[PENATRATOR]

Streaker Streaker:

PENATRATOR PENATRATOR:

Streaker Streaker:

Wouldn't you prefer it if there were 150 000 more of them in Afghanistan?

What happened to your "they are not pulling their weight" argument?

They are doing their share, it would be nice to get the Euro countries into the fight though. They can spout off about having troops in country, however, suntanning in mazar sharif is quiet different then fighting through a wadi in Panjwai

How many soldiers did the Soviets put into Afghanistan? And still they failed. The Americans have a small fraction of that. They're not pulling their weight - too busy screwing Iraq up.

Anyhow, kudos to the Europeans for not being America's suckas.

Whatever, compare it to the Soviets numbers now. Why can you never admit you are offside?
Yes kudos to the Euro's for standing by while while the rest of us slug it out. Wonder what France and other Euro countries would look like had we stood by in 1914 and '39. Actually I guess it would just give us a bigger Germany to be pissed at for not helping.

[bootlegga]

commanderkai commanderkai:

A bit of an old story, but here

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/03/ ... litary.php

$1:

There are about 62,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan, about 34,000 of them American, up from just 25,000 American troops in 2005. The American troops are divided into a force of 16,000 who operate under NATO command and 18,000 who conduct counterterrorism and other missions under American command outside the NATO structure, according to Pentagon statistics. The initial planning under way would send about two additional brigades of American forces, or about 7,000 troops, to Afghanistan next year. That would meet two-thirds of what commanders have portrayed in recent months as a shortfall of three brigades, or about 10,000 troops, including combat forces, trainers, intelligence officers and crews for added helicopters and troop carriers.

Okay, 34,000 US soldiers out of a force of 62,000 is FAR from a paltry, especially since NATO is an alliance. Comparing Iraq to Afghanistan is poor since Iraq is more populated, and as such has a lot more infrastructure. Even in 2005, the US constituted a little bit less than 50% of the troops, quite a lot for a nation with obligations to South Korea, Japan, European bases, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and wherever else.

Your own source confirms what I said...the US represented less than half of the entire forces in Afghanistan. Say what you want, but 34,000 out of 1 million is paltry. Our contribution is closer to 20% of our entire army, so we're really punching above our weight so to speak.

Frankly, I don't care about America's other commitments. If Afghanistan was as vital as it's portrayed, the US would have deployed far more troops here and crushed the Taliban for once and for all. Instead, they pulled troops from here to fight in Iraq, so of course it's going to be compared to the Iraq conflict.

[commanderkai]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Your own source confirms what I said...the US represented less than half of the entire forces in Afghanistan. Say what you want, but 34,000 out of 1 million is paltry. Our contribution is closer to 20% of our entire army, so we're really punching above our weight so to speak.

Frankly, I don't care about America's other commitments. If Afghanistan was as vital as it's portrayed, the US would have deployed far more troops here and crushed the Taliban for once and for all. Instead, they pulled troops from here to fight in Iraq, so of course it's going to be compared to the Iraq conflict.

Okay, I guess we have different views on numbers, but committing 47% of all force stationed in Afghanistan isn't a paltry or a pittance. Your argument said that "Streaker not far off when he says that the US contibution in Afghanistan is paltry in comparison to Iraq."...yet contributing 47% of the force sounds much more than a paltry amount of forces. Afghanistan is what? 5-6 million? Iraq has about 30 million people. You need more forces keep order in areas with a higher population.

You didn't say compared to the US military, but even then, the US doesn't have 1 million soldiers. It has other branches; navy, air force, administration, support staff...military personnel that can't just be handed a gun and put on the streets of Kabul. This isn't some RTS game where every military unit you make is for combat or combat support.

You could care or not care about US commitments. Guess what? Nobody in the US military infrastructure gives a damn about if you care or not. They're there because the US has commitments to its allies. And EVEN if it did care about your opinion, how many of those troops would really be useful in Afghanistan? Some, sure, but the troops in Europe are probably armor units (just thinking on US countering the Soviet armor threat during the Cold War), the ones in Japan are probably air squadrons (air conquers all, and being in a relatively safe position, you'd be able to strike Soviet naval assets using aircraft from Japan) and pulling the forces from South Korea and Saudi Arabia would probably not do much but show the enemies of the United States that the US is desperate. So maybe after the US pulls all of its assets and cancels its obligations, it might have 200,000 extra combat troops for Afghanistan, and then America's reputation is severely damaged as it would protect its own interests over its friends and allies.

[bootlegga]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Okay, I guess we have different views on numbers, but committing 47% of all force stationed in Afghanistan isn't a paltry or a pittance. Your argument said that "Streaker not far off when he says that the US contibution in Afghanistan is paltry in comparison to Iraq."...yet contributing 47% of the force sounds much more than a paltry amount of forces. Afghanistan is what? 5-6 million? Iraq has about 30 million people. You need more forces keep order in areas with a higher population.

You didn't say compared to the US military, but even then, the US doesn't have 1 million soldiers. It has other branches; navy, air force, administration, support staff...military personnel that can't just be handed a gun and put on the streets of Kabul. This isn't some RTS game where every military unit you make is for combat or combat support.

You could care or not care about US commitments. Guess what? Nobody in the US military infrastructure gives a damn about if you care or not. They're there because the US has commitments to its allies. And EVEN if it did care about your opinion, how many of those troops would really be useful in Afghanistan? Some, sure, but the troops in Europe are probably armor units (just thinking on US countering the Soviet armor threat during the Cold War), the ones in Japan are probably air squadrons (air conquers all, and being in a relatively safe position, you'd be able to strike Soviet naval assets using aircraft from Japan) and pulling the forces from South Korea and Saudi Arabia would probably not do much but show the enemies of the United States that the US is desperate. So maybe after the US pulls all of its assets and cancels its obligations, it might have 200,000 extra combat troops for Afghanistan, and then America's reputation is severely damaged as it would protect its own interests over its friends and allies.

The US contributes 85-90% of one force (Iraq) and less than 50% in another (Afghanistan). To me, that sounds like one is paltry compared to the other, especially when the nation in question is the world's LONE superpower. BTW, the other reason for the big difference between the two deployments is not just population. The US had NATO support for one conflict and had to rely on military stalwarts like Tonga and Macedonia for the other one. I'd also agrue that other mission priorities like maintaining oil infrastructure and such necessitate more troops and such, but that's a whole other argument (about why the US in is Iraq in the first place).

If you add up all the National Guard units, the US Army and Marine units, then the US does about a million men capable of ground operations. Of course not all of them are front line soldiers. I never said that. I simply said that when the world's superpower commits 34,000 troops to one operation and 144,000 to another, it speaks volumes about the urgency and priority of one mission over another. Check out Global Security.org and find out who's stationed where. Korea, Japan and Germany all have combat units (Infantry/Marines) fully capable of deploying to either Iraq or Afghanistan. In fact, units from all of them have spent time in Iraq, much to the consternation of certain allies (South Korea for one) about such deployments. The US doesn't have to empty the cupboard to show that Afghanistan is important. I just find it hard to believe that the nation that actively supported El Qaeda has 1/5 the troops of one that had NOTHING to do with it.

Based on all the hype regarding how successful the 'surge' in Iraq (by US political leaders) was at stabilizing the situation, I would say that makes a very strong case that those troops "would really be useful in Afghanistan" to quote you.

[commanderkai]

bootlegga bootlegga:

The US contributes 85-90% of one force (Iraq) and less than 50% in another (Afghanistan). To me, that sounds like one is paltry compared to the other, especially when the nation in question is the world's LONE superpower.

The US was the biggest partner in the Coalition of the Willing, and they were the ones who spearheaded the Iraq War. Afghanistan, however, is a NATO operation, and there is no reason why the United States should constitute an overwhelming majority of the forces. Think about it, the United States supplies 47% of the military force in an military action of that involved 26 different nations (if I remember correctly) so that 53% of the leftover force can be divided among 25 other nations.

$1:

BTW, the other reason for the big difference between the two deployments is not just population. The US had NATO support for one conflict and had to rely on military stalwarts like Tonga and Macedonia for the other one. I'd also agrue that other mission priorities like maintaining oil infrastructure and such necessitate more troops and such, but that's a whole other argument (about why the US in is Iraq in the first place).

And thus you answered why the US should not be be the overly reliant military force in Afghanistan. The United States, by your own admission, had support of 25 other nations, including other military powers like France, Germany, and Britain. (Military powers meaning they yield a highly advanced and properly trained force) The United States, outside of the United Kingdom, was alone basically in supplying manpower for Iraq, and with that, has a higher ratio of forces in Iraq compared to Afghanistan.

$1:

If you add up all the National Guard units, the US Army and Marine units, then the US does about a million men capable of ground operations. Of course not all of them are front line soldiers. I never said that. I simply said that when the world's superpower commits 34,000 troops to one operation and 144,000 to another, it speaks volumes about the urgency and priority of one mission over another.

That, or the United States decided that a nation of 30 million needs more soldiers than a nation of five million. It does have to do with priorities, but not what you're putting together. It is all statistics. Iraq has a larger population, with more resources and infrastructure, and had a much more organized military force (in the beginning) Also, the United States, once again, should not be forced to place in 150,000 soldiers in a nation of 5 million when that number has basically solved the major security issues in Iraq.

$1:

Check out Global Security.org and find out who's stationed where. Korea, Japan and Germany all have combat units (Infantry/Marines) fully capable of deploying to either Iraq or Afghanistan. In fact, units from all of them have spent time in Iraq, much to the consternation of certain allies (South Korea for one) about such deployments. The US doesn't have to empty the cupboard to show that Afghanistan is important. I just find it hard to believe that the nation that actively supported El Qaeda has 1/5 the troops of one that had NOTHING to do with it.

Yeah, they cycled units in when another unit moved out. Now the United States is redeploying 9000 soldiers into Afghanistan from Iraq.

Also, you keep using ratios like 1/5 the soldiers and blah blah. Once again, Iraq had about five or six times the number of people. Iraq had a higher rate of infrastructure development compared to the crumbling infrastructure of Afghanistan. The United States had maybe 7 more major forces that could have contributed (major powers in Afghanistan: Canada, Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Northern Alliance, probably more, plus numerous smaller contributions. Major powers in Iraq: Kurds, Britain, other much smaller contributions). Iraq had a much better developed military infrastructure and vehicles.

Stop thinking in pure troops levels. There are more contributing factors than just the level of troops.

$1:

Based on all the hype regarding how successful the 'surge' in Iraq (by US political leaders) was at stabilizing the situation, I would say that makes a very strong case that those troops "would really be useful in Afghanistan" to quote you.

And they're going there. Bush proposed that already. HOWEVER, pretending the Americans were putting only a pittance or a paltry in Afghanistan is false. Adding 47% of the entire troop levels for an alliance of 26 nations is not a paltry amount

[OPP]

ManifestDestiny ManifestDestiny:

Good for Canada. Wipe em out the quiker the better. I am still in favor of carpet bombing the whole place.

A racist bigot who can complete a sentence. I'm impressed.

[OPP]

hwacker hwacker:

OPP OPP:

ManifestDestiny ManifestDestiny:

Good for Canada. Wipe em out the quiker the better. I am still in favor of carpet bombing the whole place.

A racist bigot who can complete a sentence. I'm impressed.

Whats the matter never had a home team to cheer for ?


Oh thats right, you guys never have.

Oh BTW how is that racist ?

Calling for the death of an entire people is by any standards regarded as quite racist.

[Streaker]

hmm... A call for genocide.

Where was Mario's cop?

[roger-roger]

That sand in your *** is really bugging you isnt it?

[ShepherdsDog]

Streaker Streaker:

hmm... A call for genocide.

Where was Mario's cop?

It has a real job and can't always be around to monitor events.

[Tman1]

How about developing something for roadside bombs and save more lives than kill. That expensive shell doesn't seem to be doing much.

[roger-roger]

What do you think the Husky and the Buffalo are for, do some research before you bitch about the military.

[putz]

Tman1 Tman1:

How about developing something for roadside bombs and save more lives than kill. That expensive shell doesn't seem to be doing much.

I guess you'd know about how the shell is doing from all your time in Combat in Afghanistan

[Streaker]

Careful, Tman: You're not allowed to express your views or use your critical faculties unless you're in the army.

[Tman1]

Eisensapper Eisensapper:

What do you think the Husky and the Buffalo are for, do some research before you bitch about the military.

Well, as far as I know, a Husky is a breed of dog and the Buffalo are a big plains animal, once hunted by aboriginals and prized for their fur.

All I said was that something that detects roadside bombs to protect ground troops would be better than an 85,000 dollar shell but wow, you sure showed me with your own eptitude by telling me to research something that you probably don't know anything about anyways. Tell me how many of those vehicles Canada has in Afganistan? Why a Lav III can be easily ripped to shreds and why a majority of Canadian soldiers die by roadside bombs.

Well, if I did my research it wouldn't come up with those two vechicles but thanks.

Bitch about the military? Where the hell do you come up with that?