European leaders who refuse to put troops on the frontline in Afghanistan risk ...

[2uk]

European leaders who refuse to put troops on the frontline in Afghanistan risk bringing terror to their capitals, the U.S. warned yesterday


Countries such as Germany, Italy and Spain - which have restricted their involvement to reconstruction efforts - must join in "the fighting and the dying", defence secretary Robert Gates said.


Oh god.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1811

[AtW]

Germany had enough of fighting, so is Italy (during Roman Empire days).

The USA will mostly have to carry it out themselves - after all if they did not go into Iraq then they would have plenty of troops to do the job in Afganistan and really USA should not have went into anything before solving problem of Afganistan.

[sasguru]

Germany had enough of fighting, so is Italy (during Roman Empire days).

The USA will mostly have to carry it out themselves - after all if they did not go into Iraq then they would have plenty of troops to do the job in Afganistan and really USA should not have went into anything before solving problem of Afganistan.

[2uk]

Germany had enough of fighting, so is Italy (during Roman Empire days).

The USA will mostly have to carry it out themselves - after all if they did not go into Iraq then they would have plenty of troops to do the job in Afganistan and really USA should not have went into anything before solving problem of Afganistan.

what is the problem in afganistan ?

[AtW]

what is the problem in afganistan ?

Bin Laden and other top bosses of Taleban and Al Quaeda were left alive back in 2001 - the USA did not finish the job. If they got them before getting in Iraq then resistance there would have been much smaller too, so really it's a screwup by USA that can only be fixed by pulling out troops out of Iraq, something that is not possible right now as the surge (with new tactics) actually work very well: but I really do question whether USA can't find 15k more soldiers on their side, afterall they have the biggest army and above all it should be USA interested in getting Bin Laden.

Personally I think Iraq, and to a lesser degree Afganistan are major detractors to the West that (inline with high oil price) allowed dictators to establish themselves in other countries, particularly Russia.

[2uk]

Bin Laden and other top bosses of Taleban and Al Quaeda were left alive back in 2001 - the USA did not finish the job. If they got them before getting in Iraq then resistance there would have been much smaller too, so really it's a screwup by USA that can only be fixed by pulling out troops out of Iraq, something that is not possible right now as the surge (with new tactics) actually work very well: but I really do question whether USA can't find 15k more soldiers on their side, afterall they have the biggest army and above all it should be USA interested in getting Bin Laden.

Personally I think Iraq, and to a lesser degree Afganistan are major detractors to the West that (inline with high oil price) allowed dictators to establish themselves in other countries, particularly Russia.

The USA did not do its job ? The US with all the technology in the world can't find a man in the desert. You seen google maps ? You think a kid drew this ? THERE IS NO ONE TO FIND you clever.

Oh wait , there was nothing to find. Plus they were not there to find him . Or wernt they ? Perhaps they drop finding him to fight the bigger clause ? Destroying the WMD ? It is still strikes me that there still so many people that keep believing in "al-quida". It is understandable though since the media , keeps reporting as told by the gov - Al-qaida this , Al-quaida - that.

[AtW]

The USA did not do its job ?

No, they did not do the job because if they did it properly they would not have supposedly "defeated" Taleban right now - Osama bin Laden would have also been found alive, tried and executed on an electric chair, now that would have been job done properly.

The truth is that USA scattered Taleban for a few years and pulled out as there was no oil for Haliburton and other friends of Bushes to drill there, so they turned to Iraq where troop levels right now are 150k men, that's 10 times more than in Afganistan. Clearly, if Iraq was not an issue (or Afganistan was dealt with properly in the first place), then USA could have easily put 3-4 times their troop count in Afganistan.

The only good thing right now is that USA is on the right track in Iraq, but they really need to crack down on Afganistan - find 15-30k more troops, offer US citizenship to anyone who fights for USA there for 2-3 years.

[Churchill]

Afghanistan is worth invading just for its Lapis Lazuli.

Oh, that and the fact we want to build massive pipelines through the place.

[Ardesco]

Bin Laden and other top bosses of Taleban and Al Quaeda were left alive back in 2001 -

Al Quaeda doesn't exist. It is a name that the US used to group together all of their Muslim terrorists on the various most wanted lists that they have. There are no top bosses, it is a bunch of individual splinters that have been lumped together and given a name for convenience and to provide the US public with a tangible enemy that they think they can fight. Killing Bin Laden would have little to no effect because he doesn't control "Al Quaeda".

[Churchill]

Al Quaeda doesn't exist. It is a name that the US used to group together all of their Muslim terrorists on the various most wanted lists that they have. There are no top bosses, it is a bunch of individual splinters that have been lumped together and given a name for convenience and to provide the US public with a tangible enemy that they think they can fight. Killing Bin Laden would have little to no effect because he doesn't control "Al Quaeda".

Send us a postcard from "Gitmo"