Source With luck the new focus on Afghanistan will finally change some of those issues and allow the country to stand on it's own two feet. Now if we could only do something about the Pakistan side, then things would be golden.
The russians are laughing at us, they did that a long time ago. Nuke that shithole and let them rebuild.
The U.S. cannot use nuclear weapons against a nation without nuclear weapons of their own. There is an unofficial agreement to that effect in place since the Cuban Missile Crisis. As for the remainder. The U.S. is trying to avoid the mistake the British and Soviets made. The Soviets sent in 120,000 troops, fighting all out without mercy and in 8 years lost around 17,000 dead. The U.S. has had a far lower number of troops there for nearly 8 years and only lost around 1,000 dead and arguably has achieved more than the Soviets ever dreamed of.
The problem isn't necessarily the number of troops but the uncoordinated manner in which they are used. The US should agree to fold OEF under the NATO ISAF banner on the condition that U.S. commanders are in charge for the first two years. Then they need to bring Khalilzad back on the civilian side.
This is just a feeling I get. But it seems to me like Afghanistan suffers from being the "good war" (the one everyone in the U.S. and the international community agrees is justified and correct) as opposed to Iraq which was the "bad war" (the unjustified war by the evil President Bush, many view). Because of the broad consensus that Afghanistan is the "good" or "right" war, everybody wants to have a say in how things are done. Hoping to score some credit if there is a final victory.
Maybe because most of Europe taxes the shit out of it's people, but military spending is minimal. Now imagine raising taxes to build an American-style military machine...the European people would be taxed to death and go apeshit!
The UK forces are been held back by our cunts in the Gov who lie about the shortages in pretty much every aspect with the forces equipment. Right now brown is saying the army has enough helicopters in Afghanistan. He's lying through his teeth and using statistics to cover it. Saying they have increased the numbers by 66% when in reality all they added was two transport helicopters so we have Twenty Chinooks.
We only invaded to get their opium. Bin Laden is shooting up in a cave somewhere, happy in the knowledge that the west is protecting Afghanistan's supply of narcotics.
National Solidarity Program.... This is a great idea. Let them rebuild their country while we stand to the side and provide assistance where they need it.
Well, after initially fucking things up, Bush eventually pulled his head out of his ass and let the people in Iraq, fix Iraq. We'll see if Obama will do the same.
But there is no country per se (as we in America would consider a country) - just a collection of different tribes!
I thought Bush won the war in Iraq by sending some 35,000 extra troops and aggressively sweeping areas of insurgents.
Isn't that what a good leader does? And the Surge Strategy was not the only one being suggested to President Bush. IIRC, wasn't there a bipartisan commission called the Iraq Study Group that suggested something completely the opposite?
Trust me, I give Bush full props for showing the proper leadership needed to turn things around in Iraq. I'm not sure what the Iraq Study Group said.
I am glad Canadians are taking bullets and dieing instead of Americans. Thank you canada! send more targets please?
