World

Partly Sunny with Showers 10° London Hi 15°C / Lo 8°C

Exclusive

US wants 20,000 more troops to fight Taliban

British and American soldiers to shoulder brunt of surge's next phase

By Kim Sengupta in Kabul

British troops in Helmand province recently. Last month was the deadliest for UK forces since the Falklands war

SUSANNAH IRELAND

British troops in Helmand province recently. Last month was the deadliest for UK forces since the Falklands war

The commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan will ask for 20,000 more international troops as part of his new strategic plan for the alliance's war against a resurgent Taliban, The Independent has learned.

The demand from General Stanley McChrystal will almost certainly lead to more British soldiers being sent to the increasingly treacherous battlegrounds of Helmand, the Taliban heartland, despite growing opposition to the war.

General McChrystal, tasked with turning the tide in the battle against the insurgency on the ground, has given a presentation of his draft report to senior Afghan government figures in which he also proposes raising the size of the Afghan army and police force.

But the request for troop reinforcements will come at a time of intensifying public debate about the role of the Nato mission. Last month saw a record number of troop deaths and injuries in a conflict that has claimed more than 200 British soldiers since the start of the US-led invasion in 2001. British losses rose sharply last month with 22 deaths, making it the bloodiest month for UK forces since the Falklands war. August has been the deadliest month for American troops in the eight-year war. Most of the deaths have come from lethal roadside bombs that Western troops appear unable to combat effectively. For the first time, the American public now views the fight against the Taliban as unwinnable, according to the most recent opinion polls.

The conduct of the Afghan government has not helped the mood on either side of the Atlantic. While US, British and other foreign troops are dying in what is supposedly a mission to rid Afghanistan of al-Qa'ida militants and make the country safe for democracy, the incumbent President stands accused of forging alliances with brutal warlords and overseeing outright fraud in an attempt to "steal" the national elections, the results of which are still being counted.

Last week, General David Petraeus, the head of US Central Command, intervened against a backdrop of heightened debate about the UK's military role. He stressed that the objective of the war was "to ensure that Afghanistan does not again become a sanctuary for al-Qa'ida and other extremists".

According to General McChrystal's draft plan, the number of Afghan troops would rise from 88,000 to 250,000, and the police force from 82,000 to 160,000 by 2012. These increases are higher than expected, with previous suggestions that the totals would be raised to 134,000 and 120,000 for the army and police respectively.

The US commander will, however, ask other Nato countries to send further reinforcements and will travel shortly to European capitals to discuss the issue. It is widely expected that the UK will send up to 1,500 more troops. At the same time, a force of 700 sent to help provide security for the Afghan elections last week on a temporary basis will become a permanent presence.

Following the withdrawal from Iraq, British military commanders, backed by the then Defence Secretary, John Hutton, had recommended in the spring that up to 2,500 extra troops could be sent to Afghanistan. However, following lobbying from the Treasury, Gordon Brown agreed to only the temporary deployment of 700. Criticism of the decision by senior officers has led, it is claimed, to Downing Street changing its stance.

General McChrystal, who replaced Gen David McKiernan as Nato chief in Afghanistan earlier this year, was originally due to produce his strategic report this month, but decided to wait until after the Afghan presidential election. According to Western and Afghan sources he is continuing to take soundings from various quarters and the finalised document is due out after it becomes clear whether or not a second round of voting is needed to decide the outcome of the poll.

As part of an initial troop surge overseen by General McChrystal, the US has already committed to boosting its forces from 31,000 to 68,000 this year. However Richard Holbrooke, President Obama's envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan was told by commanders in Afghanistan last week that those numbers would not be enough for what is being viewed as defining months of fighting to come.

In his meeting with Afghan officials, General McChrystal is reported to have stated that the extra troops would be needed to enforce a new policy of maintaining a presence in the areas captured from insurgents. This will provide security for residents and allow reconstruction and development.

Other Nato nations have the option of focusing on the training of Afghan security forces. However, say American officials, failure by Nato countries to "step up to the plate" would mean the shortfall would be covered by the US.

Diplomatic sources have also revealed that plans are being drawn up to sign a "compact" between Afghanistan and the US which will reiterate Washington's commitment to the security of Afghanistan while the Afghan government pledges to combat corruption and reinforce governance. Unlike previous international agreements over Afghanistan, the compact will be bilateral, without any other governments being involved. The timing of the agreement is due to coincide with a visit by Mr Karzai to New York, if, as expected, he emerges the election winner.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
US wants 20,000 more troops to fight Taliban
[info]famulla wrote:
Friday, 28 August 2009 at 11:54 pm (UTC)
British and American soldiers to shoulder brunt of surge's next phase
Kim Sengupta
UK Population is 61 million????
A time bomb that will never explode..
So the latest figures are a source of hope — showing that relatively fertile immigrants can, at least for a while, replenish the new generation of young people the country needs. In these circumstances, population fear-mongering is a kind of terrorism and the “population bomb” is a hoax. The real danger is that as people multiply, we will value them less. We should prize human life and try to continue to count it as precious, no matter how much of it we have.
Felipe Fernández-Armesto is the author of Civilisations and Food: A History
I thank you
Firozali A Mulla
Russia Had Over 100,000 Troops In Afganistan
[info]mike4626 wrote:
Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 08:09 am (UTC)
and still they were beaten. Economically seal off the country and let them sort out their own problems
Re: Russia Had Over 100,000 Troops In Afganistan - [info]vhawk1951 - Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 10:33 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Russia Had Over 100,000 Troops In Afganistan - [info]rain1950 - Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 11:19 pm (UTC) Expand
Harry Patch
[info]theprogramme wrote:
Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 12:19 am (UTC)
Haven't we learnt from history? Of course not, that's just it. He spoke of respecting not only the soldiers who fought alongside him, but also those who fought against him. The Germans playing football on Christmas day a perfect example.

Here's Harry's best line that sums up war in a nutshell: "if any man tells you he went over the top and he wasn't scared, he's a damn liar"

Thank you very much, Harry, I'm glad I can see what you see and I'm now better prepared to resist the next WAR.

I salute our armed forces serving abroad.
Obama & Bush
[info]ejh16 wrote:
Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 12:26 am (UTC)
How again exactly is Obama different from Bush? They both seem to be similarly infatuated with illegal wars of aggression. Do those of you who voted for Obama and those of you in other countries that naively believed in him feel like suckers now? You should have known. Obama may be gentler in appearance than Bush and he may be of the other party, but we should not forget that he is an American president and all American presidents are murderers. http://theunpeople.blogspot.com/
Re: Obama & Bush
[info]littleglimmer wrote:
Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 09:35 am (UTC)
The US is a military society, just like modern Israel. The constant backdrop to their head of state, whom is referred to constantly as Commander-in-Chief, is a military one. Bush was far more open about it, as he loved playing soldiers and believed he would be a Hero, but no President will ever be powerful or different enough to change the society from what it is. The rule of self-interest backed by violence is one which goes back to the first days of European settlement and has simply become the foundation of the homogeneous country. By effectively dodging the economically crippling consequences of two World Wars (and indeed profiting from them) the US has come into a position of global economic dominance. This has been the means by which it has been able to use other countries as testing grounds to bring ever more destructive power and sophistication to its weapons systems. The words Democracy and Freedom (neither of which can be objectively used to describe US society) have been shamelessly used as the sheep's clothing to further this greed for violent power. The phantom prize of economic wealth has been used to dupe allies, who have borne the brunt of casualties and risk.
The United States of America is a paranoid, military society. Arguments about freedom, choice, capitalism are diversions.
Despite the overwhelming majority of Americans being shallow-thinking selfish bullies, there are many who are decent civilised people - it is to these the rest of the world needs to look for relief from the madness driving successive US Administrations.
Re: Obama & Bush - [info]rain1950 - Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 11:01 pm (UTC) Expand
20,000 more criminals
[info]kweliyangu wrote:
Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 01:05 am (UTC)
Naturally, 20.000 more to fight the Taliban. And obviously, fight the Taliban in a war that started as a war against Al-Qaeda. Naturally. All quite normal with a country (the US) along with its poodles, that has made a habit of resolving disputes at the barrel of a gun. To make us believe that Afghanistan, Iran or any other near banana republic are threats to world peace, is a huge detour form the real threats to world peace, corporate greed notwithstanding: America and its poodles, Israel included. Anyone do me a favor of announcing on this forum how many unprovoked wars America has initiated since World War II? In the process, please appraise us of the number of dead innocents (non American victims, in case you misunderstand) as a result; better yet, complete with names of the said victims (I mean real humans with faces, arms, feelings and all) and a brief family history. And as you engage your efforts in the process, please educate us as to how many equivalent innocent victims from the American-and-poodle side (I'm sure such figures will be much more readily available) have been created as a result. I am holding my breath waiting for the answer and I thank you.
American Wars since WWII
[info]peteloud wrote:
Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 07:33 am (UTC)
Anyone do me a favor of announcing on this forum how many unprovoked wars America has initiated since World War II?

Chronological List of US Air Warfare Campaigns Against 26 Countries Since World War II

Japan (1943-45): conventional, incendiary, nuclear
China (1945-49): conventional, biological; (1951-52): conventional, biological, chemical
Korea (1950-53): conventional, biological, chemical, incendiary
Guatemala (1954): conventional; (1960): conventional; (1967-69): conventional
Indonesia (1958): conventional
Cuba (1959-61): conventional, (biochemical attacks in other years)
Vietnam (1961-73): conventional, chemical, biological, cluster
Congo (1964): conventional
Peru (1965): conventional
Laos (1964-73): conventional, chemical, biological, cluster
Cambodia (1969-70): conventional, chemical, biological; (1975): conventional
El Salvador (1980-89): conventional
Nicaragua (1980-89): conventional
Grenada (1983): conventional
Lebanon (1983-4): conventional
Syria (1984): conventional
Libya (1986): conventional
Iran (1987): conventional
Panama (1989): conventional, chemical, biological
Iraq (1991-2002): conventional, chemical, biological, cluster, DU
Kuwait (1991): conventional, chemical, biological, cluster, DU
Somalia (1993): conventional
Bosnia (1993-95): conventional, cluster, DU
Sudan (1998): conventional; biological
Afghanistan (1998): conventional; (2001-02): conventional, chemical, biological, cluster, DU
Yugoslavia (1999): conventional, chemical, biological, cluster, DU

In addition there were other U.S. military engagements that did not involve air strikes. The Federation of American Scientists lists a total of 201 since 1945.
Re: American Wars since WWII - [info]freddyfresh - Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 08:36 am (UTC) Expand
Re: American Wars since WWII - [info]rain1950 - Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 11:22 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: 20,000 more criminals - [info]kweliyangu - Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 02:08 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: 20,000 more criminals - [info]rain1950 - Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 11:47 pm (UTC) Expand
[info]theprogramme wrote:
Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 01:17 am (UTC)
ej16 - Then how is Obama different to Bush? How do you define Bush? Are you seriously thinking that all Americans are Fascists? You're a mad conspiracy theorist I'm afraid. Obama is true to the word and I support him fully.
[info]ancientoneuk wrote:
Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 01:59 am (UTC)
Well you are obviously one that bought a ticket to the faux show...

Obama is a smooth, acceptable face on the same despicable policies, nothing is changing except the spin surrounding such hypocritical acts, Obama is still under the thrall of Israel and the corporations and until the US can find the balls to throw those chains off, then nothing will change.

At the end of the day, innocent civilians are dying at the hands of American soldiers, renditions is still being carried out as per his edict last week, he has failed to initiate war crime actions against anyone in the last administration save the threat of a few lawyers, he is still breaking Posse Comitatus and he is still ignoring the damage done to the Constituition, just because he doesn't do it all with a "YeeHah, ride 'em cowboy" attititude doesn't mean he is ANY different, people are still dying at his order.
Fantasy Land - [info]theprogramme - Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 03:03 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Fantasy Land - [info]ancientoneuk - Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 09:19 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Fantasy Land - [info]theprogramme - Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 11:59 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Fantasy Land - [info]ancientoneuk - Sunday, 30 August 2009 at 12:42 am (UTC) Expand
Standing up for what's right.
[info]mdroogpoppins wrote:
Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 04:20 am (UTC)
We must bear in mind that this is a noble cause. The future of Afghanistan is at stake.
What's a few hundred British troops lives compared with a peaceful Afghanistan where all tribes live in glorious harmony and dance together in the streets?

Don't forget that if it wasn't for British troops regularly getting blown to pieces, those nasty Afghans would almost certainly come over here and do wicked things to us.

Carry on with then ultimate sacrifices, brave boys, you will not have died or become crippled in vain.
Re: Standing up for what's right.
[info]alanski wrote:
Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 06:23 am (UTC)
Hey you forgot to mention the flowers, don't forget the flowers! You know the ones that greeted them in Iraq.
Re: Standing up for what's right. - [info]ancientoneuk - Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 09:21 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Standing up for what's right. - [info]freddyfresh - Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 08:43 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Standing up for what's right. - [info]alanski - Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 10:14 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Standing up for what's right. - [info]lkdamo - Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 10:49 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Standing up for what's right. - [info]alex_fraser1 - Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 11:20 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Standing up for what's right. - [info]gnikrab - Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 08:49 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Standing up for what's right. - [info]rain1950 - Sunday, 30 August 2009 at 12:02 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Standing up for what's right. - [info]vhawk1951 - Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 10:55 am (UTC) Expand
Obama phooey:
[info]johnnywi wrote:
Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 04:45 am (UTC)
Obama is nothing but a puppet of his Israeli handlers. The co president Rahm Emmanuel and his version of Carl Rove, David Axelrod. Hillary clinton is a longtime warhawk[ Bosnia, Kosovo, Bombing Iraq, and Sudan]. She voted for The Iraq war as well. So did his vice president Joe Biden. This is just a warmup to an attack on Iran. We are also up to our eyeballs in Pakistan. How long can 2 bankrupt countries The USA and the UK. keep it up?
Who really cares any longer?
[info]mackname wrote:
Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 05:58 am (UTC)
When did anyone listen to the voices of...
So, why should I care!
Bring them home
[info]johncmullen1960 wrote:
Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 06:05 am (UTC)
What part of the word "losing" do they not understand?
Re: Bring them home
[info]ancientoneuk wrote:
Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 09:23 pm (UTC)
Ah but according to them in control, we are not losing, it seems Obushama and Browninski studied at the Field Marshall Hague school of military tactics...
Any one out there?
[info]tovasco wrote:
Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 07:07 am (UTC)
Dear General McChrystal

It has come to my attention that the country of Afghanistan is populated by people called 'Afghans'. If you Google them you will see that they have defeated every military force thrown against them including the huge, brutal and unaccountable Soviet army.

May I therefore suggest that any additional troops be drawn from the local population who after all are extremely handy and can go home for tea after duty thereby leading to large savings on accommodation. With their reputation for fierceness, familiarity with weapons and the terrain the six weeks training formally accorded to troops in the First and Second World Wars will merely be a formality.

On the other hand you may feel that the average Afghan can’t be bothered to get out of bed to save his own backyard, in which case you would be best advised to start packing now as it is unlikely that any amount of effort on your part will make diddly-squat difference in the long term.

Your sincerely,

A concerned citizen
Afganistan - A Lost Cause
[info]mike4626 wrote:
Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 07:22 am (UTC)
history tells that the Afgan problem will never be solved by force. Even the huge and violent Russian occupation failed.
(no subject) - [info] - Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 08:21 am (UTC)
Re: i don't belive any of it.......
[info]corporeal_v001 wrote:
Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 06:26 pm (UTC)

Why dont you volunteer and go there to fight your winnable fight...
Re: i don't belive any of it....... - [info]alanski - Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 08:04 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: i don&#39;t belive any of it....... - [info]corporeal_v001 - Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 08:12 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: i don't belive any of it....... - [info]islander1 - Sunday, 30 August 2009 at 11:32 am (UTC) Expand
Re: i don&#39;t belive any of it....... - [info]corporeal_v001 - Sunday, 30 August 2009 at 12:10 pm (UTC) Expand
VIETNAM: THE SEQUEL?
[info]nuzenight wrote:
Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 08:49 am (UTC)
For God's sake what's this f***ing war about, it's not poppies, pipelines or phony tea and democracy surley or is it more about the American war machine and keeping the cogs of the armourments industry well and truly oiled with billions of dollars. Our troops our dying and so are women and children on the other side. The west are wanted in Afghanistan as much as the Taliban are in Britain. At my age I can tell you that history certainly does repeat itself and for the same reasons, the worst aspects of human nature namely greed/selfishness. It's ironic that if there is a heaven I will enter that kingdom before the likes of Blair,Brown,Bush or even Obama!
Time To Go
[info]rustyroosterfan wrote:
Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 09:11 am (UTC)
Attacking the Taliban for 9-11 is like attacking a hotel keeper for something a hotel guest did.

The Taliban are not nice, but they are not the worst regime in the world. After all, the US and UK funded the Taliban so they could overthrow the Soviet regime that was there earlier.

It was al Qada that attacked the US on 9-11 and they are now mostly in Pakistan, with funds coming from Saudi Arabia.

It is time for us to leave Afghanistan.

If the USA wants to launch a real war over its drug problems, let it do it on its own.
Re: Time To Go
[info]alex_fraser1 wrote:
Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 11:07 am (UTC)
AL CIA DA were behind 911.
The War is a lie.
Go and research the many smoking guns that prove this.
The Military thermite explosive found in the rubble fo all 3 towers.
YES 3!!!
Building 7 a 53 storey building collapsed in 6 seconds and wasn't even hit by a plane..
There are hundreds of other anomolies....
The gold in the base of tower 2 that was moved, of the 19 hijackers named 9 turned up alive and well.
the FAKE AL CIA DA videos.
Until we get to the truth of 9/11 this argument is illogical.
Or we can believe the fairytale about the big bad boogeyman in his cave being behind it.
Oh yeah Santa came down my chimney last year too.
All you guys think you are so informed and you believe in a big bad boogeyman in a cave.
Its ridiculous. A ridiculous, sick joke.
They are laughing at the sheep who have bought the lie.
Watch THIS.....

http://www.loosechange911.com/

and this....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nD7dbkkBIA

When the hell are the journalists going to stop being complicit in this LIE?!!
FOr god's sake the info is there for anyone to research, the problem is people dont WANT to believe it, as it takes such a leap of faith.
Re: Time To Go - [info]drjinnah - Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 12:10 pm (UTC) Expand
don't think he'll get em
[info]vhawk1951 wrote:
Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 10:30 am (UTC)
no point in throwing young lives away for a lie
Re: don't think he'll get em
[info]alex_fraser1 wrote:
Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 11:09 am (UTC)
Well said brother!!!
One of the many people who knows about the FRAUD of 9/11 and also 7/7.
So depressing that our media are complicit in the cover up and continue to churn out their lies and propoganda.
All those journalists ask yourself Where is your integrity?
What did you do with your life?
Serve an evil cartel of "elite people" and their interests.
How very noble of you............
Re: don't think he'll get em - [info]georgesign - Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 12:06 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: don&#39;t think he&#39;ll get em - [info]vhawk1951 - Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 12:35 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: don't think he'll get em - [info]corporeal_v001 - Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 12:55 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: don&#39;t think he&#39;ll get em - [info]vhawk1951 - Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 01:30 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info] - Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 10:32 am (UTC)
Re: Its a trap
[info]alex_fraser1 wrote:
Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 11:12 am (UTC)
Well said man..The most backed president by Wall Street in History.
A tyrant the like of which the world has never seen, yet still people can't see it.........
Is this the "Cahnge" that Obama was talking about?
Slaughtering 1000's of men chasing a big bad boogeyman in a cave....
Yes we can Yes we can Yes we can, Obaaaaamaaaaaaaaa.
Policy Makers Seek to Learn From 1937's Stalled Comeback
[info]famulla wrote:
Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 10:49 am (UTC)
US wants 20,000 more troops to fight Taliban
We are waiting. No? Nevertheless, this is intermission read on.
And USA in Vietnam?
President Richard Nixon considered Ted Kennedy such a threat that he tried to catch Kennedy cheating on his wife, even ordering aides to recruit Secret Service agents to spill secrets on the senator's behavior.
"Do you have anybody in the Secret Service that you can get to?" Nixon asked his aide John Ehrlichman in a stark series of Oval Office conversations about Kennedy before the 1972 election. "Yeah, yeah," Ehrlichman replied.
Policy Makers Seek to Learn From 1937's Stalled Comeback
"Nancy Reagan had it right: 'Just say no!' All one needs to do is check out of the electronic world for a month to see ..Evidence is mounting that the longest recession since World War II is losing its grip on the U.S. economy..
The latest hint is due Friday when the government releases data on consumer spending and income for July. Personal spending is expected to have posted a modest gain last month, driven higher by the popular Cash for Clunkers program. Economists surveyed by Thomson Reuters expect personal spending rose 0.2 percent in July after a 0.4 percent gain in June.
I am pleased that at the time where I see all boats leaking and few oars that Stan comes to say, ?We ought to keep our heads? Believe me, that sort of put anyone in a driving seat and think, Let me give myself but a one chance. I may still leak this ne too? The die-hard types.
Picture Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniack, Henry Ford, Estée Lauder, Bill Gates, Larry Page, etc. operating under the yoke of a nonprofit charter I dare not.
I think they had one thing in comment give the public something cheaper that otherwise others could not give. I think they also had the common sense of love to many. These days we do not have that. We have a fight within the lungs, one saying I need more oxygen as I am near the heart and the other I am far I need more. Too much of the self-competition that kills or lulls the self.
I thank you
Firozali A Mulla
Re: Policy Makers Seek to Learn From 1937's Stalled Comeback
[info]alex_fraser1 wrote:
Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 11:13 am (UTC)
Go and look into what our world leaders and policy makers get up to during their Summer break right here and then ask yourself if you are comfortable with this and why your media isn't reporting it............

SCUMBAGS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2E_HP97Rzc&feature=related
America's war for Americans
[info]rhinocircus wrote:
Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 11:26 am (UTC)
Just "what it says on the tin".

Let those loud-mouthed, war-movie makers, who lay down their lives on celluloid, do their patriotic duty and fight their own wars for real.

The Brits need to reclaim their identity and independence from the moronic corporate American mob who are sent to kill for corporate profits.

America has the gall to promote its self Pied-Piper of war--and through NATO demands other European nations to die for American hegemony. Quite a cunning plan--and if they are as stupid as their leaders, they'll get away with it.
Re: America's war for Americans
[info]drjinnah wrote:
Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 12:24 pm (UTC)

"Let those loud-mouthed, war-movie makers, who lay down their lives on celluloid, do their patriotic duty and fight their own wars for real."
If they did they'd be in the IDF.
Superpower is not powerful enough to beat bare feet & naked hand Taliban.
[info]djangovsartana wrote:
Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 12:16 pm (UTC)
Superpower need more troops to be able to beat a bunch of miserable people with bare feet and naked hands. LOOSERS!!!
Re: Superpower is not powerful enough to beat bare feet & naked hand Taliban.
[info]corporeal_v001 wrote:
Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 12:50 pm (UTC)

In the past Britain, whilst empire building, managed to conquer most of the world, but they were stopped at Afghanistan. Now its back for more of the same with their new superpower buddy.

Obviously, in 2002, the Russians warned Bush. They must be laughing their heads off in the Kremlin, right about now.
ONE WORD FOR THE AMERICANS
[info]corporeal_v001 wrote:
Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 12:45 pm (UTC)

VIETNAM
Who really cares any longer?I am pleased that at the time where I see all boats leaking and few oars
[info]famulla wrote:
Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 01:55 pm (UTC)
Who really cares any longer?
THIS IS THE TOPS HONEST WHO CARES? DO YOU> DOES BROWN> DOES OBAMA. IT IS the mom and dad who miss the young ones.
WE are from Darwin He was right.
The Next Evolution in Economics: Rethinking Growth
Stan Stalnaker
I am pleased that at the time where I see all boats leaking and few oars that Stan comes to say, ?We ought to keep our heads? Believe me, that sort of put anyone in a driving seat and think, Let me give myself but a one chance. I may still leak this one too? The die-hard types.
I thank you
Firozali A Mulla
tovasco.....
[info]chipmem1 wrote:
Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 02:26 pm (UTC)
your point hit a chord with me. If there are so many wanting a more
liberal future it shouldn't be hard to recruit from within Afghanistan.

Another point, would be to say the more diverse our society becomes
the less likelyhood of finding an army. If we needed the masses of the second
world war, now.......

How many would go ?
Get advice from Srilanka
[info]truthneverdie wrote:
Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 06:37 pm (UTC)
US and European countries along with China, India, Iran, Pakistan worked together and gave their advice to Srilankan government to defeat liberation struggles of tamils. China supplied cluster bombs and chemical wepons, Pakistan gave ammuniations and pilots to operate air attack. The West also supplied arms and miliray advice and training. India gave its support on the sea, rador system to monitor the arm supply and military personal to fight LTTE. Srilanka used its personal and took away all the possible witnesses from the scene. They bombed schools, hospitals and killed over 30,000 innocents civilians and arrested 300,000 tamils and put them in an open prison. The West and UN was very cautiously played a double game. They tried to show the world they are neutral but they silently encouraged Srilanka to do whatever they want. Srilanka says they have the best army, navy and airforece in the world. They say they never killed a civilian. UN praised their way of killing people. It all happened because tamils have no nation. There is no oil in the region. Srilanka finished the war in 3 years. For west, it is now over 8 years but still Afcanistan is a nightmare. Poor soldiers are dying. Why yor are afraid to use the same technique here or get the Srilankan forces in the field. They may completely clear that area without any human being. Then Banki moon is there to visit give a certificate.
Stop the killings
[info]humanright wrote:
Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 08:57 pm (UTC)
War is the ultimate terror. Stop killing and torturing people. Be human and be civilized
more troops
[info]jimfred wrote:
Saturday, 29 August 2009 at 10:35 pm (UTC)
don't put your daughter on the stage.don't put your son in the army.
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date