US to send 12-15,000 troops to Afghanistan

[smitchy2]

I wonder if this move could be tied to an attack on Iran? It's a small number of troops, but much more than I would have taught necessary in Afganistan at this point.

I think it might be the realisation that after 6 years of a pointless war they are actually going after the group that attacked them.
The current level of troops is so weak that I read they can’t protect a power plant in the South that would provide electricity to a quarter of the country!!
Surely McCain will have to support this, although he is very keen on Iraq.

Iran is a different story that hopefully Bush does not get to do.

[seabhcan]

Yes. Whatever their faults, they are Afhgans. Nato will give up and withdraw in 5 - 10 years anyway.

Whatever their faults. Typical rubbish from the spoilt rich in the West. The Taliban would be a nightmare for Afghans especially women. But I suppose hatred of the US is more important.

Yes, the west bombs people in Afghanistan to support women's rights. While in Saudi we arm the government there even though women have virtually no rights. Where's the logic?

[Clanrickard]

Yes. Whatever their faults, they are Afhgans. Nato will give up and withdraw in 5 - 10 years anyway.

Whatever their faults. Typical rubbish from the spoilt rich in the West. The Taliban would be a nightmare for Afghans especially women. But I suppose hatred of the US is more important.

Yes, the west bombs people in Afghanistan to support women's rights. While in Saudi we arm the government there even though women have virtually no rights. Where's the logic?

There is none I agree. But just because NATO is wrong on supporting Saudi doesn't mean they are wrong to back Karzai. No right thinking person wants the Taliban to succeed. They are frankly vermin and I hope the new will be sued to hurry up their meeting with their 72 virgins.

[seabhcan]

Yes. Whatever their faults, they are Afhgans. Nato will give up and withdraw in 5 - 10 years anyway.

Whatever their faults. Typical rubbish from the spoilt rich in the West. The Taliban would be a nightmare for Afghans especially women. But I suppose hatred of the US is more important.

Yes, the west bombs people in Afghanistan to support women's rights. While in Saudi we arm the government there even though women have virtually no rights. Where's the logic?

There is none I agree. But just because NATO is wrong on supporting Saudi doesn't mean they are wrong to back Karzai. No right thinking person wants the Taliban to succeed. They are frankly vermin and I hope the new will be sued to hurry up their meeting with their 72 virgins.

You have to ask yourself where they are getting their support from, both in men and material. Unless that source is tackled, then Nato will withdraw just as the soviets did.

[Conor the Bold]

The Pentagon will be sending 12,000 to 15,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan, possibly as soon as the end of this year, with planning underway for a further force buildup in 2009.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/...ghanistan.html

I'm guessing Shannon is gonna be a lot busier..

A sign of desperation. Nato has been there for 7 years now. By this stage in the 1980's the Soviets had long realised the game was up.

So they should just let the Taliban take over?

Yes. Whatever their faults, they are Afhgans. Nato will give up and withdraw in 5 - 10 years anyway.

Nice to have it yet again reinforced was a dispicable person the above is. Not too mention what a ignorant coward the poster is, who either won't support their outrageous assertions, or will not actually admitted when they've been proved wrong.

Whatever the fault of the Nazi's were. Or the Bosnian Serbs. etc.

[Van Damme]

SeahBcan, before you start talking yet MORE rubbish...

can you compare the casualty rates between Afghanistan in the 1980's and now?

Oh I'm sorry you can#'t and you won't. Just like yoru conduct on the other thread when you claimed 200k causalities to invade Iran...

Maybe you can't compare causalty rates but you can compare everything else. The reasons the uSSR had for invading were pretty much the same the the ones given by the US.

And causalty rates are lower today for several reasons

1. There is no superpower training and arming the muslim extremists like there was in the 80s

2. Technology, the US has greater military techologies such as infra red, satelittes and cluster bombs to locate and kill enemy forces (and civillians).

3. Medine. Improvements in medicine has meant soldiers are far less likely to die from wounds. Just check the ratio of deaths to wounded.

[CelticAtheist]

[quote=Van Damme]

SeahBcan, before you start talking yet MORE rubbish...

can you compare the casualty rates between Afghanistan in the 1980's and now?

Oh I'm sorry you can#'t and you won't. Just like yoru conduct on the other thread when you claimed 200k causalities to invade Iran...

Maybe you can't compare causalty rates but you can compare everything else. The reasons the uSSR had for invading were pretty much the same the the ones given by the US.

And causalty rates are lower today for several reasons

1. There is no superpower training and arming the muslim extremists like there was in the 80s

2. Technology, the US has greater military techologies such as infra red, satelittes and cluster bombs to locate and kill enemy forces (and civillians).

3. Medine. Improvements in medicine has meant soldiers are far less likely to die from wounds. Just check the ratio of deaths to wounded.[/quote:12o24a1j]

You forgot that the Soviet Union didn't occupy the entire area of Afghanistan, only certain strips of land between cities.

[Van Damme]

[quote=CelticAtheist]

SeahBcan, before you start talking yet MORE rubbish...

can you compare the casualty rates between Afghanistan in the 1980's and now?

Oh I'm sorry you can#'t and you won't. Just like yoru conduct on the other thread when you claimed 200k causalities to invade Iran...

Maybe you can't compare causalty rates but you can compare everything else. The reasons the uSSR had for invading were pretty much the same the the ones given by the US.

And causalty rates are lower today for several reasons

1. There is no superpower training and arming the muslim extremists like there was in the 80s

2. Technology, the US has greater military techologies such as infra red, satelittes and cluster bombs to locate and kill enemy forces (and civillians).

3. Medine. Improvements in medicine has meant soldiers are far less likely to die from wounds. Just check the ratio of deaths to wounded.

You forgot that the Soviet Union didn't occupy the entire area of Afghanistan, only certain strips of land between cities.[/quote:1niyopbg]

As opposed to the US/NATO forces who control the whole country with their 30,000 troops or so. They only control the cities and occupy a few strategic positions, everywhere else is bandit country.

[CelticAtheist]

[quote=Van Damme][quote=CelticAtheist]

SeahBcan, before you start talking yet MORE rubbish...

can you compare the casualty rates between Afghanistan in the 1980's and now?

Oh I'm sorry you can#'t and you won't. Just like yoru conduct on the other thread when you claimed 200k causalities to invade Iran...

Maybe you can't compare causalty rates but you can compare everything else. The reasons the uSSR had for invading were pretty much the same the the ones given by the US.

And causalty rates are lower today for several reasons

1. There is no superpower training and arming the muslim extremists like there was in the 80s

2. Technology, the US has greater military techologies such as infra red, satelittes and cluster bombs to locate and kill enemy forces (and civillians).

3. Medine. Improvements in medicine has meant soldiers are far less likely to die from wounds. Just check the ratio of deaths to wounded.

You forgot that the Soviet Union didn't occupy the entire area of Afghanistan, only certain strips of land between cities.[/quote:27lat0da]

As opposed to the US/NATO forces who control the whole country with their 30,000 troops or so. They only control the cities and occupy a few strategic positions, everywhere else is bandit country.[/quote:27lat0da]

The ISAF alone has 53,000 troops.
The Afghan Army has 76,000.

[múscailte]

Yes. Whatever their faults, they are Afhgans. Nato will give up and withdraw in 5 - 10 years anyway.

Whatever their faults. Typical rubbish from the spoilt rich in the West. The Taliban would be a nightmare for Afghans especially women. But I suppose hatred of the US is more important.

Yes, the west bombs people in Afghanistan to support women's rights. While in Saudi we arm the government there even though women have virtually no rights. Where's the logic?

There is none I agree. But just because NATO is wrong on supporting Saudi doesn't mean they are wrong to back Karzai. No right thinking person wants the Taliban to succeed. They are frankly vermin and I hope the new will be sued to hurry up their meeting with their 72 virgins.

The Taliban were and are religious fanatics and they have been replaced by an Anglo-American-backed coalition of druglords from the so-called 'Northern Alliance'. Some of whom are actually former Soviet allies. Here's a good insight into them and their practises, as well as some of the Anglo-American participation in prisoner liquidation:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 4184611493

Note the diplomacy of Northern Alliance strongman General Dostum. He elicits support from the population by telling tribal leaders how their daughters "will be raped" if they don't comply.
There are no goodguys in Afghanistan, only Imperialist's in coalition with drug barons and warlords for the sake of strategic gas pipelines and greater control of the international heroin trade.