Aug. 22, 2005, 12:14AM
2005 deadliest year for U.S. troops in Afghanistan
65 killed so far, and more violence likely before vote
New York Times
KABUL, AFGHANISTAN - This year is already the deadliest for U.S. soldiers
in Afghanistan since the war of 2001, and the violence is likely to
intensify before the nation's legislative elections on Sept. 18.
Four soldiers were killed Sunday, meaning that 13 have been killed in
August alone. Sixty-five Americans have been killed this year.
The latest four were killed when a roadside bomb hit their vehicle in the
south. Three others were wounded in that bombing, the U.S. military said.
And two U.S. Embassy employees were wounded when their convoy was hit by
an explosion close to Kabul, the capital, the military said.
A senior security official said that al-Qaida was paying renewed attention
to the country this year.
More money is coming in, probably from Arab countries, and a unit of
al-Qaida fighters has returned to the region from Iraq to teach local
fighters an unspecified "new tactic they learned in Iraq," one security
official said Sunday.
While election workers and candidates have been attacked, the violence has
spread wider, with the killings of more than six clerics and tribal elders
since May. On Sunday a cleric and another man were killed outside a
district mosque, the latest of several attacks on pro-government clergy.
A total of 181 U.S. soldiers have died in Afghanistan since military
operations began in October 2001, more than 100 of them in attacks. One of
the worst attacks was this June when 19 Americans died in the ambush of a
Navy Seal team and the downing of a helicopter.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/world/3319667
.
|
|
| User: "=?iso-8859-1?q?Uncle_Wally_da_HOOROO_Guru=99?=" |
|
| Title: Re: 2005 Deadliest Year For U.S. Troops In Afghanistan |
22 Aug 2005 02:30:04 AM |
|
|
wHAT'S THE TOTAL NUMBER OF US TROOPS KILLED for both Iraq & Afghanistan
?!???!
Last count just for Iraq was 1811 killed since the war began there on
March 19, 2003.....
The US invasion of Afghanistan began on October 7th, 2001.....
Total for both Iraq & AFghanistan must be well over the 2000 mark !
HOOROO
UNCLE WALLY
============
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: 2005 Deadliest Year For U.S. Troops In Afghanistan |
22 Aug 2005 06:57:43 AM |
|
|
Uncle Wally da HOOROO Guru™ wrote:
wHAT'S THE TOTAL NUMBER OF US TROOPS KILLED for both Iraq & Afghanistan
?!???!
Last count just for Iraq was 1811 killed since the war began there on
March 19, 2003.....
The US invasion of Afghanistan began on October 7th, 2001.....
Total for both Iraq & AFghanistan must be well over the 2000 mark !
Yes, but we had a reason for going into Afghanistan - bin Laden. We
didn't have a legitimate reason for sending American troops to their
death in Iraq.
Woods
HOOROO
UNCLE WALLY
============
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doc" |
|
| Title: Re: 2005 Deadliest Year For U.S. Troops In Afghanistan |
23 Aug 2005 07:15:53 AM |
|
|
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:X4jOe.35093$EX.34388@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Uncle Wally da HOOROO Guru™ wrote:
wHAT'S THE TOTAL NUMBER OF US TROOPS KILLED for both Iraq & Afghanistan
?!???!
Last count just for Iraq was 1811 killed since the war began there on
March 19, 2003.....
The US invasion of Afghanistan began on October 7th, 2001.....
Total for both Iraq & AFghanistan must be well over the 2000 mark !
Yes, but we had a reason for going into Afghanistan - bin Laden. We
didn't have a legitimate reason for sending American troops to their
death in Iraq.
Woods
HOOROO
UNCLE WALLY ============
We had a legitimate reason to pursue terrorists in Afghanistan, but my
objection to Bush's WOT is that it encompasses taking out the governments,
wrecking the infrastructures, killing civilians (whether collaterally or
otherwise), providing an instability that militant groups can easily
exploit in a number of ways.
As despicable as the Taliban was (and still is, what's left of it), it
didn't have the conventional force to threaten the US or its interests.
One could argue that it threatened the US (and whoever else) by giving
sanction to Bin Laden and Gang, providing it with recruits, money, etc.
However, the same thing could be said for almost any Arab leadership. (Do
we preemptively take them all out? Are we confident that militarily
installed democracies won't self-destruct, portending more serious
problems? I don't think so.) It's no secret, never has been, that some
Arab monarchies and dictatorships have cooperated with, or even created
terrorist groups (like Hezbollah, for example). My main problem with
taking out governments, is that it throws the preemptively attacked
nations into chaos that creates a vacuum, an opportunity, for internal and
external militant groups to exploit that instability -- and provide more
PR for militant recruitment, as well as providing much closer, more
available targets (US/Ally troops and any civilians who are thought to be
aiding the invasion-occupying force). Additionally, when that instability
is created suddenly in an area of a much needed world resource (oil), this
WOT strategy of Bush's greatly jeopardizes US and allied economic
stability--which, in turn, provides more opportunities for adversaries to
exploit.
Had this administration focused on going after terrorists that attacked
us, and did more to garner support from sympathetic Arab nations, hadn't
turned its back on the Security Council's decision, and continued with
inspections in Iraq, we'd be in a much stronger, more supportable position
now.
If the Iraqi people wanted freedom and democracy, then they should've been
allowed to make "the ultimate sacrifice" on their own to achieve it.
Telling them they couldn't have anything except a democracy, is to
interfere with the sovereign rights of those people to choose what they
want, and to fight it out among themselves, even in civil war, to decide.
They are fighting it out now, in a virtual civil war, made more
complicated by those who side with the US/Allies, and are attacked for
that reason alone (aside from long-standing blood feuds and power plays).
Their dependence on US military presence to defend their fledgling
democracy, is very similar to the South Vietnamese's fateful dependence.
All in all, the WOT policy stinks like last week's fish. It's the almost
perfect formula, if continued, to draw the world into a world war, over
oil, religion, political ideology, culture, and race. If these fucknuts in
office wanted to fulfill the "interpretations" of biblical prophecies
about the Apocalypse, they couldn't have picked a much better plan.
They should always keep reminding people, and acting on it in their
policy, that a relatively small group of militant Muslims are the world's
primary concern -- and not let bigotry and racism, hate and fear slop over
into an overall campaign against Islam, its believers, Arab people and
their governments, and their culture.
Yeah, we're sailing into the Holy Hellshit Sea, alright, and these
extremist sociopathic helmers on the USS Ship of Fools have over three
years to get us there. It shouldn't be that difficult, given the
prevailing winds.
Doc
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?iso-8859-1?q?Uncle_Wally_da_HOOROO_Guru=99?=" |
|
| Title: Re: 2005 Deadliest Year For U.S. Troops In Afghanistan |
22 Aug 2005 03:01:12 AM |
|
|
wHAT'S THE TOTAL NUMBER OF US TROOPS KILLED for both Iraq & Afghanistan
?!???!
Last count just for Iraq was 1811 killed since the war began there on
March 19, 2003.....
The US invasion of Afghanistan began on October 7th, 2001.....
Total for both Iraq & AFghanistan must be well over the 2000 mark !
HOOROO
UNCLE WALLY
============
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
