Reply to: European leaders who refuse to put troops on the frontline in Afghanistan risk ...

[AtW]

"I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!! LA LA LA!!!"

That was my impression of Bush v2

[Ardesco]

Rubbish. If Bush did not want to succeed (because high oil prices due to instability there help his buddies) he would not do surge, which appears to be working very well - if you ask me that increase in oil exports from Iraq would be a success in itself, and right now exports actually higher than they were during Saddam days.

Pull your head out of your ass Alexi. You have done nothing but contradict yourself in this thread and now you are in effect holding your hands over your ears and screaming "I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!! LA LA LA!!!"

Normally you have a point, but you are well wide of the mark this time.

[Churchill]

Has anyone been watching Ross Kemp in Afghanistan?

To me its good stuff and sensitively done regarding the casualties.

Just wish there was more of a justification for the deaths...

They were very open last night about the Americans killing their buddies by air strikes going astray - didn't blame them - but saw it as a consequence of war

Ross Kemp? Ross Effing Kemp? He's an actor pretending to be a tough guy. No credibility whatsoever. An insult to the boys and girls out there doing a tough job.

[Troll]

Has anyone been watching Ross Kemp in Afghanistan?

To me its good stuff and sensitively done regarding the casualties.

Just wish there was more of a justification for the deaths...

They were very open last night about the Americans killing their buddies by air strikes going astray - didn't blame them - but saw it as a consequence of war

[AtW]

It can't. And this is why the war in IRAQ is never ever going to "succeed" , but then again it has never ever meant to be.

Rubbish. If Bush did not want to succeed (because high oil prices due to instability there help his buddies) he would not do surge, which appears to be working very well - if you ask me that increase in oil exports from Iraq would be a success in itself, and right now exports actually higher than they were during Saddam days.

[2uk]

Do you know what the invasion force was like? Around 500k, after that they left maybe 100k which was not enough for Iraq, so they had to surge last year, which in combination with changes tactics is leading to success. Same problem was in Afganistan - they went in, kicked the Govt out, and left leaving a handful of troops - only in this case it is worse because the enemy there has got alive leader (unlike Saddam) and they have safe heaven in Pakistan, you can't bomb them (much), so you need to close fairly long border - for this you need troops.

There is a quote on the net somewhere saying "It is the Oil you stupid". The best explanation of exploiting the oil richness of Iraq that I came across is: With IRAQ being the second largest holder of oil on the Earth its export surely impacts prices. Google oil prices in 2002 and now. Why the difference ? Because IRAQ had to halt its exports due to a war. Who made profits of this - Oil companies. Who else ? Weapon companies ? Why you think US has been spending on Weapons as much as almost the rest of the World Combined ? To put the guns on screens and let them dust ? War is the biggest business , said many times.

The US has long history of controlling the leaders of Oil rich countries. ( Venezuela , IRAQ , many other I don't know about ). Where do you think Shell gets its oil from ? Mars ? It signs contracts with the governments of oil-rich countries for imports . What do you think the agreed prices are ? Pennies compared to what Shell charges you at the gas station. Why do you think , Venzuela's/others government is signing these inefficient contracts while the rest of the nation is living in misery ? Because the government is controlled by people that favor the US. And when this changes there is a war. When the US make sure they have the right people , they will move out. Yes in today's world we are talking 500K armies protecting a country's oil interests. And you have CNN and BBC to feed you tulip about Bin Laden going to come from the desert , bypass GPS, US tracking technology , Air / Ground defences , Police ,Army , National borders , Border controls , State police and come and get your ass.

When you have a kid atw - try teaching him something by beating him and perhaps killing his relatives. Then observe the effects of your behaviour and think again whether a person can be forced/or their mind changed by force.

It can't. And this is why the war in IRAQ is never ever going to "succeed" , but then again it was never ever meant to .

[AtW]

You keep saying they are witdrawing from IRAQ ? Where did u get that from ?

Do you know what the invasion force was like? Around 500k, after that they left maybe 100k which was not enough for Iraq, so they had to surge last year, which in combination with changes tactics is leading to success. Same problem was in Afganistan - they went in, kicked the Govt out, and left leaving a handful of troops - only in this case it is worse because the enemy there has got alive leader (unlike Saddam) and they have safe heaven in Pakistan, you can't bomb them (much), so you need to close fairly long border - for this you need troops.

[2uk]

So, following this logic US were not fools to pull out forces out of Iraq too quickly, and they were not fools to make all sort of big errors that they made there that has lead to insurgency supported by Al Quade to a point when USA almost were at the point when withdrawal like from Vietnam seemed like the best option?

So, tell me then why would finally now USA start winning in Iraq, did they decide that it is time to stop the war maybe?

You keep saying they are witdrawing from IRAQ ? Where did u get that from ?

[AtW]

the US were fools and did not do what they had to do.

So, following this logic US were not fools to pull out forces out of Iraq too quickly, and they were not fools to make all sort of big errors that they made there that has lead to insurgency supported by Al Quade to a point when USA almost were at the point when withdrawal like from Vietnam seemed like the best option?

So, tell me then why would finally now USA start winning in Iraq, did they decide that it is time to stop the war maybe?

[2uk]

I know history well. Taleban had a choice to give up Bin Laden for trial in USA but they refused, so they therefore stood on the same side with Bin Laden, not suprising really since Bin Ladens camps were training Taleban, for Taleban for Bin Laden is what Waffen SS was for Hitler.

The mistake USA did was that they did not finish the job in Afganistan - as I said before there are 15k USA troops there right now, but 150k in Iraq, clearly if there were that many troops in Afganistan then they would have finished the job well before Iraq even started: the pull out from Afganistan was way too quick, pretty much same mistake (but on bigger scale) was made in Iraq.

It's pretty obvious IMO.

It so damn obvious that you say it and can't see it. You Atw , have to have very huge ego to state something like that and assume the US were fools and did not do what they had to do. They did not finish the job because It had to be left unfinished - so that you can be fed Bin Laden is gonna come and bust your ass-type of strories.

[2uk]

This group is not so random - the idea unites them and the name is very convinient - resistance in Iraq was fuelled in big part by Al Quaeda, this can be clearely seen now that US strategy of getting locals on their side seems to work extremely well - so much for Al Quaeda non-existance.

Bin Laden is the symbol of Al Quaeda as much as Hitler was of nazism - there may not be centralised structure, but to be sure you need to get top known leaders and then take it from there.

Atw , this is what happens when u feed yourself BBC and CNN only.

[2uk]

Until there is Bin Laden alive Al Quaeda is alive too - that's the mistake USA made by not finishing the job. Also Taleban is pretty real too.

Not , that is the reason , No one ever found em. So that average people can be told fairy tells bout big bad Laden.

[2uk]

Al Quaeda doesn't exist. It is a name that the US used to group together all of their Muslim terrorists on the various most wanted lists that they have. There are no top bosses, it is a bunch of individual splinters that have been lumped together and given a name for convenience and to provide the US public with a tangible enemy that they think they can fight. Killing Bin Laden would have little to no effect because he doesn't control "Al Quaeda".

u tell em man. They dont listen to me.

[AtW]

believe the bulltulip propaganda from the white house

No. I don't believe bulltulip from white house. I was and am against war in Iraq - unlike some people from this site. Saddam had nothing to do with Al Quaeda.

However I state categorically that if USA finished the job in Afganistan using not 15k troops now to fight Taleban, but 150k that are tied up in Iraq, then they would have won - there is not enough troops in Afganistan right now, and this is because on one hand job was not done in 2001, and on another because troops are tied up in Iraq where they should not even be.

[Ardesco]

This group is not so random - the idea unites them and the name is very convinient - resistance in Iraq was fuelled in big part by Al Quaeda, this can be clearely seen now that US strategy of getting locals on their side seems to work extremely well - so much for Al Quaeda non-existance.

Bin Laden is the symbol of Al Quaeda as much as Hitler was of nazism - there may not be centralised structure, but to be sure you need to get top known leaders and then take it from there.

FFS Alexi, do some research before you post. Saddam was at philisophical odds to the Al Quaeda bunch...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jun16.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0622/p09s01-codc.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...articleId=2275

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/I...995766,00.html

believe the bulltulip propaganda from the white house if you like but don't start saying you know all about history when you have got so many facts wrong.