Cindy Sheehan's silence is deafening ...

ViRedd

New Member
Why no photos of flag draped coffins? Why no protests in the streets? Where is MSNBC?

By SEBASTIAN ABBOT

KABUL (AP) - The number of U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan has roughly doubled in the first three months of 2010 compared to the same period last year as Washington has added tens of thousands of additional soldiers to reverse the Taliban's momentum.

Those deaths have been accompanied by a dramatic spike in the number of wounded, with injuries more than tripling in the first two months of the year and trending in the same direction based on the latest available data for March.

U.S. officials have warned that casualties are likely to rise even further as the Pentagon completes its deployment of 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan and sets its sights on the Taliban's home base of Kandahar province, where a major operation is expected in the coming months.
"We must steel ourselves, no matter how successful we are on any given day, for harder days yet to come," Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at a briefing last month.

In total, 57 U.S. troops were killed here during the first two months of 2010 compared with 28 in January and February of last year, an increase of more than 100 percent, according to Pentagon figures compiled by The Associated Press. At least 20 American service members have been killed so far in March, an average of about 0.8 per day, compared to 13, or 0.4 per day, a year ago.

The steady rise in combat deaths has generated less public reaction in the United States than the spike in casualties last summer and fall, which undermined public support in the U.S. for the 8-year-old American-led mission here. Fighting traditionally tapers off in Afghanistan during winter months, only to peak in the summer.
After a summer marked by the highest monthly death rates of the war, President Barack Obama faced serious domestic opposition over his decision in December to increase troops in Afghanistan, with only about half the American people supporting the move. But support for his handling of the war has actually improved since then, despite the increased casualties.

The latest Associated Press-GfK poll at the beginning of March found that 57 percent of those surveyed approved his handling of the war in Afghanistan compared to 49 percent two months earlier. The poll surveyed 1,002 adults nationwide and had a margin of error of plus or minus 4.2 percentage points.

Michael O'Hanlon, a foreign policy expert at the Brookings Institution, said the poll results could partly be a reaction to last month's offensive against the Taliban stronghold of Marjah in Helmand province, which the Obama administration painted as the first test of its revamped counterinsurgency strategy.

Some 10,000 U.S., NATO and Afghan forces seized control of the farming community of about 80,000 people while suffering relatively few deaths. But the Taliban continue to plant bombs at night and intimidate the locals, and the hardest part of the operation is yet to come: building an effective local government that can win over the loyalty of the people.

"My main thesis ... is that Americans can brace themselves for casualties in war if they consider the stakes high enough and the strategy being followed promising enough," O'Hanlon said. "But such progress in public opinion is perishable, if not right away then over a period of months, if we don't sustain the new momentum."
A rise in the number of wounded - a figure that draws less attention than deaths - shows that the Taliban remain a formidable opponent.

The number of U.S. troops wounded in Afghanistan and three smaller theaters where there isn't much battlefield activity rose from 85 in the first two months of 2009 to 381 this year, an increase of almost 350 percent. A total of 50 U.S. troops were wounded last March, an average of 1.6 per day. In comparison, 44 were injured during just the first six days of March this year, an average of 7.3 per day.

The increase in casualties was partly driven by the higher number of troops in Afghanistan in 2010. American troops rose from 32,000 at the beginning of last year to 68,000 at the end of the year, an increase of more than 110 percent.

"We've got a massive influx of troops, we have troops going into areas where they have not previously been and you have a reaction by an enemy to a new force presence," said NATO spokesman Lt. Col. Todd Breasseale.

The troop numbers have continued to rise in 2010 in line with the recent surge. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday that a third of the additional forces, or 10,000 troops, are already in Afghanistan. They plan to have all 30,000 troops in the country before the end of the year.

U.S. officials have said they plan to use many of the additional forces to reassert control in Kandahar province, where the insurgents have slowly taken territory over the past few years in an effort to boost their influence over Kandahar city, the largest metropolis in the south and the Taliban's former capital.

Many analysts believe the Kandahar operation will be much more difficult than the recent Marjah offensive because of the greater dispersion of Taliban forces, the urban environment in Kandahar city and the complex political and tribal forces at work in the province.

The goal of both operations is to put enough pressure on the Taliban to force them to the negotiating table to work out a political settlement to end the war - a process the U.S. believes will only gain momentum once the militant group has lost traction on the battlefield. "Until they transition to that mode, then we will have fighters ready to take shots at us and plant IEDs (improvised explosive devices)," said Lt. Col. Calvert Worth Jr., commanding officer of the 1st Battalion, 6th Marines Regiment in central Marjah.
 

SCARHOLE

Well-Known Member
They new that if Obama is elected he wouldnt have the resolve to finish that fight, especially since his election was based on announcing hes geting us out if the middle east asap, an letting them get back to normal terroriism. They just got to wait us out, an they will. Wich is why all the terrorist an dictators love Obama he posses less of a threat than a Reagan.
 

Anjinsan

Well-Known Member
They have beaten the English and the Soviets the same way they will beat us...they have all the time in the world and it costs them very little to live at home. It costs us HUGE $$$ to have that many people and equipment over seas. They can sell opium for profits...a crop that never loses money...our economy is in the shitter. They will prevail.
 

Anjinsan

Well-Known Member
They have beaten the English and the Soviets the same way they will beat us...they have all the time in the world and it costs them very little to live at home. It costs us HUGE $$$ to have that many people and equipment over seas. They can sell opium for profits...a crop that never loses money...our economy is in the shitter. They will prevail.
And Cindy was a liberal puppet. she might not have known it...but everyone else did.
 

Anjinsan

Well-Known Member
Because if she tried to set up camp outside of Obama's Chicago digs she'd get hauled away to jail in about 15 minutes? lolz.

I really don't know...maybe she still is enjoying some small amounts of liberal funding. But if her IQ was higher than a houseplant she'd realize that Cheney isn't even a part of the equation anymore.
 

Dragline

Well-Known Member
Wasn't Cindy Sheehan arrested a few weeks ago protesting somewhere? I could have sworn I heard about it in a news brief.
 

RickWhite

Well-Known Member
The Left doesn't think - they emote.

The Left was outraged by Bush beating Gore in the election and they felt that the election was "stolen" regardless of how many times the vote counts showed Bush was the winner.

Because they were so angry over this, their general disdain for everyone not on the left was amplified and manifested into the Bush hatred phenomenon. Because they hated Bush so much, they hated everything he did. Had Bush cured cancer, they would have found a reason to hate it.

The Left hated our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan not because they hated what we were doing, but because it was Bush who was doing it. Now that someone they like is in office, their outrage has been thoroughly extinguished.

Note that Obama has not pulled troops out of Iraq and has greatly increased troop presence in Afghanistan, and we don't hear a peep from the Left. Nor do we ever hear any discussion from the Left wing media on how our efforts in Iraq have succeeded.

The Left doesn't think - the Left emotes.
 

SouthernGanja

Active Member
The Left doesn't think - they emote.

The Left was outraged by Bush beating Gore in the election and they felt that the election was "stolen" regardless of how many times the vote counts showed Bush was the winner.

Because they were so angry over this, their general disdain for everyone not on the left was amplified and manifested into the Bush hatred phenomenon. Because they hated Bush so much, they hated everything he did. Had Bush cured cancer, they would have found a reason to hate it.

The Left hated our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan not because they hated what we were doing, but because it was Bush who was doing it. Now that someone they like is in office, their outrage has been thoroughly extinguished.

Note that Obama has not pulled troops out of Iraq and has greatly increased troop presence in Afghanistan, and we don't hear a peep from the Left. Nor do we ever hear any discussion from the Left wing media on how our efforts in Iraq have succeeded.

The Left doesn't think - the Left emotes.

Sad, but true! :clap:
 

ViRedd

New Member
If Obama were an honest person instead of a far-left political hack, here's what he would say:

"Because of the Progressive Movement's domestic energy policies over the last decades, the fact is, we cannot pull out of the Middle East. We will be there for generations to come. We, the members of the Progressive Movement, mostly through our cohorts in the Environmental Lobby, have lobbied, cajoled and pressured our government to put a cap on all of our own natural resources. No drilling. No new refineries. No clean coal. No natural gas. No nuclear. We have, in essence, shut down our homeland energy production, and as a result, we are dependent upon foreign countries to supply us with the energy we need. Even foreign countries that hate all we stand for. As it sits now, we cannot leave the Middle East, with all of it's oil reserves, to be taken over by the likes of the leadership of Iran and their puppets in the al-queida terrorist movement. If we left, they would have us by the short-hairs. Our economy runs on oil."

Now then, doesn't that just suck?
 

CrackerJax

New Member
That would mean continuing Bush's policies officially. Obama has screwed his own credibility.... and the nations.

Backhanding our allies and emboldening our enemies....that's some foreign policy...
 

ViRedd

New Member
That would mean continuing Bush's policies officially. Obama has screwed his own credibility.... and the nations.

Backhanding our allies and emboldening our enemies....that's some foreign policy...
That's exactly right, CJ. And, Obama, like Bush, has no choice the matter. We either stay in the Middle East, try to build democracies there, or bend over and take Iranian sanctions on oil.

Can you imagine what would happen to our economy if we had to operate with 50% of our current oil supply? Imagine ten-dollar-per-gallon gasoline. Twelve-dollar-per-gallon diesel. Triple the energy bills.

What this amounts to, is that the Progressive Movement, under the guise of environmentalism, has allowed us to be caught with our pants down.

When will those who have become the dupes of the Progressives wake up?
 

ViRedd

New Member
While we sit on the largest oil reserves IN THE WORLD.....
And natural gas. We should be converting our entire motorized transportation over to natural gas, just a Peru has done. Instead, we do the "intellegent" thing and convert our food into fuel. go figure.
 

CrackerJax

New Member
I used to be an environmentalist...in a big way. A large percentage of wetland systems, both created and restored in Florida has my signature.

But I realized along the way that the original creators and mentors had left the field, and were replaced by political assassins. the "honesty" ran out of the industry for the most part.
I didn't leave the enviro's...they left me.

So now we have a political faction action group which stands against domestic drilling, while 70% of all spills are from tankers. Talk about STUPID.

Now I find out that there is at least 400 years of clean energy on the Moon, and Obama axed it. Guess who told him what to do....enviro's. Can't lose the grip on the nation by actually SOLVING a HUGE supposed dilemma (like we're running out of oil...we're not by the way).

It's preposterous that they have any sway in our govt. at all. the best ppl from the movement are GONE. Only the political hacks are left at the top.
 

ViRedd

New Member
^^^ Its all part of the Progressive's 100-year-old plan to destroy the country as we know it.

I've been a life time conservationist. The Environmental Movement is nothing more than Marxism wrapped in green.
 

CrackerJax

New Member
Yes....that is what I am also...a conservationist.

I've been in the paper many times and on camera. In the beginning I was all gung ho...because I felt we were actually doing something worthwhile, but I saw the corruption creep into my specialty as it has with all of them.
My last interview I simply told the reporter the unvarnished truth about what was happening .... they didn't print that part, just the feel good stuff.

But I kept my principles intact, and at some point... that's all you can do.
 

RickWhite

Well-Known Member
Vi, you make some great points. But, it isn't just about oil, though as it stands oil is in fact a great reason to go to war.

The unspoken reality of the middle East is that radical Islam has become a threat to all of humanity. There are only so many options for dealing with this threat. Exercising hegemony over the region, planting the seeds of Democracy and hoping the domino effect takes hold is currently our best hope. All the other options are much worse and peace is unfortunately not one of them. The other options essentially boil down to playing defense while our enemies gain in strength and further infiltrate every corner of the globe; in which case a horrific war will be necessary. Or, declaring war on essentially the whole middle East sparking a global conflict.

There may be other options, but none of them look good. Our current course of action is by far the best choice. Sow the seeds of Democracy, give the people the option of a better life and change these countries from within. We saw this work in Germany and in Japan. The idea works and the Arabs know it. That is why so many of them are willing to sacrifice everything for their cause. Their whole life has been based on Islam and they know that Islam can not stand against Democracy and freedom. They therefore will do anything including murdering their own people in order to violently crush freedom and Democracy. They know, it is only when Democracy is brutally oppressed can Islam succeed.

That is the nature of the friction between the US and the Muslim world. They hate Israel for being like the US - for being an example of Western Democracy in their backyard - a grave threat to the oppressive ways of Islam. That is why they say "first the little Satan (Israel) and then the great Satan (US)." Think about it, Islam literally translated means "submission." A "Muslim" means "one who submits."
 
Top