Thank you Italy, Spain, Greece, Lithuania (and NATO)

[lord of the mark]

1. as patroklos said, its kind of silly to diss our allies, when they are taking an action that will help win the WOT.

2. Of course the victims on 9/11 included hundreds of people who were NOT Americans, as we all seemed quite aware back then. Let us not let later political differences cause us to forget that.

3. Of course the US took the lead in the Afghan campaign, given the forces the US had and committed, that makes sense.

4. The US has been concerned to rebuild Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban. There has of course been debate about the level of effort. But we havent ignored it any point, as those whove followed the Afghan threads here would know. The Provincial Reconstruction Teams have been around since 2002, IIRC, but have been expanded recently.

5. The US military and those allies already on the ground in afghan, and the Afghan National Army, have done a good part to wear down the Taliban, and improve security around the country. As quoted in the article, the areas being turned over to NATO in western Afghanistan are already secure. Nonetheless, adding NATO personnel relieves the burden on our troops.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Giancarlo


The best you UN loving people could do is sentence a Rwandan leader responsible for genocide to six years in jail.

And the U.S. gives (and gave shelter) to terrorists from Central and South America.

And U.S. citizens gave funds to I.R.A. terrorists who planted bombs in the United Kingdom, and U.S. politicians (Republicans and Democrats) defended them and their actions as being in the political sphere. Pity the British government didn't get political with the Irish American neighbourhoods in Chicago, Boston and New York then.

The U.S. supported Jonas Savimbi in Angola and Mobutu Sese Seko in Zaire, broke sanctions against South Africa and propped up tyrannical and despotic regimes from Haiti to Indonesia.

Not a good idea to start judging people based on a war against Afghanistan and two invasions of Iraq.

[lord of the mark]

a more negative (but very much worth reading) assesment of reconstruction in Afghanistan

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4310863.stm

[Patroklos]

you wouldn't be in this situation if you finished the job in afghanistan first btw (instead of sending the bulk of your military to iraq).

So I supose using 100,000 troops to look for a single cave with two fighters is somehow more effective than 10,000?

The nature of Afghanistan is why it is taking so long, not lack of effort. Los Angeles street crime is more potent than the Taliban.

But then again our allies don't have any excuse to not be involved full scale in Afghanistan do they? Either they are not pulling their share or they are simply militarily impotent.

[dannubis]

no, i suppose that starting another war was not beneficial towards the aim of rebuilding a hell hole like post taleban afghanistan.

and 100000 soldiers are indeed more beneficial to look for a single cave amongst millions of other holes in the ground.

and i have absolutely no problems to state that military speaking most of your allies are indeed impotent compared to you. however, if your administration is willing to make the world its playground, then your administration has to come up with the means to clean up the mess itself.

[Patroklos]

no, i suppose that starting another war was not beneficial towards the aim of rebuilding a hell hole like post taleban afghanistan.

Ah, I see. We are supposed to bend the entire will and capability of our country at one problem at a time. Man, Haiti is screwed.

and i have absolutely no problems to state that military speaking most of your allies are indeed impotent compared to you. however, if your administration is willing to make the world its playground, then your administration has to come up with the means to clean up the mess itself.

The entire world? Well I think Russia, Brazil, Canada, China, and India will happily vouch for us not doing much of anything within their borders. Then there is all that water we have on this here rock. Perhaps you were refering to something else?

and 100000 soldiers are indeed more beneficial to look for a single cave amongst millions of other holes in the ground.

That was rhetorical, but for your sole benefit the correct answer is "no."

[dannubis]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Ah, I see. We are supposed to bend the entire will and capability of our country at one problem at a time. Man, Haiti is screwed.

you can bend whatever you want to whatever country you like, but don't expect the rest of us to clean your mess. and btw, we did and still do support you in Afghanistan. but like i said, our country doesn't have (or need) the possibility to project our albeit pathetic military power.

[/QUOTE]
The entire world? Well I think Russia, Brazil, Canada, China, and India will happily vouch for us not doing much of anything within their borders. Then there is all that water we have on this here rock. Perhaps you were refering to something else?
[/QUOTE]

recognise a hyperbole when you see one.

[/QUOTE]
That was rhetorical, but for your sole benefit the correct answer is "no." [/QUOTE]

in danger of being rhetorrical, but i know

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by dannubis


*clap clap clap*

and we didn't kill several thousands in the process

but hey, you got your prize. and he will get what is comming to him no doubt...

No.. you only let several hundred thousand get killed before you ever managed to do anything about it.