Due to the security situation New Zealand may sent more troops to Afghanistan , page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times

reply posted on 10-6-2008 @ 01:14 PM by donwhite

reply to post by xpert11

Don I have to say that you are being overly harsh . When Hillary was first lady did she not visit US troops in Bosnia? Bush legacy has already been sealed by the Iraq war and high petrol prices at the pump.

On Hillary in Bosnia. The First Lady's schedule, released on Wednesday confirms she arrived in Tuzla on March 25, 1996, at 8.45 a.m. and was greeted by various dignitaries. U.S. officials on hand to greet Clinton at the airport was Maj. Gen. William Nash, the commander of U.S. troops in Bosnia. Nash told me that he was unaware of any security threat to Clinton during her eight-hour stay in Tuzla.

He said, however, that Clinton had a "busy schedule" and may have got the impression that she was being hurried on her way. Obviously, this visit was part of the run-up to the November election. A humane gesture aimed at the Bosnian refugees now streaming into the US. OTOH, she may well have been sent there to do double duty. She might also increase public support in Congress - then under the GOP - to support American intervention in Bosnia. Clinton was not the UNILATERAL Commander in Chief for Life. Dates from W-Post website.

On Laura In Afghan. Laura OTOH is on a JAUNT if not on a JUNKET. There ain’t a dam thing she can do but fill some pages in her scrapbook. Let’s hope no one dies in the escapade.

This next bit is more of an observation then any criticism. Even though the Haka did make for an interesting news item I do wonder why Hillary didn't visit US troops instead. Don I am surprised that you didn't raise this point . Speaking as a cynic for a moment Hillary would have gained more PR out of visiting US troops.

Recall “embedded?” The neutering of our “eyes and ears” the press? How do you suppose Bush43 would respond when Dem leading candidate Clinton asks for permission to visit the troops in Iraq? She has no influence with Bush43. In fact, she would be putting herself UNDER HIS AEGIS and AT HIS MERCY! Uh uh.

Still I am probably reading to much into all of this. The simplest answer is the most likely the Bamyan province was chosen for Laura visit due to the fact it is one of the secure provinces.

I agree. After all, we cannot go out of Kabul after dark. Another war we are “winning!”

[edit on 6/10/2008 by donwhite]

reply posted on 10-6-2008 @ 08:33 PM by xpert11

Don I think that we are going to have to agree to disagree on this because IMO if you view Laura trip to Afghanistan as a junket you have to view Hillary trip to Bosnia the same way . I have dealt with the more general picture concerning the war in Afghanistan before on the boards but I will say that the manpower shortage that has denied the coalition victory will have to be made up by the Afghan army .

reply posted on 11-6-2008 @ 07:41 AM by donwhite

reply to post by xpert11

Don I think that we are going to have to agree to disagree on this because IMO if you view Laura trip to Afghanistan as a junket you have to view Hillary trip to Bosnia the same way.

OK Mr X11, it's a thin edge I concede. But my last shot is this: Hillary had 1,750 days yet remaining to "serve" as First Lady. Laura on the other hand has but 224 days remaining to "serve." Hillary was an activist First Lady and Laura is a passive First Lady. But I do promise you one thing! This is my last post on this topic.

reply posted on 11-6-2008 @ 07:49 AM by donwhite

reply to post by xpert11

Q. On NZ sending MORE Troops to Afghan

1) Do you know if the NZ soldiers already there are in a combat role or are they there in a construction or education or administration role?

2) Do you know about how many NZ soldiers are in Afghan now?

3) Have you heard how many more the NATO or US is asking NZ to furnish to Afghan?

4) Would those additional soldiers be in the same role as those already there or will they be assigned a new role?

5) How do you think the NZ general public views this REQUEST for more “boots on the ground” assistance, presumably from the US?

6) Does anyone mention how that extra EXPENSE item is to be paid?

7) What material or money does the US “pay” to NZ already, if any?

[edit on 6/11/2008 by donwhite]

reply posted on 11-6-2008 @ 07:15 PM by xpert11

Originally posted by donwhite

1) Do you know if the NZ soldiers already there are in a combat role or are they there in a construction or education or administration role?

Unless the SAS is operating in Afghanistan without public knowledge NZ troops are in the role which has already been dicussed on this thread which is , providing security , munitions clearance as needed , basic infrastructure construction and a small training role along with NZ Police .

I know that you will never believe this but to a certain degree they bring hope to the local population .

2) Do you know about how many NZ soldiers are in Afghan now?

To the public knowledge 134 .

3) Have you heard how many more the NATO or US is asking NZ to furnish to Afghan?

At some stage I think NZ was asked to contribute to the fight against the insurgency in the south of the country . I don't recall any numbers being thrown about .

4) Would those additional soldiers be in the same role as those already there or will they be assigned a new role?

I think the additional eighteen troops role is to respond to incidents as needed .

5) How do you think the NZ general public views this REQUEST for more “boots on the ground” assistance, presumably from the US?

Well the request came from the NZDF . It really must be said that the deployment of additional to troops was or is to support the NZ Task Force rather then the wider war . Other those ill rational people who oppose our involvement in the War on Terror I would assume that the public was generally supportive of the move . There wasn't a lot of public debate on the matter .

6) Does anyone mention how that extra EXPENSE item is to be paid?

The cost of NZDF deployments is covered in the defence budget . Under the Parliamentary providing the budget passes there is no need for the government to beg for funding to cover such costs .

7) What material or money does the US “pay” to NZ already, if any?

I read an article a while ago that said thanks to back room diplomacy the presidential ban on NZDF training with the US military has been tweaked to reflect the close cooperation between the NZDF and the US military in the post 9-11 era . NZ doesn't receive any financial aid from the US just appreciation. NZ was one of the first country's to send a Provincial Reconstruction Team to Afghanistan.

reply posted on 12-6-2008 @ 07:16 AM by donwhite

reply to post by xpert11

I read an article a while ago that said thanks to back room diplomacy the presidential ban on NZDF training with the US military has been tweaked to reflect the close cooperation between the NZDF and the US military in the post 9-11 era . NZ doesn't receive any financial aid from the US just appreciation. NZ was one of the first country's to send a Provincial Reconstruction Team to Afghanistan.

History Q. Why did NZ impose the pre-Nine Eleven Event ban on joint training? You may recall it was leaked the US offered Turkey $6 b. to permit the US to invade the north of Iraq through Turkey. They said NO and then the story went, the amount was raised to $12 b. And Turkey again said NO. We do KNOW we PAID Bulgaria to let us use their airspace and utilized an old air force base, probably as a "secret" prison.

We also did a quid pro quo for the Philippines. They sent a company to Iraq. We sent our SOF forces there. The US Army is still there, helping the Filipinos subdue the Huk, the same Moslem group that killed 4,000 Americans in 1901-1905. The Catholic Manila wants to “convert” the Muslims on Mindanao. So far they have not been able to do so.

I note our KIA in Iraq is now at 4,096. June 12, 2008. icasualties.org...

The US promised $20 b. to the hand picked and newly imposed Afghan government for their assistance in tracking down ObL. So far we have furnished less than $5 b. Since the promise was made in 2001, it looks pretty much like we have "forgotten" that. Of course, we can't "find" ObL either. Everybody says he is in Pakistan, but our backed man there is barely one step away from being deposed.

It is also true - I say it is true - that if the NATO and US forces departed Afghan, Hamid Karzai would be deposed and the Taliban back in power. WOW!

Are the NZ soldiers under NATO or operating independently?

[edit on 6/12/2008 by donwhite]

reply posted on 12-6-2008 @ 07:48 AM by xpert11

reply to post by donwhite

The presidential ban has been in place since NZ took its anti Nuclear stance in 1986 . If you get out a globe you will see that there are no countries any where near NZ that the US currently has in its sites . That and NZ anti Nuclear stance pretty much rule out the kind of aid you refer to . Although if my memory serves me correctly when the government decided to scrap the combat wing of the RNZAF they were offered F-16s at bargain price .Put another NZ does have access to US military hardware but a lot depends on government policy and the needs of the NZDF.

As for the promised aid to the Afghan government the money was either blown on the Iraq misadventure or the security situation has meant the money was spend fighting the enemy .

As with all deployments, the Chief of Defence Force maintains full command of the NZ PRT, with operational command of deployed NZDF personnel the responsibility of the Commander Joint Forces New Zealand. The Commander has appointed a Senior National Officer (SNO) to perform a similar function for the NZ PRT.

NZDF Website

How this exactly works in practice I don't know . I would say that the days of NZDF personal coming under the command of a foreigner are long gone . I don't when the last time NZ military personal came under the overall command of a foreigner . In the case of the Australians I think it was some time during the Vietnam War .

[edit on 12-6-2008 by xpert11]

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^