Afghanistan could get 30,000 new U.S. troops
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
U.N. observers warn of Syria civil war after massacre
( 7 )
-
Obama on the defensive over spending, debt
( 18 )
-
Egypt's top candidates try to broaden support
( 1 )
-
Queen marks diamond jubilee riding wave of popularity
( 0 )
-
Thousands take part in 'Slut Walks' in Brazil
( 10 )
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
-
- National Relief/Substitute Teacher - summer start
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥275,000 ~ ¥300,000 / Month
-
- 営業パーソン
- 加治金属工業株式会社, Tochigi
- Salary: ¥240,000 ~ ¥350,000 / Month Negotiable
Order by Time Order by Popularity
21 Comments
Login to comment
0
adaydream
I'm glad to hear that we're going to start paying attention to the real problem.
Iraq will have to seriously start doing their own security and social correctness. The people in Iraq will have to learn to deal with differences right next door. This won't be something that happens over night. It may take 50 years, 100 years... but they have to stand on their own two feet.
I've been posting for years that we need to put the troops in Afghanistan to do the job we went to do. I'm glad that the troops that the commanders have been asking for will be supplied to fill the requirements to do the job.
Took a coming change in leaders to get some movement of troops in the correct direction. < :-)
0
USAFdude
adaydream - Amen to that, brother. You have no idea how encouraged we are to see commanders be allowed to make and enact the right decisions, for a change. I can only attribute it to the relief we US troops feel over bush's departure and President Obama's upcoming arrival to the White House.
0
Sarge
How come the Russians aren't contributing any troops in Afghanistan? Whoops, I forgot - the Afghans can't stand the Russians, who subjugated them from 1979 to 1989.
What about the Chinese? Whoops, I forgot - they're too busy subjugating their own people.
0
SuperLib
How about the Europeans, considering they're the ones being attacked by Al Queda these days?
0
likeitis
If our blood is going to be wasted somewhere, better Afghanistan than Iraq. But wasted it will be.
We had no obligation to try and stabilize Afghanistan and we should not have bothered. We should have gone in, stomped al-Quaida, nabbed OBL, batted the Taliban aside as much as necessary to do that, and got the hell out.
Afghanistan is getting worse, not better. More troops might slow the violence temporarily, but the Afghans are simply hopeless.
Still, I prefer Obama's approach a whole heck of a lot more than Bush's. Bush's approach was about as genius as Lord Chelmsford at Isandlhwana. More of our boys to protect eachother's backs might translate into less carnage on our side. Just pulling out would mean a whole lot less.
Afghanistan is not going to be peaceful and stable unless we kill them all. Obviously, I am not in favor of that.
The Russians know that. The British certainly should know that but they are a stubborn lot. The Europeans are not so blind. And the Chinese? Its kind of funny, but the Chinese actually seem to only move on territory when the they have some sort of an ancient claim to it. The Chinese are wonderfully consistent about that, agree with the claims or not. You won't find Chinese troops anywhere else, unlike some other country that apparently can't see itself in a mirror.
0
adaydream
Hmmmm, seems to me that the United States was attacked by the Taliban/Afghanistan and we went into Afghanistan to pay them back for their dasterdly deed. But we went off on a tangent and wasted time and equipment and oh yeah lives.
The sooner we get the job done the sooner we bring all our troops home.
Maybe we can also bring them back from Japan, Korea and Germany. < :-)
0
smithinjapan
About time... maybe they can finally get to finishing what they started 8 years ago before starting up ANOTHER ridiculous war to take pressure off the inability to find OBL.
0
SuperLib
I figured you guys would be telling us that you can't force democracy through the barrel of a gun, that attacks on US troops are justified since they're the occupation force, etc.
0
pathat
Iraq was the Bush/Cheney War. Afghanistan/Pakistan will belong to Obama/Biden.
0
adaydream
SuperLib, get your wars straight. That was Iraq. You know the one that you supported.
We attacked Afghanistan because OBL/The Taliban/Afghanistan attacked us. < :-)
0
SuperLib
Ah, I see. So you in Iraq they aren't ready for democracy, occupying troops are legitimate targets for radicals, and you can't force democracy through the barrel of a gun. But in Afghanistan all of those things get reversed.
Interesting.
0
yosun
Sarge:
It seems you have no idea why Russia or China don't send troops to Afghan or Iraq? Because UN didn't approve it and either Russia or China don't have smart leader who wasted 1 trillion accomplishing nothing but almost bankrupting the whole country.
0
sdf_crew_member
You'd be surprised but Russia helped North Alliance during Taliban rule. Do you know who was a leader of this alliance? Former enemy. Besides, USSR (not Russia by the way) made not only war it's poured resources and built infrastructure (probably, a futile attempt to make another soviet state) And it's remembered... Now it's a NATO problem to clean up the mess Muslim radicals (US born "freedom fighters") brought. Russia has no business their except a concern of increased opium production after US led troops came.
I guess they have a more important thing to do - keep the economy upbeat.
0
SuperLib
So when NATO forces kill Muslims in Afghanistan is it different than US forces killing Muslims in Iraq? Because I've been told that when they see the headlines they get angry.
0
smithinjapan
SuperLib: "So when NATO forces kill Muslims in Afghanistan is it different than US forces killing Muslims in Iraq?"
It really is a shame you are resorting to an almost child-like state on this board. You used to have some pretty good, somewhat objective comments to share, but after getting upset by a shoe-tossing at your lame-duck president, and through said shoe-tosser realizing that things aren't as rosy as you'd like them to be, you've become like a sulking child.
To answer your question, it's no different, despite the reasons for going into both nations become EXTREMELY different. In fact, as has been said, one of the reasons for going into Iraq was because of the inability to catch OBL in Afghanistan.
0
SuperLib
So you're against the war in Afghanistan, too?
0
UnagiDon
More ground troops will only help if they're used the right way. Rely less on airstrikes which kill too many non-combatants and alienate the Afghans further. Use the ground troops to do the fighting, even if more will die this way than hitting a building from the air with a JDAM. In the long rung, you'll have less NATO casualties this way and a shorter war overall if the locals are on side.
0
adaydream
SuperLib is upset that we are leaving the george bush Memorial War in Iraq in the near future and concentrating on the war in Afghanistan.
The attack of the World Trade Center and the US by Afghanistan/Taliban is no different than the blind sided attack in Hawaii on Pearl Harbor... except that the FBI knew who the attackers were, where they were and that they were going to flight schools.
The retalitory attack on Afghanistan and the mission and operation of the war has been sidelined and ill equiped and undermanned because of the war of choice in Iraq. But SuperLib's undieing worship of george bush won't allow him to see the truth.
The commanders in Afghanistan have been begging for more troops ever since we went into Iraq. However, they have been stripped down to an occupational force at best and doing without the neccessities of war, especially troops.
I'm hoping that with our withdrawl from Iraq and more concentration in Afghanistan that we can someday get out of the middleeast militarily.
But SuperLib is going to continue to denigrate the war in Afghanistan and belly ache our withdrawl efforts from Iraq.
We need to get out of these two wars, period. < :-)
0
stener
In many regards, the trade in narcotics as well as the drug routes to the European and North American markets are considered to be "strategic". There are powerful financial interests behind the drug trade, which have a pervasive influence, behind the scenes, on the conduct of US foreign policy.
These multibillion dollar revenues of narcotics were deposited in the Western banking system. Most of the large international banks -together with their affiliates in the offshore banking havens-laundered large amounts of narco-dollars. In other words, Afghanistan, the poorest country on earth, was the source of tremendous financial wealth derived from the drug trade to financial institutions, business syndicates and organised crime. Part of the drug related revenues accrue to the CIA, which continues to protect both the Asian and Latin American drug trade. Visibly, only a very small percentage of these revenues stays in Afghanistan. .
Following the year 2000 ban on poppy production imposed by the Taliban government, opium production collapsed by more than 90 percent, leading to a dwindling drug trade and substantial losses to the inters underlying this multibillion dollar trade including Western financial institutions.3 The Northern Alliance became the main political force involved in protecting the production and marketing of raw opium.
The Drug Trade Restored by the US Puppet Regime While oil and oil pipelines out of the Caspian sea basin were undoubtedly a factor, the bombing of Afghanistan also served to restore the multibillion drug trade, which is protected by the CIA.
Immediately following the installation of the US puppet government under Prime Minister Hamid Kharzai, opium production soared, regaining its historic levels. According to the UNDCP, opium cultivation increased by 657 % in 2002 (in relation to its 2001 level). In 2001, opium cultivation had fallen to an estimated 7606ha.(See table below). It is currently estimated by the UNDCP to be of the order of 45 000 -65 000ha.
In the immediate wake of September 11, the price of opium in Afghanistan increased three-fold. By early 2002, the price (dollar/kg) was almost ten times higher than in the year 2000.4.Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG)
0
SuperLib
The Taliban weren't involved in any attacks on US soil. They gave a free pass for Al Queda to operate, but they themselves weren't involved in terrorist attacks.
0
SuperLib
Daydream....do you support attacks on Americans by the Taliban just like you support attacks on Americans by Sadr loyalists in Iraq? You said that US troops were occupying forces and legitimate targets for Sadr and other insurgents. You asked me how I would react if someone invaded my country. You compared Sadr's forces to freedom fighters. Is that also your position in Afghanistan?
Back to top