AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: Canada Out of Afghanistan by 09?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
They've taken a larger per capita hit than anyone in Afghanistan,while several larger NATO states won't fight. I wish this had worked out,but I always felt NATO was largely for us to fight Europe's wars and I was right.

I understand the Canadian view here. Before long Americans too will want to leave Afghanistan,you can't sustain a military campaign w/o showing positive results at some point,Vietnam taught us that. Maybe we will learn to attack the recruiters for jihad and stop with this fighting entire nations?? That's the suggestion of former jihadi Walid Shoebat.


HERE
We are not going to totally leave, because we will have several permanent bases there. But we will start winding down, and if we can reach some agreement with Iran, it will be sooner than expected.

Iraq will eventually be able to defend itself,..........if only they can get rid of this Arab ability to always lose wars. Wink1

David Hanson was also correct too. Wink1
Reuters doesn't have much credibility; we've committed ourselves until 2011, the combat role ends in 2009. We're just putting pressure on mainland Europe's NATO wimps.
It was already extended to '09.

We're not going anywhere after '09. You can bet quads right testie on it.




Ahk
Germany's parliament decided yesterday NOT to increase our engagement in Afghanistan, and NOT to send combat troops, inspite of pressure from the NATO (the Norwegians also pull out). I commemorated the moment by opening a bottle of Jack Daniels. A cheers to sound reasoning. :lol:
John L Wrote:We are not going to totally leave, because we will have several permanent bases there. But we will start winding down, and if we can reach some agreement with Iran, it will be sooner than expected.

Iraq will eventually be able to defend itself,..........if only they can get rid of this Arab ability to always lose wars. Wink1

David Hanson was also correct too. Wink1

........................................

Well...

It is difficult to see why the Afghanistan - or any foreign mission - is so important.

Is it to control the narcotics production... Or to catch Usama Bin Ladin...

So far no success story we could say....
I understand there was a measureable improvement - not just in the freedom it granted women. This stalled after the U.S. handed off much military direction to NATO as Hansen said. I think NATO is not as bad as the UN - but their professionalism is in dispute.
I served two NATO tours; the military professionalism of some NATO countries doesn't exist.
WarBicycle Wrote:I served two NATO tours; the military professionalism of some NATO countries doesn't exist.

IMO NATO has no business outside it's borders. Furthermore, when you have one country that has a unionized military, one openly homosexual encouraging, and a German army that is taught to constantly question everything like they are the commanders, what can you expect?
WmLambert Wrote:I understand there was a measureable improvement - not just in the freedom it granted women. This stalled after the U.S. handed off much military direction to NATO as Hansen said. I think NATO is not as bad as the UN - but their professionalism is in dispute.
--------------------
Well...

What I mean is that very little is achieved in Afghanistan.

No reduction in poppy production.

No finding of Usama.

Yes, improved schooling for girls but what importance has that in a muslim country?

The moment when international troops will leave Karzai will hide in Kabul and Talibans will rule the countryside.

/track_snake
track_snake Wrote:
WmLambert Wrote:I understand there was a measureable improvement - not just in the freedom it granted women. This stalled after the U.S. handed off much military direction to NATO as Hansen said. I think NATO is not as bad as the UN - but their professionalism is in dispute.
--------------------
Well...

What I mean is that very little is achieved in Afghanistan.

No reduction in poppy production.

No finding of Usama.

Yes, improved schooling for girls but what importance has that in a muslim country?

The moment when international troops will leave Karzai will hide in Kabul and Talibans will rule the countryside.

/track_snake
Germany hosts and coaches the national Afghan women soccer team these days. Who would have thought anything like that exists. :lol: They're pretty happy to play without sacks put over their heads. Might have a greater impact than bombing them.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germ...98,00.html

(note the links on the right, "The Rise of Adolf Hitler" if you are interested in this part of history.)
Lots of you folks seem to downplay the importance of stabilizing Afghanistan.
See this article
It is not just poppies and womens education that matter. It is about Taliban rule and jihad training camps, and the ramifications to Pakistan, the middle east and the rest of the world if these things thrive.

Yet, the NATO effort there seems to prove that few European countries are able to produce sufficient military will or acumen to make a difference. The enervation of Europe seems complete. They have become quads or emigrated to the Dominican Republic. This poses quite a challenge to the stability of the ME.
you see, jt,
stability in the ME would be achieved if the NATO, especially the Americans back off. (And find some new home for the Jews in Texas or so). South East Asia became peaceful since the Americans finally went home, works the same somewhere else.
Obviously, after we witnessed several years of engagement in Afghanistan and Iraq, stabilizing the region and catching Osama isn't the agenda, but destabilizing and encouraging the Taliban and Al Queda and any other rag head group. Continuous war makes profits, and can be used to confine your liberties in the USA.
quadrat Wrote:you see, jt,
stability in the ME would be achieved if the NATO, especially the Americans back off. (And find some new home for the Jews in Texas or so). South East Asia became peaceful since the Americans finally went home, works the same somewhere else.
Obviously, after we witnessed several years of engagement in Afghanistan and Iraq, stabilizing the region and catching Osama isn't the agenda, but destabilizing and encouraging the Taliban and Al Queda and any other rag head group. Continuous war makes profits, and can be used to confine your liberties in the USA.
You are funny Quadrat. But maybe you are trying to be serious. If so, explain how stability in the ME would be achieved if the US and NATO backed off.
Huh? That's an absurd question. Just imagine what an Alab force occuping your country, forcing a way of life you hate upon you, would contribute to peace at your home.
Afghans and Iraqis want neither the Taliban nor you around. You attract them, and they attract you. What a convenient partnership.
quadrat Wrote:Huh? That's an absurd question. Just imagine what an Alab force occuping your country, forcing a way of life you hate upon you, would contribute to peace at your home.
Afghans and Iraqis want neither the Taliban nor you around. You attract them, and they attract you. What a convenient partnership.

:lol: :lol: :lol:
All the evidence available shows the average citizen under the heels of terrorists or despots pray for U.S. intervention, because they are the one force for good who can protect them without demanding allegiance in return. Paraphrasing Reagan's D-Day commemoration speech, General Colin Powell said: "The US has gone forth over and over again in the 20th century to save the world from dictatorships and has lost the lives of hundreds of thousands of our young men and all we ask is a place to bury our dead. We've seized no more territory, all we've asked for is cemeteries to bury our dead."
WmLambert Wrote:All the evidence available shows the average citizen under the heels of terrorists or despots pray for U.S. intervention, because they are the one force for good who can protect them without demanding allegiance in return.
Really? Shock
Yeah, really. If you were in Darfur, living in a hole in the ground, watching your family die around you, do you want UN blue helmets, NATO, homegrown militia, or U.S. forces to come marching over the horizon?

History shows rape and pillaging, interception of charitable donations, and worsening improvement from others, who should be helping rather than making it worse. The most honorable charities are The Salvation Army, but without U.S. to guard them - they are abused as much as those they try to help. Islamicists won't let Red Cross charities help anywhere, unless they change their logos to a red crescent.
Track,

Let me propose that the GWOT cannot be measured as a conventional conflict. Afghanistan can grow all the poppies they want,it isn't my business and they can have sex with goats,little boys and beat their women for fun,it is not our cause.

I'd love to read of Bin Laden's death,but primarily what is good for the west(whether anyone but Americans understand it or not) is we're fighting and killing Islamic fanatics in THEIR homes,not ours.

Their mothers get to suffer war,their homes get blown up,ours do not,they're "warriors" must protect their turf instead of us having to do so here and if they wise up and start fighting us here and ignore us there,we can always kill all of them in one night with nuclear weaponry.

Cheer up a little about these robotic idiots. They're a nightmare for Islam and it's followers,a pimple on our red as.s is all Islam will ever be.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11