Four NATO soldiers killed in Afghan attacks for the bloodiest month in Afghanistan

[Darsh]

Four NATO soldiers, one of them French, were killed in attacks in Afghanistan on Saturday, the military said.

The latest bloodshed comes after a month in which 75 soldiers were killed -- the highest number in a single month since the operation began in 2001.

More than 100,000 international troops are deployed to Afghanistan to help the young army fight a brutal Taliban-led insurgency which is mounting ahead of key presidential elections on August 20.

Seventy-five soldiers were killed last month, most of them in attacks, according to the independent www.icasualties.org website.

The French soldier was killed and two others wounded when French, US and Afghan troops were attacked while on patrol in Kapisa province northeast of the capital Kabul, the French military said in a statement.

France has about 2,900 soldiers in the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) that operates under a UN mandate.

Three other ISAF soldiers were killed in bomb blasts in the south, the alliance force said in a statement that did not release the nationalities of the troops.

"Three International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) service members were killed today after their patrol was struck by two improvised explosive devices in southern Afghanistan," it said in a statement.

Most of the international soldiers in southern Afghanistan are US, British or Canadian nationals.

Explosions caused by homemade bombs, called improvised explosive devices by the military, cause around 70 percent of the casualties to the foreign soldiers deployed to Afghanistan to fight extremism.

Thousands of mostly US soldiers deployed to Afghanistan earlier this year to help secure Taliban strongholds in the south so that Afghans can vote in the election, the second-ever presidential vote in a turbulent history.

http://www.france24.com/en/20090801-...afghan-attacks

Do you think the next month will be more critical with the election? Afghanistan is winnable for the nato troops or it will be only a death trap?

[Gromovnik]

I think that more than 75 Afghans die every month...

[Darsh]

I think that more than 75 Afghans die every month...

Of course the Afghans suffer the most, there are a estimation about the Afghan causalities since the beginning of the war?

[Downey]

Well summer is always deadly for ISAF, but with the assault operations going on it is expected to be more deadly. Things are starting too look up, keep ISAF on the offensive to protect the elections.

[powerbits]

send those troops home, let the locals fight it out themselves

[Barry Goldwater]

While unfortunate I can't say I didn't see this coming, after all we are stepping up our efforts in Afghanistan's most dangerous regions.

send those troops home, let the locals fight it out themselves

What, and let Afghanistan collapse into anarchy? Hell no. The past eight years of action and all we've done to help the Afghans will have all been in vain then.

[powerbits]

While unfortunate I can't say I didn't see this coming, after all we are stepping up our efforts in Afghanistan's most dangerous regions.



What, and let Afghanistan collapse into anarchy? Hell no. The past eight years of action and all we've done to help the Afghans will have all been in vain then.

Do you realy think the anarchy will stop?
Either you colonise the whole country wich would be out of the question or leave it be.

I wonder if obama would have send all those troops in?

[Babur]

send those troops home, let the locals fight it out themselves

well there would probably be a repetition of what happend in 1996 in that case.

[Farnan]

It'll get worse before its better, but that is how it always is.

[Каие]

French soldiers die. Darsh. Thread made.

British soldiers die. Darsh. Nowhere to be seen.

American soldiers die, with no French casualties. Darsh. Nowhere to be seen.

[Kanaric]

send those troops home, let the locals fight it out themselves

Yes, because you know how thats worked well there for everyone in the past.

[powerbits]

Yes, because you know how thats worked well there for everyone in the past.

Well if we are going to protect all people, please start with invading a big part of africa, oh wait we did a long time ago...
Now look in wat mess they are..

[Farnan]

Well if we are going to protect all people, please start with invading a big part of africa

The Taliban were worse than them...

And I'm not exaggerating (they committed genocide, brought much of Afghanistan back a century on technology, kidnapped little boys for sexual purposes, it was so bad Human Rights Watch was calling for their overthrow).

They were up with Kim Jong Ill.

And they were/are a cause for regional and international insecurity.

[Barry Goldwater]

Do you realy think the anarchy will stop?

On its own like you propose? Of course not. We're there to stop it.

Either you colonise the whole country wich would be out of the question or leave it be.

Though I am a pessimist, I do not give into despair that quickly, and apparently neither does the government (well, at least not here). This isn't a borderline-unwinnable war like Vietnam you know.

[Mangalore]

The Taliban were worse than them...

And I'm not exaggerating (they committed genocide, brought much of Afghanistan back a century on technology, kidnapped little boys for sexual purposes, it was so bad Human Rights Watch was calling for their overthrow).

They were up with Kim Jong Ill.

And they were/are a cause for regional and international insecurity.

you really should read what's going on in Kongo if you want to put your claim to the test the Taliban were worse.

What, and let Afghanistan collapse into anarchy? Hell no. The past eight years of action and all we've done to help the Afghans will have all been in vain then.

This is a fallacy. The question should never be that you will invest more just because you already have invested alot. That way alot of people lose alot of money because they don't stop pumping money into a dead project simply because they think they cannot stop because they already invested so much not realizing that when something doesn't work the only way to limit costs is to stop the moment you realize thhis. The question must always be: Are further investments the most cost effective way to go about reaching certain goals.

In that part the question is how to get the Afghans into a position to stabilize their country themselves because foreign forces can only contain a situation, not make it better. In that regard it is quite fearful that seemingly the more effective fighting force is the one opposing the internationally supported nation building. Why the heck is that btw? Can't we convince some of these guys to join the Afghan army (yeah, things have improved there but the hallmark of a propped up government is that its army is not filled by guys convinced of said government and its goals. It's at least worrying)?

[patrick1191]

The Taliban were worse than them...

And I'm not exaggerating (they committed genocide, brought much of Afghanistan back a century on technology, kidnapped little boys for sexual purposes, it was so bad Human Rights Watch was calling for their overthrow).

They were up with Kim Jong Ill.

And they were/are a cause for regional and international insecurity.

I am sure General Micky Mouse and the "butt naked brigade" would disagree.

[Primvs Sextvs Loverlord]

The Taliban were worse than them...

And I'm not exaggerating (they committed genocide, brought much of Afghanistan back a century on technology, kidnapped little boys for sexual purposes, it was so bad Human Rights Watch was calling for their overthrow).

They were up with Kim Jong Ill.

And they were/are a cause for regional and international insecurity.

By just one century? It was more like twenty centuries!

The rise of the Taliban ideology was the direct consequence of the failure of Pakistan and the US. After having pumped tens of billions into the Jihad ideology, the anti-Soviet 'bloc' just packed up and left one day. We messed it up bad there. We mixed the Pashtun warrior culture with Salafi Jihad. And then we let the whole region implode.

As untimely and miscalculated as it may seem now, the best thing to do for NATO is to leave Afghanistan. No matter what they do, their installed leaders there won't work because of the tribal system. Unfortunately, NATO is in Afghanistan because of the country's geopolitical importance on the map and not for the sake of the Afghans. So when the natives gun down their invaders with whatever ideology and weapons they can muster, we must recognize the fact that the Western bloc must know the cost of its international maneuver or else it wouldn't be there.

[Farnan]

By just one century? It was more like twenty centuries!

I didn't want people thinking I was exaggerating.

The rise of the Taliban ideology was the direct consequence of the failure of Pakistan and the US. After having pumped tens of billions into the Jihad ideology, the anti-Soviet 'bloc' just packed up and left one day. We messed it up bad there. We mixed the Pashtun warrior culture with Salafi Jihad. And then we let the whole region implode.

We did mess up.

As untimely and miscalculated as it may seem now, the best thing to do for NATO is to leave Afghanistan. No matter what they do, their installed leaders there won't work because of the tribal system. Unfortunately, NATO is in Afghanistan because of the country's geopolitical importance on the map and not for the sake of the Afghans. So when the natives gun down their invaders with whatever ideology and weapons they can muster, we must recognize the fact that the Western bloc must know the cost of its international maneuver or else it wouldn't be there.

The issue is its such a small percentage of the natives, and includes many many foreigners who act as Commissars and shock troops.

And I agree an installed government can't work, but if we give them time to build a government that they feel is theirs than it can hold. And remember democracy is not an extremely alien and hated thing there. Western Democracy maybe, but Western Democracy is not the only kind (like Iraq and Lebanon are Arab Democracies, which means their parties are tied to a Charismatic Leader, a sectarian group, an ethnicity or all three unlike the parties in the West which are issues based and not tied to one of those groups). Afghan Pashtuns even claimed that they've always had democracy through their tribal systems.

[Burnum]

The Taliban were worse than them...

And I'm not exaggerating (they committed genocide, brought much of Afghanistan back a century on technology, kidnapped little boys for sexual purposes, it was so bad Human Rights Watch was calling for their overthrow).

They were up with Kim Jong Ill.

And they were/are a cause for regional and international insecurity.

I agree. But the Afghan Warlords were far worse, my friend.

[A pimp named Slickback]

I agree. But the Afghan Warlords were far worse, my friend.

Afghan warlords were not far worse than the Taliban. At least with multiple warlords there were some regions that were run better than others. Taliban made Afghanistan equally bad all across the board.