[Newsbot]

Title: Karzai seeks control over NATO deployments
Category: Military
Posted By: Eisensapper
Date: 2009-01-20 08:46:50

[roger-roger]

NATO shouldnt get in Karzai's way, if this is what Afghanistan wants they should have it.

[CommanderSock]

Eisensapper Eisensapper:

NATO shouldnt get in Karzai's way, if this is what Afghanistan wants they should have it.

If Nato wasnt there he'd be overthrown by now.

[roger-roger]

True, but NATO is there at the request of the Afghan Government. If Karzai feels the ANA should take on a larger role then they currently are, then they should. He should also be able to stand up to the Americans, let them know that ultimately it is Afghanistan that runs the show not the USA.

[bootlegga]

Maybe he can find a way to get those Germans/Italians/French to pick up more of the load in the south, and let Canada and the Dutch have a breather in the North.

[BartSimpson]

Eisensapper Eisensapper:

NATO shouldnt get in Karzai's way, if this is what Afghanistan wants they should have it.

Concur. It's his country.

[Streaker]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Maybe he can find a way to get those Germans/Italians/French to pick up more of the load in the south

You forgot to mention the Yanks.

[commanderkai]

Streaker Streaker:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Maybe he can find a way to get those Germans/Italians/French to pick up more of the load in the south

You forgot to mention the Yanks.

No, because the Americans already play a large role. Sigh...I've been through this with you Streaker, the Americans, last time we argued this, constituted about 50% of the NATO force in Afghanistan, and that was before a deployment of 9000 soldiers from Iraq to Afghanistan.

[Streaker]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Streaker Streaker:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Maybe he can find a way to get those Germans/Italians/French to pick up more of the load in the south

You forgot to mention the Yanks.

No, because the Americans already play a large role. Sigh...I've been through this with you Streaker, the Americans, last time we argued this, constituted about 50% of the NATO force in Afghanistan, and that was before a deployment of 9000 soldiers from Iraq to Afghanistan.

Up until now their contribution has been miserly to the point of being exploitative of their allies. 50% sounds like a lot until you consider other figures, such as the small number of soldiers in Afghanistan to begin with, and the fact that nearby in Iraq the Yanks chose to dump something like 150000 soldiers.

Conclusion: We're fighting their war on terrorism for them (which isn't even ours to fight), while they're off destroying Iraq.

This is what Canadians are dying for?

[commanderkai]

Streaker Streaker:

Up until now their contribution has been miserly to the point of being exploitative of their allies. 50% sounds like a lot until you consider other figures, such as the small number of soldiers in Afghanistan to begin with, and the fact that nearby in Iraq the Yanks chose to dump something like 150000 soldiers.

We've been through this as well. Afghanistan is a smaller nation, with less infrastructure, with less people compared to Iraq. In Iraq, the population is about 30,000,000 while in Afghanistan, it was maybe 4-8 million. Iraq had a much more powerful and better armed enemy military, even though it basically did not put up a fight at all.

50% of what is it? 50 thousand? Is a large number, especially considering a nation with 8 times as large of a population has only 150,000 soldiers

$1:

Conclusion: We're fighting their war on terrorism for them (which isn't even ours to fight), while they're off destroying Iraq.

This is what Canadians are dying for?

Very biased conclusions, considering Iraq is far from destroyed, and just recently I've heard that none of the major US media outlets have correspondents in Iraq, which tells you a great deal how different the nation is compared to before the Surge.

Also, Canada, along with the rest of NATO, agreed to take part in the military invasion as a part of the NATO Charter. We, as a NATO nation, saw a military contribution was the best way to assist our ally in destroying AQ and the Taiban.

[Streaker]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Streaker Streaker:

Up until now their contribution has been miserly to the point of being exploitative of their allies. 50% sounds like a lot until you consider other figures, such as the small number of soldiers in Afghanistan to begin with, and the fact that nearby in Iraq the Yanks chose to dump something like 150000 soldiers.

We've been through this as well. Afghanistan is a smaller nation, with less infrastructure, with less people compared to Iraq. In Iraq, the population is about 30,000,000 while in Afghanistan, it was maybe 4-8 million.

You need to double-check these numbers.

[commanderkai]

Streaker Streaker:

You need to double-check these numbers.

You're right, (I wonder how Afghanistan can sustain 32 million) however, once again, Iraq's military was much more developed at the start of Iraq, and it had much more infrastructure that needed to be secured.

Also, since the United States has 50% of a force in Afghanistan, even though NATO itself has 26 independent nations, the fact that NATO has to rely on the United States to constitute a bulk of the force is sad.