002 edition, Babil identified one Abd-al-Karim Muhammad Aswad as an "intelligence officer," describing him as the "official in charge of regime's contacts with Osama bin Laden's group and currently the regime's representative in Pakistan."

In December 2002 the House and Senate intelligence committees issued a report on the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. CIA director George Tenet testified (page 137) that, “Atta may also have traveled outside of the U.S. in early April 2001 to meet an Iraqi intelligence officer, although we are still working to corroborate this.” This report also noted (page 211) that, "In February 1999, the Intelligence Community obtained information that Iraq had formed a suicide pilot unit that it planned to use against British and U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf. The CIA commented that this was highly unlikely and probably disinformation."

On April 25, 2003 CNN reported that Farouk Hijazi had been captured by U.S. forces. Farouk Hijazi was a former intelligence official who may have plotted the attempted assassination of George H.W. Bush in 1993. He was also a contact between Saddam Hussein's regime and Osama bin Laden. Farouk met with bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998 and is also believed to have met with bin Laden in Sudan in the early 1990's.

While sifting through the Iraqi Intelligence Service's [Mukhabarat] bombed ruins on April 26, 2003 the Toronto Star's Mitch Potter, the London Daily Telegraph's Inigo Gilmore and their translator discovered a memo in the intelligence service's accounting department. Dated February 19, 1998 and marked "Top Secret and Urgent," it said the agency would pay "all the travel and hotel expenses inside Iraq to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden, the Saudi opposition leader, about the future of our relationship with him, and to achieve a direct meeting with him."

On May 7, 2003, a federal judge in New York awarded damages against the government of Iraq after ruling that the families of two victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, suicide hijackings had shown that Iraq had provided material support to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. Judge Harold Baer ruled that the two families were entitled to $104 million compensation from Iraq, bin Laden, al-Qaida, the Taliban movement and their government of Afghanistan. "Plaintiffs have shown, albeit barely, 'by evidence satisfactory to the court' that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al-Qaida."

The 9/11 Commission Report (pages 228 - 229) provides details of what is known about Mohamed Atta's alleged April 9, 2001 11:00 A.M. meeting with an Iraqi Intelligence agent in Prague. According to the FBI, Mohamed Atta was in Virginia Beach on April 4 and in Florida on April 11. Atta's cell phone records indicate calls were made from Florida during this period but they cannot confirm whether he placed those calls. The report mentions, however, that Czech intelligence has stated publicly they believe there was a 70 percent probability that the meeting took place. The Czech Interior Minister made several statements to the press about his belief that the meeting had occurred. Atta is known to have been in Prague on at least two occasions: once in December 1994 and again in June 2000.

On September 13, 2006, a deputy prime minister of Iraq by the name of Barham Salih gave a speech in which he said, "The alliance between the Baathists and jihadists which sustains Al Qaeda in Iraq is not new, contrary to what you may have been told." He went on to say, "I know this at first hand. Some of my friends were murdered by jihadists, by Al Qaeda-affiliated operatives who had been sheltered and assisted by Saddam's regime."

On March 20, 2008 the Pentagon declassified results of their investigation into captured Iraqi documents. The report entitled "Iraqi Perspectives Project -- Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents" stated, "While these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network, they do indicate that Saddam was willing to use, albeit cautiously, operatives affiliated with al Qaeda as long as Saddam could have these terrorist–operatives monitored closely. Because Saddam’s security organizations and Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance of and, in some ways, a 'de facto' link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust."

In June 2008 the Senate released their report "Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq By U.S. Government Officials Were Substantiated By Intelligence Information." Among the conclusions (page 71), it reported that public statements by government officials that Iraq (prior to the war) provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other al-Qaida related terrorist members was substantiated by intelligence assessments.

On June 18, 2008 the Iraqi newspaper Kurdistani Nwe published a 2002 letter from the Iraqi presidency that it said proved there was cooperation between Saddam Hussein's regime and Al-Qaeda. The letter, which appeared on the paper's front page, was written by Iraqi intelligence and discussed an intention to meet with Ayman Al-Zawahiri in order to examine a plan drawn up by the Iraqi presidency to carry out a "revenge operation" in Saudi Arabia.

Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction

In the 1970s, Iraq was unsuccessful in negotiations with France to purchase a plutonium production reactor similar to the one used in France's nuclear weapons program. With French assistance, Iraq then built the Osiraq 40 megawatt light-water nuclear reactor near Baghdad. When Israeli intelligence confirmed Iraq's intention to produce weapons at Osiraq, the Israeli government decided to attack. According to some estimates, Iraq in 1981 was still as much as five to ten years away from the ability to build a nuclear weapon. Others estimated, at that time, Iraq might get its first such weapon within a year or two. On June 7, 1981 Iraqi defenses were caught by surprise and the reactor at Osiraq was destroyed.

It is estimated that the Iran/Iraq war cost the two sides a million casualties. Iraq used chemical weapons in that war extensively from 1984. Some twenty thousand Iranians were killed by mustard gas, and the nerve agents tabun and sarin. This marked the first time a country had been named for violating the 1925 Geneva Convention banning the use of chemical weapons. http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page279.asp" target="_blank">

On March 16, 1988, the Iraqi Air Force appeared over the city of Halabja. At the time, the city was home to roughly eighty thousand Kurds. The attack on Halabja was the most notorious and the single deadliest gas attack against the Kurds killing 5,000 civilians and injuring 10,000 more. But, it was just one of some forty chemical assaults staged by Iraq against the Kurdish people.

On April 3, 1990, four months prior to the invasion of Kuwait, the Los Angeles Times reported, "Iraqi President Saddam Hussein declared Monday that his military machine has nerve gas and the means to deliver it, threatening to destroy 'half of Israel' if it attacks Iraqi targets." The LA Times also reported that, the week prior, five Iraqi agents were arrested in London attempting to smuggle nuclear triggering devices to Baghdad.

After invading Kuwait, Iraq attempted to accelerate its program to develop a nuclear weapon by using radioactive fuel from the Osiraq reactor. It made a crash effort in September, 1990 to recover enriched fuel from this supposedly safe-guarded reactor, with the goal of produced a nuclear weapon by April, 1991. The program was only halted after Coalition air raid destroyed key facilities on January 17, 1991.

After the first Gulf War, on April 3, 1991, the U.N. adapted ceasefire resolution 687. As part of this agreement, Iraq was required to destroy, under international supervision, all chemical and biological weapons and stocks of agents and all related development, research, and manufacturing facilities. In the following years, however, Iraq would not cooperate with inspectors. At the end of the second Gulf War, U.S. forces found over 500 chemical weapons proving that Iraq never destoyed their WMD in violation of this ceasefire agreement.

On January 13, 1993 warplanes from the United States, France and Britain bombed missile sites in southern Iraq. About 80 strike aircraft and 30 support planes took part. The New York Times reported that, "At the same time, Iraq offered to halt its raids into Kuwait. They have been taking place for several days and were a violation of United Nations resolutions. Iraq has also deployed missile batteries in forbidden areas and fired an Iraqi missile at an American plane, actions the United States has described as brazen provocations by Baghdad. In a further warning to Mr. Hussein that he could not continue to flout the will of the United Nations, Mr. Bush announced the dispatch of a battalion-sized task force, composed of about 1,250 American troops, to neighboring Kuwait, where they will act as a deterrent to further Iraqi incursions."

On January 18, 1993 the Seattle Post-intelligencer reported that the United States launched a cruise missile attack delivering "the political and diplomatic point" that Iraq must comply with United Nations resolutions. "In a dramatic crescendo for President Bush's final weekend in office, U.S. forces shot down a MiG-23 warplane and struck an Iraqi air defense installation. Hours later, U.S. warships launched about 40 Tomahawks into the night skies near Iraq's capital," they reported. It was the second strike on Iraq within five days. A White House Spokesman said a nuclear weapon fabrications plant was targeted in response to a series of weekend military provocations by Iraq.

On January 21, 1993, the day after President Bill Clinton was inaugurated, the Los Angeles Times reported, "A solid majority of Americans favor U.S. military intervention to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq." The Times cited a recent poll which asked Americans whether they would back an all-out effort to remove Saddam Hussein even "at the risk of losing some American lives" and 60% of those questioned said yes while only 30% said no.

On September 15, 1996 the Washington Post reported the CIA had spent $100 million, or an average of $20 million a year, in efforts to topple Saddam Hussein since the Gulf War. The Post reported that, "Although no U.S. order was given to any Iraqi dissident to kill Saddam, the CIA provided funds to groups that it knew were attempting to do so." When the covert program was expanded early in the year, the agency was authorized by the White House to support acts of sabotage inside Iraq that would create an image of a country descending into chaos. Several Iraqi dissidents claimed a military rebellion failed to materialize because Washington withheld a promised aerial bombardment of Iraqi military positions, but the Clinton administration dismissed the claim that aerial support was promised.

On March 26, 1997 Secretary of State Madeleine Albright proclaimed, "the evidence is overwhelming that Saddam Hussein's intentions will never be peaceful." In a major foreign policy speech at Georgetown University the Secretary of State was highly critical of the Iraqi dictator. "Consider that Iraq admitted producing chemical and biological warfare agents before the Gulf War that were sufficiently lethal to kill every man, woman and child on earth. Consider that Iraq has yet to provide convincing evidence that it has destroyed all of these weapons. Consider that Iraq admitted loading many of those agents into missile warheads before the war. Consider that Iraq retains more than 7,500 nuclear scientists and technicians, as well as technical documents related to the production of nuclear weapons. Consider that Iraq has been caught trying to smuggle in missile guidance instruments. And consider that according to Ambassador Ekeus, UNSCOM has not been able to account for all the missiles acquired over the years. In fact, Ekeus believes that it is highly likely that Iraq retains an operational Scud missile force, probably with chemical or biological weapons to go with it."

On November 16, 1997 the Sunday Times reported that Iraq was manufacturing poisonous gas at a secret location in Sudan. "Bypassing the ban on weapons of mass destruction which the United Nations imposed on Baghdad after its defeat in the Gulf war, Saddam Hussein and the Islamist government of General Omar al Bashir in Khartoum are making and stockpiling mustard gas for their mutual benefit." Since production started, the article reported, the Sudanese armed forces were known to have used mustard gas against the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) on at least two occasions.

On November 20, 1997 the New York Times reported that no arms inspections had taken place in Iraq since October 29 when Baghdad threatened to expel Americans on the monitoring teams. The Times also reported that the head of the United Nations inspection team recently went to the Security Council with photographs and documents demonstrating that Iraq continued to pose a threat in almost every area of weapons development. The photographs showed a convoy of trucks entering and leaving a factory after inspectors indicated it was a site they wished to visit. As an example of how Iraq changed its accounting, a chemical weapons expert said that in 1995 Iraq admitted to having made 160 kilograms of VX nerve agent. Then Iraq altered its figures to 240 kilograms, then to 1,250 kilograms. By June 1996, the Iraqis acknowledged they produced at least 3.9 tons of VX.

On November 23, 1997 CBS News "60 Minutes" ran an interview with Iraqi defector and former chief of military intelligence Wafiq al-Sammarrai. During this interview, Sammarrai said that Iraq had an active biological weapons program. He said the U.N. weapons inspectors were being deceived and that they would never be allowed inside the Presidential Palace because of documents kept there. Wafiq Sammarrai also said that Saddam Hussein had considered carrying out a biological weapons attack against the United States using anthrax.

On December 15, 1997 the Associated Press reported that Defense Secretary William Cohen had ordered all 1.5 million men and women in uniform to be inoculated against anthrax. The article mentioned, "The move comes amid the confrontation with Iraq's Saddam Hussein and the United Nations' efforts to uncover his weapons of mass destruction." The Chattanooga Free Pressreported at the time that Saddam had 2,100 gallons of anthrax toxin.

On January 28, 1998 the Senate passed Concurrent Resolution 71 "condemning Iraq's threat to international peace and security." Among the co-sponsors of this bill were Tom Daschle, John Kerry, Bob Graham, Patrick Moynihan, Robert Byrd, Patrick Leahy, and Christopher Dodd. This resolution "urges the President to take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." In defense of President Clinton's inclination to use military force in Iraq, Daschle said this resolution would "send as clear a message as possible that we are going to force, one way or another, diplomatically or militarily, Iraq to comply with international law."

On February 10, 1998, Yossef Bodansky, director of the U.S. House of Representatives Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, published a task force report compiled from information obtained from Arab opposition movements as well as from British, German and Israeli intelligence sources. The report said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction at that time including anthrax, nerve gas, and mustard gas. It also claimed that some Iraqi nuclear materials were being held in Algeria. Yossef Bodansky said a chemical weapons factory was being built at that time, with the help of Iraqi experts, south-west of Sudan's capital Khartoum for Islamic terrorists associated with Osama bin Laden. This 1998 report concludes, "And so, the US is planning an instant-gratification bombing campaign that would neither destroy Iraq's WMD operational capabilities nor touch its main WMD production lines in Libya and Sudan."

On February 17, 1998 President Clinton said, "Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who's really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too."

By late February 1998, U.S. forces in the gulf region had reached more than 40,000 and were reinforced with British and other allied contingents. The U.S. military build-up was due to Iraq's obstruction of U.N. (UNSCOM) weapons inspections. On February 18, 1998 President Bill Clinton said, "If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." Five days later, however, Kofi Annan struck a deal with the Iraqi dictator that once again allowed U.N. inspectors permission to inspect. As the crisis receded, U.S. forces were drawn back down to their pre-1997 levels. Ten months after Saddam accepted Annan's offer, Saddam kicked U.N. weapons inspectors out of Iraq for good.

On February 26, 1998 CNN reported that Iraq is attempting to develop an unmanned aircraft capable of delivering nerve gas or the biological agent anthrax. http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/26/iraq.weapon/" target="_blank">

On March 24, 1998 the Daily Mail reported that Saddam Hussein was planning a deadly anthrax attack inside Britain. A top secret alert was sent out to security officials manning ports and airports demanding vigilance after intelligence sources alerted the British Government to the plot. It was reported that Saddam had plans to smuggle large amounts of anthrax inside "hostile countries" with bottles normally containing spirits or cosmetics as well as in cigarette lighters and perfume sprays.

On May 1, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-174, which made $5,000,000 available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition for such activities as organization, training, communication and dissemination of information, developing and implementing agreements among opposition groups, compiling information to support the indictment of Iraqi officials for war crimes, and for related purposes.

On August 3, 1998 the House of Representatives voted 407-6 to condemn Iraq for its "material breach" of U.N. resolutions and international agreements. Signed on August 14, 1998 by President Bill Clinton this resolution (Public Law 105-235) urged the President to take appropriate action to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations. It listed dozens of violations dating from 1991 and culminating with recent evidence that Iraq had produced chemical warheads for missiles.

On August 20, 1998, President Bill Clinton ordered a cruise missile attack against a chemical weapons factory in Sudan. The chemical weapons factory the U.S. hit was funded, in part, by Osama bin Laden who the U.S. believed responsible for the U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya. Thomas Pickering, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, told reporters, "We see evidence that we think is quite clear on contacts between Sudan and Iraq. In fact, El Shifa officials, early in the company's history, we believe were in touch with Iraqi individuals associated with Iraq's VX program."

On August 27, 1998 NPR's Mike Shuster reported that US justification for destroying a pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan had shifted from focusing on links to Saudi dissent Osama bin Laden, to alleged Iraqi chemical weapons experts believed to have been working in the Sudan to avoid UN weapons inspections in their homeland. US officials said Iraqi technicians came to the Sudan soon after Iraq's defeat in the Gulf War to continue their work on chemical weapons in Sudanese pharmaceutical plants.

On October 23, 1998 the BBC reported a Chief Petty officer in the Royal Navy was sentenced to 12 months in jail for leaking information to the media about a plot by Saddam Hussein to launch anthrax attacks inside the UK. The deadly toxin was to be smuggled into the UK disguised as harmless liquids. The story appeared in The Sun on March 24, 1998 under the headline 'Saddam's Anthrax in Our Duty Frees.'

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) passed by the House and Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 31, 1998 stated, "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." This legislation also allocated $97,000,000 to aid Iraqi democratic opposition organizations.

On November 15, 1998 the New York Times reported a massive air strike involving hundreds of cruise missiles was called off after a last-minute flurry of diplomatic activity. The New York Times reported, "Administration officials said Mr. Clinton had been urged by senior advisers to begin the air strikes earlier this week, if only to avoid the situation that is now unfolding, with the United States left once again in the awkward position of rushing a huge force to the Persian Gulf to confront Iraq, only to have the Iraqis back down at the last minute. But Mr. Clinton, they said, had decided to delay the attack until today so that more American warplanes and ships could be in place near Iraq. Officials said they feared that the Administration, which had largely abandoned hope that the United Nations weapons inspections would be allowed to resume in any meaningful way, was left with the worst of all scenarios: an ineffective inspection program, President Hussein still fully in charge, and a large American military force in the Persian Gulf without a clear mission."

On December 16, 1998 President Bill Clinton ordered an attack on Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Clinton said, "Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future."

On December 17, 1998 The Washington Post reported, "The opening U.S. attack against Iraq yesterday involved more than 200 cruise missiles launched from ships in the Persian Gulf and scores of bombs dropped from aircraft flying from the carrier USS Enterprise against targets across the country, defense officials said. With the strikes planned to last at least three days and possibly longer, officials said U.S. and British warplanes stationed in Persian Gulf states and B-52 bombers operating out of the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia would join the effort, which aims to pummel a broad range of targets critical to Iraq's weapons manufacturing and President Saddam Hussein's hold on power."

In an August 3, 1999 interview, Richard Butler, former chief weapons inspector for UNSCOM, said that Saddam Hussein had an "addiction" for weapons of mass destruction.

On September 8, 2001 the Washington Times wrote about a recently declassified semiannual CIA report covering the period from July to December of 2000. The CIA reported to congress that, "In the absence of UNSCOM or other inspections and monitoring since late 1998, we remain concerned that Iraq may again be producing biological warfare agents. Iraq has continued working on its L-29 unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) program, which involves converting L-29 jet trainer aircraft originally acquired from Eastern Europe. It is believed that Iraq has conducted flights of the L-29, possibly to test system improvements or to train new pilots. These refurbished trainer aircraft are believed to have been modified for delivery of chemical or, more likely, biological warfare agents." The CIA reported that, "Although we were already concerned about a reconstituted nuclear weapons program, our concerns were increased last September when Saddam publicly exhorted his 'Nuclear Mujahidin' to 'defeat the enemy'."

On November 25, 2001 The Washington Post wrote an article with details regarding Iraq's germ warfare program. According to the article, U.N. weapons inspectors got their first glimpse of Iraq's biological weapons program during an August 1991 inspection of Salman Pak, one of Iraq's premier biological weapons facilities. Iraqi documents later obtained by the United Nations indicated that Baghdad subsequently filled more than 50 bombs and missile warheads with a liquid form of anthrax. The Washington Post also reported that Iraq acknowledged producing at least 19,000 liters of botulinum toxin, using more than half to fill at least 116 bombs and missile warheads.

On September 12, 2002 George W. Bush gave a speech before the United Nations. Armed with a point-by-point list of Saddam Hussein's transgressions included in a White House paper entitled "A Decade of Deception and Defiance" of the United Nations, the President detailed how Saddam continued to develop weapons of mass destruction, engage in egregious human-rights violations, participated in international terrorism, and sought to evade economic sanctions and kept Kuwaiti property that should have been returned after the 1991 Gulf War.

On September 24, 2002, the British government released a report titled "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Assessment of the British Government." It was the judgement of the British government that Iraq had: continued to produce chemical and biological agents; tried covertly to acquire technology and materials which could be used in the production of nuclear weapons; sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa; and had learnt lessons from previous UN weapons inspections and had already begun to conceal sensitive equipment and documentation in advance of the return of inspectors. In his January 28, 2003 State of the Union address, George Bush said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." This quote would later be referred to as his "famous 16 words."

United Nations weapons inspectors returned to Iraq on November 27, 2002 for the first time since December 1998. In February 2003, one month prior to the outbreak of war, 14 shells containing mustard gas were destroyed in Iraq under UN supervision. According to the official United Nations report (page 30), samples taken from these shells showed the mustard gas produced over 15 years earlier was not degraded and "still of high quality."

On March 19, 2003 President George Bush announced, "My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger." Bush said, "We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities."

During the 9/11 hearings, former Clinton Defense Secretary William Cohen testified that the manager of a chemical weapons plant in Sudan (which was funded by Osama bin Laden and later destroyed by U.S. cruise missiles on Aug. 20, 1998) met in Baghdad with an Iraqi nerve gas expert.

On May 17, 2004, the U.S. military said a roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent had recently exploded near a U.S. military convoy. The discovery of nerve gas was followed by a second revelation from the military that another shell, equipped with mustard gas, had been found two weeks earlier.

On January 25, 2006, Former Iraqi General Georges Sada gave an interview to FOXNews regarding Iraq's missing WMDs. Sada, a top military advisor and the number two man in the air force, claims that Iraq's chemical weapons were moved to Syria prior to the war. Georges Sada is the author of the book called, "Saddam's Secrets: How an Iraqi General Defied and Survived Saddam Hussein."

On April 12, 2006 the White House issued a press release in response to an article in the Washington Post that criticized the administration’s claims about weapons of mass destruction and the justifications for war. It stated, "The Washington Post cites Iraqi WMD evidence as the only reason offered by President Bush for unseating Saddam Hussein..... But the President provided many other reasons for liberating Iraq." The press release from the White House listed six other reasons for the war: 1) Saddam Hussein Violated United Nations Security Council Resolutions; 2) Patrolling The UN-Mandated No-Fly Zone, U.S. And Coalition Forces Were Regularly Attacked; 3) Saddam Hussein Brutalized Iraq's Civilian Population; 4) Saddam Hussein Supported And Harbored Terrorist Organizations; 5) Saddam Hussein Had A History Of Pursuing And Using WMD; and 6) Removing Saddam Hussein Brought Freedom To The Heart Of The Middle East. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/04/20060412-8.html" target="_blank">

WMD found in Iraq. On June 21, 2006, Senator Rick Santorum (R, PA) called press conference and stated, "We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons." Reading from a declassified report Santorum said, "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."

Sharp, you know that when Obama pulled the troops from Iraq, it was done according to Bush withdrawal policy, and BTW troop surge implemented in Afghanistan under Obama copied Bush policy in Iraq. Barack Bush isn't so different then George Obama. liberals everyone should own one, keep them on a leash and make sure they're house broken.

Obama is Hillary Clinton's puppy dog.. She runs this country and most of the Communist agenda is hers including the National Health scam..

Lumping all these Muslims into one group is not prejudice it is a fact of life.. Their cult religion teaches them that Islam is the way and all must join or die.. With all their infighting, killing,mistreatment of women and greed they are not the peace loving people that they claim to be.. All other peaceful true religions do not exhibit this desire to kill.. Why is that? Maybe because from the time these Muslims are small children they are taught these things through their false cult-religion.. So beware the peaceful moderate Muslim because a call to action by their leaders is all it takes for them to riot.. It has already happened in Europe and started here when their unholy book was threatened with a match..

Road...well stated and perhaps one of the best analyses of late. Muslims are a hate filled culture with no logic, morals, understanding, or thought. Only kill non believers and always aided and abetted ( usually quietly of course ) by the " moderate muslims " in America and Europe.

NJ John - dude, learn to summarize, no one is going to take the time to read that entire post. The point of commenting on an article is to get your point across in a fairly brief and precise manner.

Optimistic aren't 'we'????

We need to petition our congressional leaders to get us the hell out of there!

I really like the "international war" part...lmao! I guess that's better than civil war!

That's coming in November 2012...

We need to petition our congressional leaders to get us the hell out of there!

In case you hadn't noticed, they're not "our" congressional leaders. They've all been bought and paid for and have sworn an oath of allegiance to Grover Norquist.

flbikerchick...Harry Reid is paid for and has a allegiance to Grover Norquist...go figure?

You mean George Soros don't you?

And the war will officially end December 21, 2012.

fiberchick you do know that the Senate is part of the Congress, the House being the other part

Time for the American ppl. to unite and let the employees know what we expect of them and not the other way around. Ever notice how arrogant these people are getting each year and what's even crazier is that the differences in the political arena keeps us divided. Really in the realm of things I'm believing it is a scenario of "good politician/bad politician, depends on whom is in charge at the time.

Want too end these conflicts and wars, it is very simple. 1) Re-enact the draft. 2) No deferments for anyone. 3) everyone has to spend @ least 13 months in an infantry unit w/o the ability to be assigned to the command post.

I'm sure he'll listen about as well as Mental-ass Bush did....

Sharp, you really need to get off the Bush Hate thing....he gone and this idiot of a President we have now is no better, if fact, worse! Two wrongs don't make a right!

At least Obama has set a date to get us out of there if we still had Bush brain we would stay indefinitely so the arms manufacturers and Haliburton could bleed us all dry! Go eat a turd John.

yeah New Jersey John...you're hypocrisy with anti-democratic bullsh*t is old...see it on every comment section of every article you can read...it's nothing but pre-election Republican plugs....

NJ, this is all Bush's fault. He's forcing Obama to make things worse.

Maddog...It's really people like you's fault...ya was a Bush-boy, rich bootlicker who appluded every dirty deed the criminal did...and when things aren't changed in half the time the cowboy had to screw it up...you spread your hate all in the name of the Republican party...you and those like you leave the comment section in political rich boys bullsh*t up to our chins.....

Peter, you know that Obama withdrawal from Iraq was determined by Bush genius. Sharp and you applude ( applaud) everything Obama does so whats your point?

no longer safe...when the hell was it ever safe... at least our boys ain't dieing by the hundreds when the last administration was in...

Sharp7

Every one of your posts goes back to blaming Bush...Obamanation has been in office over three years...isn't that enough time to "change"?

Odumbo is just a slick con artist with no plan and no experience and no accomplishments.

and what you forget...or conveniently fail to percieve is that the whole mess of being locked into the country was Bush's promises he made to the government he oversaw to be in power, never ever leaving a time table for withdrawl...your logic is that of one of those Afghanistan goat hearders smoking hash in a cave!!!!.....and I'd say Obama flushes more intellegence down the commode every morning than you ever thought about having...

I don't see how that's possible.

My point exactly....

Not very...Sharp are you

I know, it's high time we release the Kraken on these cavemen.

Very good, Steve. I didn't think many Americans were on my side about 'stopping all foreign aid'. Now we are almost committed to supplying the North Koreans with aid to feed their army? What the hell?

Demetrious, the North Koreans promised to be good so we fell for their bull@!$%# again....soon as they get the food, things will go back to "normal" with them threatening us and South Korea.

You know not of what you speak. Vietnam was funded during the entire war by Russia and China. They had a 1000 year history of aggressive nationalism, and a confuscian class structure that was ripe for communist indoctination. Afganistan is mostly a backward country, funded by Iran (hardly a cold-war Russia), with no real national identity and mostly tribal in composition. The importance of both countries to our national security however IS similar. Vietnam was considered a pivot point in the expansion of regional communism and of strategic significance given it's proximity to most countries in SE Asia. Afganistan is just as pivotal to regional security in the Middle East. The failure of the USA to employ appropriate tactical and strategic doctrine and instead concentrate on nation building in Vietnam, and the failure to control seditious behavior at home as FDR did during WW2 cost us the war. The domino effect WAS realized after we cut and ran with Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and parts of Northern Thailand falling under communist rulea and over 2 million people being killed AFTER we left. The Russians took over the military installations after we left Vietnam and established a lethal naval presence in SE Asis for over 15 years. The same flawed strategy, the same weakness of national resolve, the same ethical considerations that lost us the war in Vietnam will lose us the War in the Middle East, and the SAME increased threat to our people and a potential world war will be the result. Let's see how we like it when we are fighting a war in the Middle East about 50 times in magnitude to what we've been doing for the last 11 years, and I wonder how many on this blog will get the chance to be in THAT war? Enough said.

Hey GENIUS, you DON'T KNOW a damn thing and ALL you're doing is REGURGITATING the same LIES you Repubes kept chanting during the Vietnam Era! We ALL heard the LIE that the "Domino Theory" was going to happen and IT DIDN'T even though you try to make it APPEAR that way. THE FACTS are that Vietnam was an UNDEVELOPED, THIRD WORLD SHOLE JUST LIKE AFGANISTAN is. The ONLY difference between the two is CLIMATE and hence different terrain. As for the LIES spewed by you Repubes as to WHY we are STILL there in Afganistan after killing Bin laden, they're the SAME LIES we heard as to WHY we needed to stay in that THIRD WORLD SHOLE Vietnam forever. For those of us who KNEW way back then that VIETNAM was a LIE, a SCAM, and TOTALLY UNNECESSARY there's NOTHING you SELF DESCRIBED "historians" can lyingly say that's going to CHANGE the TRUTH! Vietnam NEVER was a THREAT to US security and when we finally left it went back to the THIRD WORLD SHOLE it was when we got there JUST LIKE Afganistan will do and be if we ever get out of there. ANYBODY who died in Vietnam died FOR NOTHING, and anybody who died in Desert SCAMII (Iraq) or Afganistan DIED FOR NOTHING. NEITHER Vietnam, Iraq, nor Afganistan were EVER a VIABLE threat to the USA. You LIARS need to get some more believeable propaganda, because those of us WHO WERE alive and COGNIZANT during Vietnam KNOW you're LYING and we don't consider ANYTHING you KNOW NOTHINGS say to be TRUTHFUL or VIABLE...nuff said GENIUS??

Hey Mr. Brain trust, a few facts. It was a Democrat (Kennedy) who increased our present in Vietnam "LIED" and a Democrat (Johnson) who escalated our presents "LIED" and move Social Security from a secured fund to the general fund so it could be used and has been ever since. It was a Democrat (Johnson) and his Administration (General Westmoreland) "LIED" who promoted the feasibility of winning the war, "win the hearts and minds" of the people and stop the spread of a Communismist take over and why I was drafted and went to Vietnam. It wasn't until a Republican (Nixon) took office that the war ended and a dialog with China came about. It was under a Democrat controlled Government we were "LIED" to and 52,000+ young men died! Put the cork back in the bottle, you're spewing rancid wine all over the place...nimnod!!!!....

ahh..yes...but...lets not forget the Eisenhower domino theroy policy...his pledge to protect, and to give financial and military aid to Vietnam...Kennedy, just had enough respect for Eisenhower to not make us look like liars, (sort of what's goin on now in Iraq and Afghanistan), and follow thru with it. Eisenhower's administration set up the democracy in Vietnam and promised them he would protect them. Kennedy out of respect for a WWII hero and feeling that our word should be our word held up to it. When it was blatant that communist nations were sending military support is why things escalated. Yes things got outta hand during the democratic administrations, especially with Johnson... but the spark to start the bondfire with Vietnam was with Eisenhower and the Republicans. You see through modern history...the democrats have backed Republicans like Eisenhower, Reagan, and sorrifully Bush in their endevours, unlike the Republicans who has no respect for anyone that isn't a rich Republican. Especially if something may good come of it because no matter how good it does the country...it isn't Republican sponsered......

Sharp: So in essence what you're saying is Democrats have a tendency to follow without good judgement, conscious or foresight, let the dice roll. If that be the case then we can expect nothing more than "obligeance" from the Democrats, even in the face of disaster? The same thing happened when egomaniac Republican Bush started these last 2 wars, they just went along with the program? I say screw both parties and go independent, save the heart ache!!!!!!

Wow. Your hatred for Republicans has made you delusional about Vietnam. The Deomcrats brought us into the war, escalated it beyond control, cost us 50,000 lives--all out of "respect" for Eisenhower?

Sharp, wrong! The Vietnam bebacle started back in 1949 (while still under French control) when communisn infected China. Fearing the spread of communism in Indochina, (and all the countries there falling like dominoes to communism) it was Truman who first sent aid to assist the French in fighting the Vietminh. The following administrations all committed to aid Vietnam. No combat troops were sent under the Eisenhower administration. This happened under the Kennedy administration. Sorry to burst your Republican hating bubble, but it looks like the Democrats were the spark for this bonfire.

Wow Robert you want to go around burning everyone in that part of the world? You must be taking lessons from Hitler.

That place needs to be nuked and while their at it do Iran too. They will do it to us as soon as their able. Maybe Obama can appoligize some more , that should save us.

That is why we got some many enemies around the world...all the politians think and act the same way you do! Brainless

Save the napalm, these people aren't worth it. Muslims love killing each other as much as they love killing Americans, they don't need help from us. We need to get out and let them enjoy their religion of peace all by themselves.

I don't agree with Nuking or Napalming them ... nukes and napalm will only cost American Taxpayers more money that has been or will soon be borrowed from China. Stop the hemmorage of money going to the Middle East period, bring our people home and start utilizing that money and train our men to work on our crumbling infrastructure.

The US needs to pull out of NATO...tell them to go to hell...they can be as back-stabbing dangerous as your average taliban....

Amen....

Well, that's where they belong.

We should outlaw the Koran too, like Main Kampf in Germany.