Reinforcements to fight Taleban

[bigfootedfred]

The Nato commander in Afghanistan, Gen David Richards, says his force will be bolstered with an extra brigade of troops. Full details have not been announced but it could mean up to 3,500 extra troops being deployed in the fight against the resurgent Taleban.
The BBC's World Affairs correspondent Nick Childs said the Taleban was expected to mount a spring offensive.
It is thought the extra troops will come from the United States.
The announcement comes only days after Gen Richards told a British newspaper he had "less troops than needed" to complete his task.
According to the Washington Post newspaper, the White House is also planning to increase economic aid to the government of President Hamid Karzai, amid growing concerns about the increased level of violence and the political situation in the country.



...
On top of the boost in troop numbers, the Washington Post says the Bush administration
is going to ask Congress for up to $8bn for new reconstruction aid for the country.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6299049.stm

This is where we should be concentrating our efforts. Afghanistan is still in the balance, and can still be won.
British troops are going to be re-deployed here from iraq sometime this year.
With up to half of the British forces in iraq pulling out this year.

[Last Roman]

What a better place the world would be if we had stuck with Afghanistan...

[Stalins Ghost]

This is exactly the kind of move I like to see. By progressively tackling issues there's a chance we can make a difference, and a chance to rectify the mistake of funneling resources into Iraq before Afghanistan was sorted. The last thing is we need for Afghanistan to get out of hand again.

[milns]

3500? Come on, it wouldn't change anything! Look how US was sending more and more troops to Vietnam and we all know how it ended. Besides giving economic aid to afgans is too generouse, they can live from drug money quite good IMHO. Afgan government is corrupted, they aid drug barons who exploits farmers. Instead of fighting Taliban NATO should consider to destroy poppy plantations and drug barons.

P.S.
Just heard that Ozzy is coming to Riga after few months! Damn thats great!

[vikrant]

well until pak stops trainning terrorists ,afgan war cant be won .
no matter how many troops nato deploy

[Mythos]

I noticed that the guy says he doesnt have enough troops. It seems like that the fight slipped from back from the political to the military arena.

[JP226]

What a better place the world would be if we had stuck with Afghanistan...

That's assuming afghanistan is who we're fighting when it's not in reality. We're fighting a war against a region's mentality, a mix of Islam and totalitarianism. Afghanistan is just one front.

I hate hearing Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. 9/11 was the product of an instable region.

[Mathias]

That's assuming afghanistan is who we're fighting when it's not in reality. We're fighting a war against a region's mentality, a mix of Islam and totalitarianism. Afghanistan is just one front.

Either way they should have sorted out that front before they opened another one.

[jankren]

I hate hearing Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. 9/11 was the product of an instable region.

Then please stop helping to make the region instable. By the way Iraq indeed had nothing to do with 9/11. Even George Dubya himself said his hardest job was to link Iraq with Al Qaeda. If you wanna hold the entire region responsible for a single event that is fine dude, you are free to voice your own opinion.

Peace,

[Last Roman]

That's assuming afghanistan is who we're fighting when it's not in reality. We're fighting a war against a region's mentality, a mix of Islam and totalitarianism. Afghanistan is just one front.

that leads us to the question of is it our responsibility/duty/place to be fighting this "mentality" Our job was (or should have been) to go after one man and his organization, not this "democratic revolution" which is an oxymoron.

I hate hearing Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. 9/11 was the product of an instable region.

Iraq and 9/11 have no connection. Saddam hated extremists just as much as we do. And in going after him, we made an already unstable region worse. good job us.

[General Dissaray]

that leads us to the question of is it our responsibility/duty/place to be fighting this "mentality" Our job was (or should have been) to go after one man and his organization, not this "democratic revolution" which is an oxymoron.



Iraq and 9/11 have no connection. Saddam hated extremists just as much as we do. And in going after him, we made an already unstable region worse. good job us.

Thank you, it is about time some one relized that, what ever it is we are up to over there, we are doing it top notch. The way I see it if you are going to **** some thing up, you might as well **** it up beond all recongnision and to the best of your abilaty, finely some recognsion.

And all that BS about hurting our oil economy or what ever is BS plain and simple. The majoraty of oil used in this country comes from with in it's own borders or diposits that we own up in Canada that we perchest back in the 40's. If things got real bad we could eather A: dip into that emergancy suply that we have so convineantly stocked up. It is almost as if we were holding on to that for when we couldn't get any more from elce where, funey that. or B: Drill in that ANWAR place up in Alaska. There is only an outside chance that we might hurt some carboo or dear or sum such thing but if I have to chouse bitween keeping the economy working and some damned animals that I have never seen, and probly never will see, I am going to have to go with the economy as it helps more people and I am sure those animals taste realy good.

[Aristophanes]

Iraq and 9/11 have no connection. Saddam hated extremists just as much as we do. And in going after him, we made an already unstable region worse. good job us.

Saddam's regime, like many others that could be mentioned[US, Iran, Soviets, Saudi Arabia, Libya], was just as capable and ready to fight wards by proxy as anyone else. Whether he had an engagement with Al Qaeda or not, there is no doubt that he would support extremists when the mood hit. Extremists are a valuable resource, as many regimes know, for diverting attention from one's own actions, and stirring up trouble for political sleight-of-hand.

[bigfootedfred]

We're fighting a war against a region's mentality, a mix of Islam and totalitarianism.

If that is the case, the the invasion of Iraq itself, was the largest defeat to that purpose we could have inflicted upon ourselves.

We have fostered new terrorism, created Chaos where there was order.
Iraq had nothing to do with the so called 'war on terror'.

I hate hearing Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. 9/11 was the product of an instable region.

That is simply laughable. The implication that the 'Unstable Iraq' of Saddam Hussein contributed somehow to the attacks on the united states,
Is utterly absurd.

The Original gulf war did help to inspire Bin laden to his course of action yes, but this was because he wanted Arab states to fight Saddam. And instead the Saudis invited American forces. So in that, Obscure connection between Iraq and 9/11, indeed, The US would be the initiator of said events.

The Invasion and 'war on terror' were both built on lies and exaggerations.
Unfortunately the policy itself has created a great deal of what it claimed to be fighting, much of it, not existing before the course of action was taken.

The Invasion of Iraq gave the Islamic radicals of Bin ladens liking more Influence and power than they could have ever dreamed of.

[Carach]

america and britain to supply everything - except britain cant supply **** because our government lieks eating everything away behind us..and in these circumstances it isnt the "thought that counts".

nice to know the rest of NATO are still sitting on their hands

[JP226]

that leads us to the question of is it our responsibility/duty/place to be fighting this "mentality" Our job was (or should have been) to go after one man and his organization, not this "democratic revolution" which is an oxymoron.

I think so, especially considering that mentality killed 3,000 americans. Now let's say we went after one man, killed/ caputred him and came home. Do you think it ultimately would be over??? Would the middle east be all hunky dorry??? Osama is a product of instability and you kill him, someone else will take his place.

Iraq and 9/11 have no connection. Saddam hated extremists just as much as we do. And in going after him, we made an already unstable region worse. good job us.

I call ********. Whether or not Saddam had anyhting to do with 9/11 I care not. Saddam was simply a starting point. Do you think this war would look all that diferent if we invaded Saudi Arabia??? What about Iran???? Lebanaon??? Of course not. We needed a starting point and Saddam made the most sense. We had troops in Kuwait, a fleet there and a how to guide dating back to the gulf war.

The instability their lack of economy. I could get technical and blame it on the income effect coupled with a or enhanced by the religion of Islam and it's inherent love for what is a planned economy. A planned economy that leads to massive income disparity that leads to unrest.

You want to fix them, you invest. You promote the notion of tradable products. You can't do that with the totalitarian grips that exist. It takes lots and lots of money to pick up an economy and industrialize them, but you can't do that with the instability that is there. The best way to initiate such a process is to physically take those countries from them. The people have no ****ing clue of what's going on, they only care what the mosque down the street says. You take that responsibility from them, allow investment and capital intensive production to gain grip and then the people will come around.

In addressing this democratic revolution, I know as well as you that, that is nonsense. Who honestly cares. You introduce democracy at a point and time like this, you introduce failure. It was a political ploy to keep the democrats and europeans from taking political advantage (alot of good it did but...) of the situation. It's nonsense,but can take hold eventually. It's just a natural eventuality of economic progress.

[Last Roman]

I think so, especially considering that mentality killed 3,000 americans. Now let's say we went after one man, killed/ caputred him and came home. Do you think it ultimately would be over??? Would the middle east be all hunky dorry??? Osama is a product of instability and you kill him, someone else will take his place.

No of course not. But it would certainly hinder their efforts (since Al Qaeda is the biggest extremist Islamic threat to America) If we really wanted to save the Middle East from this hardcore brand of Islam, I think we are going about it the wrong way. Bombs aren't helping.

[mrjesushat]

I think so, especially considering that mentality killed 3,000 americans. Now let's say we went after one man, killed/ caputred him and came home. Do you think it ultimately would be over??? Would the middle east be all hunky dorry??? Osama is a product of instability and you kill him, someone else will take his place.

Ergo, by continually killing the figureheads of this "Islamofascism", we will endlessly generate new figureheads. How does this policy improve things?

I call ********. Whether or not Saddam had anyhting to do with 9/11 I care not.

Then by what justification was he removed from power? This seems a strange abandonment of the previous position of the Bush administration regarding Saddam and his "links" to 9-11. Or were you unconcerned with his role in the attacks from the beginning?

Saddam was simply a starting point. Do you think this war would look all that diferent if we invaded Saudi Arabia??? What about Iran???? Lebanaon??? Of course not. We needed a starting point and Saddam made the most sense. We had troops in Kuwait, a fleet there and a how to guide dating back to the gulf war.

You surely aren't advocating an American take-over of the entire Middle East, are you? Because, if you were to advocate such a thing, that would be what some people might call ironic. See, the irony is, "Islamofascists" see America as imperialist, and attack us on the grounds that they must combat our aggression (in military, cultural and economic terms) in order to remain free. Many Conservatives in the U.S. would argue that America is guiltless and blameless, and did not deserve the 9-11 attacks. Yet, if I read your above statement correctly, you are advocating imperialism.

The instability their lack of economy. I could get technical and blame it on the income effect coupled with a or enhanced by the religion of Islam and it's inherent love for what is a planned economy. A planned economy that leads to massive income disparity that leads to unrest.

Saddam was a bad, bad man. A very bad man. This is doubtless why he was considered a good candidate for dictator of Iraq by the U.S. State Department and CIA, back when his career was on the rise. However, for all of his negative qualities, Saddam was able to hold together a nation of disparate, contentious peoples via the threat of brutal force. The current instability in the region is a direct result of the U.S. having removed Saddam from power. Now, all those nasty little factions have decided to try and get theirs, because the strongman is gone. We may well have just taken Iraq from secularist-dictatorship to theocratic-insane asylum.

You want to fix them, you invest. You promote the notion of tradable products. You can't do that with the totalitarian grips that exist. It takes lots and lots of money to pick up an economy and industrialize them, but you can't do that with the instability that is there. The best way to initiate such a process is to physically take those countries from them. The people have no ****ing clue of what's going on, they only care what the mosque down the street says. You take that responsibility from them, allow investment and capital intensive production to gain grip and then the people will come around.

This appears to be one part free-marketeer fantasy, two parts ignorant and insulting assessment of the fine people of Iraq, who are not all religious extremists concerned only with what their local mosque tells them. In fact, a lot of Iraqis would just like to go back to work, and to doing business, and to living their lives. I'm certain that you did not intend for your statement to come off this way. Perhaps you would like to clarify a few points, and rephrase some of your assertions.

In addressing this democratic revolution, I know as well as you that, that is nonsense. Who honestly cares. You introduce democracy at a point and time like this, you introduce failure. It was a political ploy to keep the democrats and europeans from taking political advantage (alot of good it did but...) of the situation. It's nonsense,but can take hold eventually. It's just a natural eventuality of economic progress.

Fascinating. So the well-being and personal liberty of the individual Iraqi is meaningless, whereas the economic functionality is what matters. Does this lack of regard for humanity extend to all peoples, or only those of Iraq? I'm curious, because the Bush administration has repeatedly argued the opposite of what you have asserted. We are, according to our President, attempting to spread freedom and Democracy to Iraq, and via Iraq, to the Middle East.

[JP226]

Then how do you do it? GIve them money like africa??? Send the peace corps?? Give em a big dose of white guilt?

[Last Roman]

Then how do you do it? GIve them money like africa??? Send the peace corps?? Give em a big dose of white guilt?

well, I'm no foreign policy expert (and certainly do not pretend to be) but first off, stop allying ourselves with the tyrants we are claiming to be against (ie, the Saudis)

[JP226]

So, damage our own economy in the process??? What would that do int he grand scheme of things?