Five US Soldiers Die In Afghanistan - NATO

[maddezmom]

Source: AFP

KABUL (AFP)--Five U.S. soldiers have died after fighting insurgents in troubled southern Afghanistan, the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force said Friday.

Two of the soldiers were killed outright and three died of their injuries in three separate incidents Thursday, the military said.

"Two members were killed and one died from wounds as a result of an improvised explosive device detonation," ISAF said, referring to remote-control bombs that have become the scourge of foreign troops in Afghanistan.

"One service member died of gunshot wounds from an insurgent attack, and one service member died of wounds sustained in an insurgent attack while on patrol," the statement added.



Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090925-703086.html

[sam sarrha]

1. get out of afganistan... it is a lost cause, it's tragic, but it is a trap, if we cant flood the

place with NATO soldiers... get the hell out

[stuball111]

3. More soldiers? for a pipeline?

That's what the fighting's about...It's a trap for anybody involved, and a no win war. BUT the "insurgents" ( I love that word... seems so....neutral and like those people are the aggressors) or rather anti-western people of the region, were jumping up and down when they heard Bush was sending Americans over THERE. A lot easier to have the enemy come to your town so you can kill them in your own back yard. The whole deal is about PIPELINE to transport middle east oil to the west. They are no more a threat to the west than they were before or ever will be. The west has always been subject to terrorism for it's economic policies, and always will be until those are changed. Pulling out, investing in alternative energy, and keeping a closer watch at home is the answer.

[harmonicon]

9. I think your geography is a bit off there

While I know there are pipeline plans, for middle east oil to go through afghanistan to get to the west, it would have to take a detour another thousand or so miles east before heading west. Afghanistan is in central Asia.

[KansDem]

11. Carpet of gold, carpet of bombs...

From 2003

In the book ''Bin Laden, la verité interdite'' (''Bin Laden, the forbidden truth''), that appeared in Paris on Wednesday, the authors, Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie, reveal that the Federal Bureau of Investigation's deputy director John O'Neill resigned in July in protest over the obstruction.

Brisard claim O'Neill told them that ''the main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were U.S. oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it''.

The two claim the U.S. government's main objective in Afghanistan was to consolidate the position of the Taliban regime to obtain access to the oil and gas reserves in Central Asia.

They affirm that until August, the U.S. government saw the Taliban regime ''as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of an oil pipeline across Central Asia'', from the rich oilfields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean.

Until now, says the book, ''the oil and gas reserves of Central Asia have been controlled by Russia. The Bush government wanted to change all that''.

But, confronted with Taliban's refusal to accept U.S. conditions, ''this rationale of energy security changed into a military one'', the authors claim.

''At one moment during the negotiations, the U.S. representatives told the Taliban, 'either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs','' Brisard said in an interview in Paris.

--more--
Democrats.com

Apparently, the Taliban chose the "carpet of bombs..."

[Igel]

12. History, too.

The pipeline was planned a while back--it would take it to a port on the Pak or Indian coast. But history doesn't wait, and didn't wait, so as a result the pipelines were built running west. It gives Russia possible geopolitical advantage, but that relies upon Russia doing what many say they would never do--intimidate, pressure, and possibly occupy the strip of land separating the Black and diminishing Caspain seas.

In other words, the maps remain in web-space and therefore the plans attached to it are always going to be implemented as soon as possible, but the demand's since been fulfilled, mostly, in real-space.

There is vestigial demand, however, from India. Building a pipeline through Afghanistan is a foolish way of satisfying that demand because there's just a vanishingly small border between India and Afghanistan, in a not-too-accessible geologically active region. To finish the pipeline all the way to India in a reasonable way would require building through Pakistan and make India even more reliant on a country that considers it its arch-enemy. (They import some NG from Iran already, however.)

[ro1942]

10. Couldn't agree more, thanks

[sam sarrha]

14. ......ahhhh Eastern European Oil, they see the overthrow of Saudi Oligarchy soon, we actually have

more oil than they do.. huge deposits in the Gulf off FL, but very deep, we are beginning to build the infrastructure for tapping it.. it will be a while.. we want to use up all theirs first so we can dominate them.

[barbtries]

2. stop the WARS

:cry:

[saigon68]

6. "Bring Em On" shouted the AWOL CHIMPANZEE

[ixion]

4. well, that's what happens when you're a hostile occupier

we should not be in Afghanistan.

[laststeamtrain]

5. Who'll be the first war pimp to say we have to send more troops?

Isn't that the way the illogic goes?

These troops died so we have to send more troops to possibly die. We need more troops to win (that'll be the day) or else all the previous deaths are meaningless.

No More Troops. Once they're there it's hard to get them out. That's the immediate thing. Then figure out a workable sequence for withdrawing completely.

Every 'leader' in Afghanistan is a corrupt thug. Our presence there is NOT helping. Let's get real.

The war drums are beating. Let's not buy in to the BS.

[saigon68]

16. The Present Occupant is rehearsing to sing

[MetaTrope]

7. Will this receive as much media coverage as the death of Tim Russert's father?

Didn't think so.

[Soylent Brice]

8. .

[joeycola]

13. good god, protect our troops.

[Mari333]

15. if Obama loses in 2012 it will be because of THIS

get our kids OUT OF THERE

[bemildred]

17. "troubled southern Afghanistan"?

You have to wonder what it would take to have it called a war zone or combat theater?

Seems to be the same old problem with "IEDs", car bombs, and truck bombs. Who could have forseen this?

[laststeamtrain]

18. The smart people are reading Giap's People's War.

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

Say what you want about Giap. He's a winner.

No MORE troops & a methodical withdrawal.

Let's get real.

Fuck this Mickey Mouse shit.

[bemildred]

19. But McChrystal and these other tools are SUPPOSED to have read Giap.

And understood too. But, as you say, fat fucking chance. They still seems to think that stomping around like elephants with fancy weapons wins wars, even if you don't know what "win" means, as in this case.

[laststeamtrain]

20. I know. You know. Is it Rambo movies? Chuck Norris-Golan-Globus productions?

Are they living in Mickey Mouse reality?

Has pop culture overtaken a fair assessment of what's what?

I'm lost most of the time.

Plenty of fair-to-middling Democrats seem to be OUT OF THEIR MINDS when it comes to war. Drunk on American exceptionalism.

Of course, however it goes, war-profiteers are going to rake in the bucks.

OK, here it is. I want the Democratic Party to be the anti-war, anti-imperial party.

It just doesn't seem like that's going to happen. "Democrats" are preventing it.