“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Monday, October 26, 2009

3 US choppers down in Afghanistan




US: 14 Americans killed in 2 helicopter crashes

The Associated Press
Monday, October 26, 2009; 5:24 AM

KABUL -- The U.S. military says 14 Americans have been killed in a series of helicopter crashes in Afghanistan.

A U.S. statement says seven U.S. troopers and three U.S. civilians working for the government died when their helicopter went down early Monday in western Afghanistan. Twelve Americans and 14 Afghans were injured.

Also Monday, two U.S. helicopters collided in southern Afghanistan, killing four American troops and wounding two others.

U.S. authorities have ruled out hostile fire in the collision but have not given a cause for the other crash. The Taliban say they shot down a helicopter in Badghis province of northwestern Afghanistan but it was unclear if this is the same incident.




The beat goes on for troops on the ground.

88 comments:

  1. Tough noogies for the grunts. CINC Obama knows best, another US Master and Ruler with a snappy salute.

    The Obama's are not allowing their two girls to get flu shots. He is looking out for their welfare.

    Of course, Obama is less concerned about about the welfare of US troops on the ground because in the crowd where Obama trucks, they don't do military service.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. President Barack Obama travels to Florida to address men and women serving in the Navy and Marine Corps at Naval Air Station Jacksonville.

    By an amazing coincidence and to reduce his carbon footprint, the president will deliver remarks at a Democratic fundraising reception and dinner in Miami, where he will spend the night.

    ReplyDelete
  4. A mile from South Station, an outpost of US marines in Helmand province, the tribal chief was openly hostile. “The Americans threaten our economy and take our land for bases. They promise much and deliver nothing,” he said.

    “People here regard the American troops as occupiers,” said Haji Khan, a leader of the Baluch tribe, who rules like a medieval baron. “Young people are turning against them and in time will fight them.”

    Inside South Station, soldiers are proud of the progress they have made. Until they arrived, this remote part of Helmand had not had a government presence for years. But many are pessimistic about where the conflict is heading.

    “I’m not much for this war. I’m not sure it’s worth all those lives lost,” said Sergeant Christian Richardson as we walked across corn fields that will soon be ploughed up to plant a spring crop of opium poppy.

    A New Yorker who joined the marines after 9/11 and served two tours in Iraq, Richardson, 24, said his men had achieved much. “You can see we are making progress, slowly. But when we leave, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda will surely return.”
    Times on Line

    ReplyDelete
  5. Blogger desert rat said...

    "If the government is tasked with funding science, then you will get science that pleases the governors."
    ---
    Ash said,

    In short - NO!

    Peer reviewed science is much more resilient then your statement asserts. Sure, as the Bush administration did, systematic purging of dissenting scientists will yield more favorable results but simply getting money from a particular source does not necessarily invalidate the scientific study.
    ---

    In short - YES!
    That's what
    Climate Change "Science"
    is all about:

    Big Bucks to promote hysteria/taxation/control.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Wonder why Sergeant Christian Richardson does not have 15 Afghans attached to his platoon.

    Want to train Afghans, attach them to the US Army or Marines.
    Certainly has proved a successful method of training indigs, in Korea.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Does Sergeant Christian Richardson consider his presence in Helmand to be representing the United States, or the Afghan government.

    Seems to me that after years of not having a presence in that Region the Afghan government still does not, but the US certainly does.

    ReplyDelete
  8. meanwhile, why the US spends itself into the abyss of ME sands, China continues the long March:

    Beijing (AsiaNews/Agencies) – China’s march towards Africa’s economic “colonisation” continues. A US$ 7 billion mining deal between Guinea and little-known China International Fund (CIF) underscores Beijing's rush into Africa. The deal, which includes both exploration and mining rights, was confirmed last week by the African country’s iron-fisted military junta.
    Under the terms of the deal, the CFI will have unfettered access to bauxite and other minerals in exchange for major revenues to the government of military leader Dadis Moussa Camara (pictured).

    According to various human rights groups, the contract was signed despite strong protests by the local population fearful that a Chinese invasion might affect local markets and reinforce the dictatorship.

    Back in September, the army opened fire against peaceful pro-democracy demonstrators, killing 157 and wounding about 1,200.

    Beijing refused to make any comments about the episode or the contract. The CIF also adopted the same posture.

    Some analysts are concerned that China might even sell weapons to Guinea. Europe, the African Union and ECOWAS have imposed an embargo because of the massacre.

    In many ways, the Guinea deal perfectly reflects established Chinese business practices in Africa, characterised by huge investments in a poor continent but also secrecy and scant regard for human rights.
    Asia Times

    ReplyDelete
  9. The Chinese are moving into Africa, but not a soldier in sight.

    While the US tries to be everywhere, with a gun.

    It's a fools errand.
    The Brits proved that model is not sustainable.
    Why eventually they even lost Hong Kong to Charlie Chi-com.
    Without a shot being fired.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Demographics won the day, for Charlie.

    Demographics always will, win, eventually.

    Hard to manage birth rates, using an Army as your primary policy tool.

    ReplyDelete
  11. While Team Obamamerica does not do military service, neither did Team Bush. Mr Cheney had better things to do, when his time to serve came, then went.

    ReplyDelete
  12. desert rat said...
    The Chinese are moving into Africa, but not a soldier in sight.
    While the US tries to be everywhere, with a gun.
    It's a fools errand.
    The Brits proved that model is not sustainable.
    Why eventually they even lost Hong Kong to Charlie Chi-com.
    Without a shot being fired.


    Rat speaks with such conviction, it's a shame he knows jack shit about what he speaks...

    Brits beat the crap out of China (never heard of the Opium war eh?) Then the Brits LEASED HK from the chinese for 100 years... Hong Kong legally was returned after the lease expired...

    rat, your such a knucklehead...

    less typing and a bit more reading would do you a whirled of good...

    ReplyDelete
  13. Sure "Misdirection" the Brits beat the Chinese when the Brits were expansionist and aggressive.

    Surly did.

    But then they lost all their colonies.
    Lost all the protectorates.

    Even lost Hong Kong.

    I am speaking of the 20th century, not the 19th.

    Time marches on.

    I am speaking of models, mercantile vs military.
    Mercantile wins in the modern whirled.

    If there is a security overwatch.
    But victory is measured by the mercantile, not the military, now.

    The US Security overwatch is more than adequate to the task. Turkey has the Europeons southern flank, all is well.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The Brits beat the Chinese warlords.

    Then Charlie Chi-com beat the Queen into submission, without firing a single shot.

    Same held true, for the Brits, in India. They lost without a fight.

    There was no modern military answer to Ghandi. Just as there is no answer to the Taliban, if you are not willing not destroy them, root and branch.

    ReplyDelete
  15. China has expanding business, wealth and influence and $2.3 trillion in the bank.

    The US on the otherhand...

    I rest.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Doug wrote:

    "Climate Change "Science""

    There is the rub Doug, (and Rat, and Whit, Quirk ect.) - the sneer quote on the term science. Science is not opinion. If you do good science, as in follow the "scientific method" throwing money at something should not influence the result. Let's create a very simplistic example to try to demonstrate.

    Take the question of the sun's rising. We can state that the sun will rise in the east each morning. We can then observe where the sun rises. Even if the 'Government' spent billions with the desire to demonstrate that the sun rises in the west you will not get that outcome. Instead each individual piece of data will serve to confirm the hypothesis that "the sun rises in the east". The theory will never be proved but the evidence will confirm it.

    Sure, if the government spends billions researching climate change you will get a lot of studies on climate change but the fact of studying climate change will not alter the results of the studies. To condemn the science of climate change because the government funded some of it is silly. It is not silly to question the studies and their conclusions. For example, Rufus posted a link to charts on temperatures and stated that 2008 was actually cooler than 1998 (or something like that). That is fine, he is debating the science - the hypotheses, data, and conclusions. Mind you I think he is erring by looking at a very narrow time frame range but that is a fundamentally different argument then the simplistic nostrum that 'governors funding science will yield results pleasing the governors'.

    ReplyDelete
  17. As with gun laws and trespassing, EMP attacks and a whole array of other issues "misdirection" your knowledge of history, law and military strategies and tactics is limited, at best. Faulty at worse.

    ReplyDelete
  18. 2164th: Of course, Obama is less concerned about about the welfare of US troops on the ground because in the crowd where Obama trucks, they don't do military service.

    They're missing out. My Cryptologic Techician - Technical "A" and "C" schools and experience in the field led me to become the Undersea Warfare Princess when I did my six. I repair power and guidance systems for Navy torpedoes, Air Force fuel management systems, and I write test software. I've got a cushy federal job in the middle of the Great Recession (nice work if you can get it), a 401k-like plan that is better than a 401k, and I used my VA benefits to get a nice rambler in a quiet neighborhood with zero down and I pay zero in mortgage insurance.

    ReplyDelete
  19. What kind of mileage does your Rambler get, T?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Goldberg says "60 Minutes" did a great piece on Medicare Fraud.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Where on that site do I actually get to find the jokes?

    ReplyDelete
  22. I haven't found them either.
    You'll have to make a request here, I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  23. He's on here Shovio.com M-F @ 7- 9pm Eastern.
    ...if someone could convert that to HST, I'd appreciate.

    ReplyDelete
  24. desert rat said...
    As with gun laws and trespassing, EMP attacks and a whole array of other issues "misdirection" your knowledge of history, law and military strategies and tactics is limited, at best. Faulty at worse.


    quite impressive list of all my faults according to you...

    still doesnt change the fact that you are infact the man of misdirection and that your thesis was crap...

    changing the subject? misdirection at it's best...

    i love how you cant stay on topic... misdirection....

    is that why you say it all the time?

    ReplyDelete
  25. WIO:
    This is one of my favorite Joos:
    Garry Shandling
    Hilarious on Miller's 4th hour internet only show.
    He's got a DVD coming out, so I'll get to see him w/o TV.

    ReplyDelete
  26. At least the Brits were "Making a Buck" when they were peddling opium in China. We're paying Billions to "Run Protection" to the fields For Free.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Try turning the pointer to North upside down on your map, WIO, as a favor to
    Desert ("Misdirection") Rat.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "At least the Brits were "Making a Buck" when they were peddling opium in China. We're paying Billions to "Run Protection" to the fields For Free."
    ---
    Ain't that the truth.
    ...and soon they'll be pumping OUR oil from Cuban soil/waves.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Bad Joo:
    Schumer says they have 60 votes.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Meanwhile oil, and gasoline continue their inexorable two step forward, one step back push upwards.

    Wholesale unleaded at $2.09. That will translate into $2.80 at the pump in a few days.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Deuce did not censor anything.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I haven't watched this yet, so if it is obscene, don't blame me.

    HBO's behind-the-scenes satire frequently is called one of the best comedy series of the '90s. Watch as Shandling's talk-show host almost, but doesn't have sex with Sharon Stone — your face muscles will inexplicably start to tighten, and you'll fight to avert your eyes as you scream at the TV, ''No, you idiot! NO!''
    (Watch a clip)

    ReplyDelete
  33. Maybe it was a technological glitch?
    Test:
    ---
    You know you're gay if you bend over and see 4 balls.

    ReplyDelete
  34. You know you're gay if...
    You're sodomizing a guy, and catch yourself thinking of some other guy.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I think I can understand that would provoke Whit.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Whit needs to quit getting "provoked," and get a sense of humor. Those are funny jokes.

    ReplyDelete
  37. He's "sensitive" about that topic?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Speaking of sensitive:

    If Obama's skin was any thinner,
    he'd have a reservoir tip.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Saudi infobabe to get 60 lashes because a man brought up the topic of sex on her show. From the Religion of Peace.

    ReplyDelete
  40. If you do good science, as in follow the "scientific method" throwing money at something should not influence the result.

    The operative words here are ‘should not influence”. That’s what this discussion is about. You are right in describing your example of the sun as simplistic. I suspect everyone at the EB is familiar with the scientific method, with peer review, and with scientific consensus. We are also aware of politics, of faulty models, of hidden agendas, of intellectual dishonesty, and of how hard it would be to be objective after committing a lifetime to a particular view.

    You seem to be saying if the science is there we should have nothing to worry about. I say you’re wrong and that it is in our interest to be skeptical about science that has political consequences (i.e. it affects the allocation and distribution of limited resources.)

    One example, to support my position is the de facto banning of DDT in third world countries. Paul Muller produced the first DDT in 1929. We started using it in 1943. Muller got the Nobel Prize for it in 1948. By 1962, we had pretty much eradicated mosquito-borne diseases in the US and Western Europe by using DDT. The advantages of DDT were that it was effective, long-lasting, and cheap. Legitimate considerations in poor countries of the third world.

    However in 1962, Rachel Carson published her book “Silent Spring”. It was filled, with outright lies, half-truths, and junk science that has been discredited over the following half century. However, the result of the book was that environmental groups jumped on the ban DDT band wagon. Similar to today’s global warming debate, scientists supporting DDT were shouted down and ridiculed.

    In 1972, William Ruckleshaus , Head of the EPA (and also a member of the Environmental Defense League), overruled the opinion of his administrative law judge, and banned DDT. His rationale? Well we don’t know since he refused to give them up to freedom of information requests. At any rate, Europe followed suit and banned DDT also. Worse the developed world enforced a de facto ban on DDT to poor countries by restricting aid and development funds if those countries tried to use DDT.

    The results? Ten of millions of people, most of them children, have died needlessly of malaria and other mosquito–borne diseases.

    In 2000, 380 scientists signed an open letter calling for the renewed use of DDT. That same year the UN was calling for a world-wide ban.

    However, by 2005 groups like the WWF and Green Peace were reversing their long-standing opposition to DDT. However, as far as I know, aid groups are still pushing for the use of mosquito nets rather than the cheaper and more effective DDT. And people are still dying, like a couple of million a year.

    So tell me again why we should not be skeptical of “science” build on man-made models constructed to duplicate extremely complex systems, by men who have invested entire careers pushing AGW, and by groups whose agendas are suspect, and proponents who stand to make a lot of money off of the "remedies"?

    ReplyDelete
  41. I've never said that one shouldn't be skeptical. In fact, good scientific method thrives on skepticism. I've been arguing simply that the source of the funds (the government) doesn't effect the results of particular studies. Funding certainly can effect the framing of the questions, what is studied ect., the methods used, but it doesn't change the results. A government desiring to find water on the moon and throws billions of dollars at the question will not affect whether on not there is water on the moon.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I've been arguing simply that the source of the funds (the government) doesn't effect the results of particular studies.

    And I am arguing that you can't automatically say that the funding source, in this case government, "doesn't" affect results. It's very possible your statement is correct for one particular study or even for most studies but there is no guarantee that it doesn't affect "some" studies.

    And the "some" studies I assume Rat was talking about are those that have serious political ramifications, ie involve the allocation or taxing of resources, whether we are talking healthcare, carbon immissions, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  43. It then becomes a blanket excuse for rejecting studies that you don't agree with. I think it better to argue the science involved. The tobacco companies were notorious for 'fudging' the results of studies they funded. Pharmaceutical companies have been known to do similar things with research on drugs they release. The burying of research that does not confirm the results they desire has occurred. Burying results, however, is different from buying results you want. The latter is much more difficult, if not impossible (short of fraud) - at least in well designed, peer reviewed, studies. Interpreting results (i.e building climate models) is a much more nebulous affair. Skepticism is good!

    ReplyDelete
  44. "It then becomes a blanket excuse for rejecting studies that you don't agree with.

    Not sure where that one came from Ash. The fact is that if I don't agree with a study I don't need an excuse, blanket or otherwise. In my evaluation of the study admittedly I will factor in where the study came from and if there are any possible hidden agendas involved.

    At least we agree, it does no harm being skeptical.

    ReplyDelete
  45. ...and independent studies are good thing! If the government provides funds to do a study and it is dismissed because the government provided the money I'd call that a blanket excuse.

    ReplyDelete
  46. 14 Americans killed in Afghanistan while Obama plays golf.

    Our dead troops don't get a "Mulligan

    ReplyDelete
  47. and you were busy blogging - so?

    ReplyDelete
  48. spare production capacity currently runs about 6.7 million barrels a day, according to the International Energy Agency...oil storage tanks around the world are overflowing and would have to be drawn down before any big price spike takes place. U.S. crude inventories stand at 339 million barrels...the Strategic Petroleum Reserve has exceeded 725 million barrels..An estimated 125 million barrels' worth are floating around on tankers scattered over the globe...

    ReplyDelete
  49. Teresita said...
    14 Americans killed in Afghanistan while Obama plays golf.

    Our dead troops don't get a "Mulligan



    T, In all fairness if he's playing golf he aint:

    nationalizing some industry

    giving several billion to some islamic charity

    speaking on TV

    apologizing for some American mis-deed

    So I take issue with you, please let's KEEP the great one "golfing" he actually does less damage then...

    ReplyDelete
  50. WiO, if he's playing golf, he ain't pulling our troops OUT of that shithole. It's "Black Hawk Down" all over again.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Teresita said...
    WiO, if he's playing golf, he ain't pulling our troops OUT of that shithole. It's "Black Hawk Down" all over again.


    Obama is the president that loves to vote "present"..

    he HAS made his decision by changing the ROE... He has no problem with sacrificing Americans in afghanistan, he WANTS the American public to be angry about American arrogance overseas...

    He wants a NEW vietnam... and thus make America very wary of using military means in the world...

    he's creating a "teachable moment", what a few dead Americans TO HIM?

    nothing...

    ReplyDelete
  52. T, the only "spare capacity" in the world is Saudi Arabia, and if they have "2 million bpd" I'll eat my computer. Without salt.

    As for 339 million barrels inventory: 270 million barrels is "Minimum operating Level." That means when inventories get less than about 270 mb the pipelines come to a sputtering halt. We use about 19 million bpd, so we've got about 3 1/2 days inventory on hand.

    The biggest, smartest oil players in the world will buy all the oil you can bring them, today, for about $77. something a barrel. I wonder why, don't you?

    ReplyDelete
  53. Good cartoon there at Mon Oct 26, 10:33:00 AM EDT, Ash, also positive scientific proof we need a few more SUV's.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Dougs lame "jokes" were the first three posts on the thread. That's why they got deleted.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Ash said:
    "I've been arguing simply that the source of the funds (the government) doesn't effect the results of particular studies."

    But it does affect what gets reported.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Think of it this way. The Boss had cleaned up and had everything ready to go for the next day's business. I opened up early and found that some drunk had slipped in and left three turds on the floor right in front of the bar.

    So, I'm supposed to leave them there all day? It's a nasty job but someone's got to do it.

    ReplyDelete
  57. "ISLAMABAD (AFP) – Pakistan's huge anti-Taliban offensive has displaced around 200,000 people as soldiers suffered their deadliest 24 hours since the assault began, the military said Monday.

    Pakistan has claimed a string of successes and has vowed to crush Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) in South Waziristan, pressing its most ambitious battle yet in a tribal area infested with Al-Qaeda-linked rebels.

    But in growing signs that Taliban fighters are seeking to widen the conflict across the vast tribal belt and hobble the offensive, heavily armed insurgents killed five Pakistani troops in surprise raids further north.

    Although aid workers have no access to South Waziristan, they have expressed increasing concern about the toll on civilians and an army spokesman told AFP that around 200,000 people have fled their homes in the area since August."

    ReplyDelete
  58. What do you suppose will happen if the NATO leaves Afghanistan?

    Domino theory?

    ReplyDelete
  59. The crescent would always serve as a reminder of who did it...A fact that will be whitewashed in history.

    ReplyDelete
  60. An optimistic take, Whit.

    I'd rather have a huge statement

    "The Moslems Did It", like a crop circle, that you could see from space.

    That would keep the memory alive too.

    What in the hell, how could we really be contemplating such a perceived symbol, intended or unintended?

    ReplyDelete
  61. Bobal I like your idea. But the way things are going, the crop circle will be a big glass parking lot where NO crops can grow, for 50,000 years.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Miss T, do you know what a 'female hypergam' is? I ask because of whiskey's use of the word, I may have misunderstood it, and am worried concerning my wife.

    ReplyDelete
  63. my life with my wife

    ReplyDelete
  64. I don't know what Whiskey's definition is, I haven't seen the post. He's a pretty whacked out dude on the subject of the ancient male-female dance, it's hard to make out what he means sometimes.

    ReplyDelete
  65. hmmm, I thought it was something concerning monogamy, polygamy, hypergamy

    ReplyDelete
  66. I'm ashamed to be Catholic. This is from a letter by the Archbishop of Guam:

    "Islamic fundamentalists clearly understand the damage that homosexual behavior inflicts on a culture. This is why they repress such behavior by death...It may be brutal at times, but any culture that is able to produce wave after wave of suicide bombers...is a culture that at least knows how to value self sacrifice."

    ReplyDelete
  67. The Catholic Church also share similarities in its treatment of women.

    ReplyDelete
  68. All religions are, basically, the same. As are all Politicians, and political parties.

    ReplyDelete
  69. All the Abrahamic religions, to be sure, rufus.

    ReplyDelete
  70. I don't see where the Hindus, and Scientologists are any different, either, Rat.

    It wasn't the Abrahamists that bombed Pearl Harbor, and the Rev Moon was just as controlling as the Pope ever was.

    A pox on'em all.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Yes, yes, suicide bombing, an expression of the noble virtue of self sacrifice.

    That archbishop is an ass.

    ReplyDelete
  72. The devil's in the details. In the higher reaches there are commonalities. The high brahma of the Hindus might be liked to the absolute beyond the trinity of the Christians, and al-haqq, the real, beyond allah of the muzzies. The devil is in the lower details. Where the fighting begins. But if you get saints together, they'll have it worked out in a couple of days.

    ReplyDelete
  73. It's just that saints are a rare commodity, always have been. I want to be there in that number, when the saints come marching in, to the halls of power. But, I won't be.

    When the saints come marching in, they always used to play that number at the Idaho basketball games, but it seems to have gone out of favor now.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Course the noble virtues of the pagan inner light can turn problematical too. What if the inner light of virtue turns into a raging fire? As it often has, much more often than not. What then?

    And sane, rational secularism, what if it turns into Marxism/Leninism?

    Well there you have it, damned if we do, damned if we don't!

    ReplyDelete
  75. Tue Oct 27, 12:52:00 AM EDT

    No comment on the Jadaic commanalities, anon?

    No, because I don't know the terms.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Quirk,

    Re: death and DDT

    'Twas god done it!

    When millions of children die, G-d is the culprit.

    ReplyDelete