Print

[marilyn.monroe]

http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/08/12627789-6-us-soldiers-killed-in-roadside-bomb-attack-in-eastern-afghanistan?lite

Updated at 8:30 p.m. ET: KABUL, Afghanistan - Six U.S. soldiers were killed in a bomb attack in eastern Afghanistan on Sunday, officials confirmed to NBC News, on a day where a total of 29 people died from roadside bombs and insurgent attacks.

The identities soldiers were withheld pending notification of next of kin, NBC News chief Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski reported.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The deaths take the number of NATO troops killed in the last two days to eight, one of the deadliest periods of violence for foreign troops in weeks. 

[Professor H]

Yet our Administration keeps apologizing for our military's attempts to stop them.

[Baby Hitler]

Yet our Administration keeps apologizing for our military's attempts to stop them.

Our leaders apologized so that they could get supplies to the troops.

I guess it would have been more patriotic to not apologize, and leave our troops out to dry without supplies.

[Pax]

    Are we the readers supposed to be offering condolences to the dead mercenaries' families or applauding the demise of six international terrorists?  Hmm... 

[Professor H]

Our leaders apologized so that they could get supplies to the troops.

I guess it would have been more patriotic to not apologize, and leave our troops out to dry without supplies.

Our "Political" leaders you mean... 

who was going to stop us from re-supplying our troops? 
It was about $$ - as the troops were getting supplies from a different route that cost more.
 
So you think it wise to show weakness and apologize to save money, so the Pakistanis can point and say - look we made them do it?

What do you apologize for next? now the tone is set all the region will be expecting one...

[Frenchfry]

Our "Political" leaders you mean... 

who was going to stop us from re-supplying our troops? 
It was about $$ - as the troops were getting supplies from a different route that cost more.
 
So you think it wise to show weakness and apologize to save money, so the Pakistanis can point and say - look we made them do it?

What do you apologize for next? now the tone is set all the region will be expecting one...

And had there been no apology...you would've attacked the administration for NOT trying to save money.

"The logic was that this was not a full-throated apology but that it was enough of a statement of regret, using terms associated with an apology, to get us across the GLOC finish line," the official said, using the acronym used for the supply routes - or Ground Lines of Communications - that Pakistan shut down after the November 26 border attack.

"It was a semantic high-wire act."

U.S. officials saw political reaction to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's June 13 congressional testimony - in which he said that the supply route closure was costing an extra $100 million a month - as a meaningful sign that an apology wouldn't trigger a political storm for Obama.

There were also suggestions that patience was growing short among Washington's NATO allies, who began to signal interest in unilateral arrangements of their own with Pakistan.

Another U.S. official said that while France and Britain - British Foreign Secretary William Hague made a visit to Islamabad in mid-June - expressed eagerness to have the ground routes open, there was never any suggestion that fellow NATO nations would break ranks with the United States.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-07-11/news/sns-rt-us-usa-pakistan-apologybre86a05e-20120710_1_supply-routes-apology-thomas-nides

Note that it says the supply route closure was costing an extra $100 million a month...
Not exactly chump change....but it's interesting that your faux outrage suggests you were willing to forgo the savings.
As usual you've expressed the right-wing point-of-view on every issue.....but there's one small distinction in this particular case....I suspect you've never served in the military.

[Professor H]

As usual you've expressed the right-wing point-of-view on every issue.....but there's one small distinction in this particular case....I suspect you've never served in the military.

Got you down as an apologist, probably a Carter influence the Democrats have never been able to get away from...

I'll bite - what does serving in the military have to do with apologizing to foreign leaders ego's?     

[Frenchfry]

Got you down as an apologist, probably a Carter influence the Democrats have never been able to get away from...

I'll bite - what does serving in the military have to do with apologizing to foreign leaders ego's?   

As usual, your assumptions are wrong...but nice try at an insulting response.

You didn't answer the question. Are you ashamed that you never served? Lacked courage? Or were you born with a silver-spoon and felt military service was beneath you....meant for peons only? Or else why wouldn't you understand the significance of a well-crafted statement of regret to re-open that supply route.

I mean...it seems you don't have the best interest of the troops or the military operation at heart.

At the very least one would think saving $100 million a month would mean something to a constantly complaining deficit hawk.

But it's purely partisan politics for you....principle be damned.

So you can quit pretending that what the US had to do somehow violated your sense of pride....you never really deserved it in the first place.

[Professor H]

As usual, your assumptions are wrong...but nice try at an insulting response.

You didn't answer the question. Are you ashamed that you never served? Lacked courage? Or were you born with a silver-spoon and felt military service was beneath you....meant for peons only? Or else why wouldn't you understand the significance of a well-crafted statement of regret to re-open that supply route.

I mean...it seems you don't have the best interest of the troops or the military operation at heart.

At the very least one would think saving $100 million a month would mean something to a constantly complaining deficit hawk.

But it's purely partisan politics for you....principle be damned.

So you can quit pretending that what the US had to do somehow violated your sense of pride....you never really deserved it in the first place.

Not sure how you leaped to that conclusion -  and yes I suppose following Carter's legacy of being weak would seem as an insult (even you recognized it).   I base that opinion on his policies, and directions of the military during his term.   

Since you asked - I will also - what branch did you serve and for how long?

Vietnam was over and they didn't even have selective service when I turned 18.  (I went to sign up and was told they didn't require it anymore)
When I graduated from college there were no conflicts or wars (technically Korea is still a conflict).

I can assure you those in my family that did serve (3 Vietnam - Navy/Marine/Army, and one remaining WWII vet), all have the same beliefs I hold, as I learned from them.  Respect and Support the troops, provide services after their time/service, and keep our military and country strong.

I'm not saying we should never apologize.
There are appropriate times for apologies - when deaths are involved, and they should be done in a timely fashion at the appropriate level...   

This case and one in North Korea are the only times I can find where it was demanded of our politicians and they did it.  Once to release prisoners of war, and now this time to maybe open a supply road.   
In fact President Carter refused to apologize to Iran to release the hostages (a fact I didn't know)...

Here is a link for political apologies around the world -
http://www.upenn.edu/pnc/politicalapologies.html

[marilyn.monroe]

My main concern is Pakistan Nukes. It makes no sense to go around telling those countries they can't have nukes when we are the biggest Nukeheads of them all. The gov is creating more terrorists than they take out, and the Taliban are just going to take back over.

[Frenchfry]

Not sure how you leaped to that conclusion -  and yes I suppose following Carter's legacy of being weak would seem as an insult (even you recognized it).   I base that opinion on his policies, and directions of the military during his term.   

Since you asked - I will also - what branch did you serve and for how long?

Vietnam was over and they didn't even have selective service when I turned 18.  (I went to sign up and was told they didn't require it anymore)
When I graduated from college there were no conflicts or wars (technically Korea is still a conflict).

I can assure you those in my family that did serve (3 Vietnam - Navy/Marine/Army, and one remaining WWII vet), all have the same beliefs I hold, as I learned from them.  Respect and Support the troops, provide services after their time/service, and keep our military and country strong.

I'm not saying we should never apologize.
There are appropriate times for apologies - when deaths are involved, and they should be done in a timely fashion at the appropriate level...   

This case and one in North Korea are the only times I can find where it was demanded of our politicians and they did it.  Once to release prisoners of war, and now this time to maybe open a supply road.   
In fact President Carter refused to apologize to Iran to release the hostages (a fact I didn't know)...

Here is a link for political apologies around the world -
http://www.upenn.edu/pnc/politicalapologies.html

Well knowing that you and the others on the extreme right often exhibit disdain for Carter....it wasn't a huge leap to realize your intent was to disparage.

So your excuse for not enlisting is that they didn't require it?
That's rich.

To answer your question....I volunteered at 17, right out of high school....and yes the conflict was very much active.

As for the rest, the details you asked for are about as relevant as asking for the number of hairs on your sack....but admittedly that may not be a fair comparison considering you chose not to serve so that answer is apparent.

Just as I thought, your faux patriotism emanated from familial indoctrination.....and I don't mean that in a bad way...it's not your fault, brainwashing has been going on for eons.

But we're getting away from the point....you're entitled to your opinion...even though you don't know what you're talking about.

[Professor H]

Well knowing that you and the others on the extreme right often exhibit disdain for Carter....it wasn't a huge leap to realize your intent was to disparage.

So your excuse for not enlisting is that they didn't require it?
That's rich.

To answer your question....I volunteered at 17, right out of high school....and yes the conflict was very much active.

Thank you for your service.

Puzzled why you aren't proud of your length of service or branch...

Not sure why you look down on those who didn't volunteer in the all volunteer armed forces.
It is a good Idea and one practiced in other countries - that all serve,
but even those countries offer alternative services as options to the military.

You chose to enlist -  and I hope you hold some form of skills and career from the experience...
I chose College and a career - that entailed public service.


Back to the Topic - Even Carter didn't apologize on demand... 

[LessGovernment]

"Iraq and Afghanistan are disasters and anyone who asserts otherwise is misinformed." - decorated combat veteran Colonel Douglas Macgregor (ret) 

Read more here:

http://thedailybell.com/3791/Anthony-Wile-Colonel-Douglas-Macgregor-on