Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: unclewest who wrote (327931)	10/6/2009 9:29:15 PM
From: mph	7 Recommendations Respond to of 793955

I wonder if Mr. Beta BHO will feel the need to respond to Palin's FB Comments<g>: Sarah Palin: We Must Win in AfghanistanSarah Palin's Notes We Must Win in AfghanistanShare Today at 2:57pm For two years as a candidate, Senator Obama called for more resources for the war in Afghanistan and warned about the consequences of failure. As President, he announced a comprehensive new counterinsurgency strategy and handpicked the right general to execute it. Now General McChrystal is asking for additional troops to implement the strategy announced by President Obama in March. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, sisters and brothers in harm's way in Afghanistan right now. We owe it to all those brave Americans serving in uniform to give them the tools they need to complete their mission. We can win in Afghanistan by helping the Afghans build a stable representative state able to defend itself. And we must do what it takes to prevail. The stakes are very high. The 9/11 attacks were planned in Afghanistan, and if we are not successful there, al Qaeda will once again find a safe haven, the Taliban will impose its cruelty on the Afghan people, and Pakistan will be less stable. Our allies and our adversaries are watching to see if we have the staying power to protect our interests in Afghanistan. I recently joined a group of Americans in urging President Obama to devote the resources necessary in Afghanistan and pledged to support him if he made the right decision. Now is not the time for cold feet, second thoughts, or indecision -- it is the time to act as commander-in-chief and approve the troops so clearly needed in Afghanistan.

To: unclewest who wrote (327931)	10/7/2009 6:06:08 AM
From: FJB	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793955

'More than 100' enemy killed during Nuristan battle: US military By BILL ROGGIOOctober 6, 2009 10:36 AM longwarjournal.org The US military now claims that more than 100 enemy fighters were killed during the Oct. 3 assault on two joint Afghan and US outposts in Nuristan province. The military also backed away from its previous statement that a "Nuristani tribal militia" conducted the attack and said the attack was a collaborative effort by multiple extremist groups. Several days ago, more than 300 enemy fighters launched the attack on the two remote outposts in the district of Kamdish, just 10 miles from the Pakistani border, after organizing at a nearby mosque and a village. The US military is now claiming that more than one-third of the assault force was killed while US and Afghan forces repelled the attack. Initially, the US had said "several" fighters were killed, but various press accounts put the number at between 20 to 50 fighters killed. "A more detailed battlefield assessment following the Oct. 3 attack in Nuristan has determined that enemy forces suffered more than 100 dead during the well-coordinated defense -- significantly higher losses than originally thought," the US military said in a press release. The attack, which resulted in eight US soldiers and upwards of seven Afghan police killed, and the capture of a district police chief and 13 policemen, was the largest loss of US troops in a single battle since last year's battle in Wanat, also in Nuristan. Today's disclosure of enemy casualties marks a departure from a recent policy by the US military and the International Security Assistance Force, which had maintained that reporting on the number of enemy killed during combat was counterproductive and the command would no longer provide estimates to the media or in press releases. Attack was not launched by a 'Nuristani tribal militia' The US military has also backtracked from its initial statement that the assault was carried out by a "Nuristani tribal militia" and that "the sources of the conflict in the area involve complex tribal, religious and economic dynamics." "Additionally, ISAF now believes that while the attack was conducted by local anti-Afghan forces, ... local Taliban and elements of Hezb-e Islami Gulbuddin may have helped facilitate the attack," the US military stated in a press release today. US military and intelligence officials told The Long War Journal on Oct. 4 that the attack was carried out by local Taliban fighters under the command of Nuristan shadow governor Dost Mohammed and that the strike force was aided by al Qaeda's paramilitary Shadow Army, or the Lashkar al Zil. Elements of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's Hezb-e Islami Gulbuddin man units within the Shadow Army. For more information on the battle in Kamdish, see: "US, Afghan troops beat back bold enemy assault in eastern Afghanistan." For more information on al Qaeda's Shadow Army, see: "Al Qaeda's paramilitary 'Shadow Army.'" Read more: longwarjournal.org