It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NATO allies rally to Obama request with 7,000 more troops for Afghanistan

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 11:06 PM
link   

NATO allies rally to Obama request with 7,000 more troops for Afghanistan


news.xinhuanet.com

·NATO allies and partner nations agreed Fridayto add 7,000 more troops for Afghanistan.
·It means the U.S. and its allies will have about 300,000 soldiers in Afghanistan next year.
·NATO is keenly aware that this may be the last chance to get the Afghan strategy right.
"Despite all the challenges, all the uncertainties and all the casualties, they remain absolutely united about this mission," said NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
news.xinhuanet.com
news.xinhuanet.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Afghanistan: Coalition troops launch massive assault on Taliban




posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 11:06 PM
link   
I'm shocked! This was supposed to be an unpopular war in Europe!

New contributions made public over the past few days include 1,000 from Italy, 600 from Poland, 500 from Britain, 240 from Slovakia, 125 from Albania and 100 each from Romania, Portugal and the Czech Republic. Turkey, which has resisted calls to send more combat troops beyond the 720 it has on the ground, said it would deploy about 60 more experts to train Afghan soldiers. Several non-NATO nations also said they would send fresh troops including Georgia with 900, South Korea with 400, Sweden and Australia with 125 each and Colombia with 84.

Even non-NATO nations?


news.xinhuanet.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 11:12 PM
link   
Caveats.

Numbers sound good but have to read between the line. Many ally troops are Limited in what they can do once they get to Afghanistan.



GEOGRAPHICAL CAVEATS - Germany, Italy, Spain and others declined calls in September by NATO to move troops based in calm areas to the violent south to help with fighting.

CONSULTATIONS - Most national forces can only do certain tasks after consultation with their capitals -- a process that slows down reaction times.

OPERATIONAL RESTRICTIONS - National contingents may refuse to carry out operations above a specified altitude because they are not properly equipped:

FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS - Nations have deployed aircraft to help NATO operations but in reality keep a tight grip on how such valuable assets are used, allied sources complain.


www.alertnet.org...



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by plumranch
 


It is unpopular, but since when have our politicians ever taken notice of what the people want?

This is basically the last roll of the dice. After this latest surge, if it doesn't work, don't expect much more. Notably, the French and Germans have yet to commit any more troops other than the ones they currently have propping up the local cafe's and hotels in Kabul.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 11:31 PM
link   
i know this is going to sound rude and get alot of hate replies but being a us citizen and getting taxed out of existence i believe either
a) carpet bomb the entire place like we did to germany in world war 2 and just win this thing
or
b) bring all our troops home and close our borders and protect ourselves from the alien invasion we are having
the amount of money we spend on illegals in the us is one reason we are bankrupt
and why does my gov't think we should control the world- what is this britain with the empire of the sun?
and why do illegals have more rights than american citizens and get our tax money?
our money should be used towrds domestic issues first and foremost



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfoot1212
 


The war isn't against the Afghan people, so how would carpet bombing help? All it would do is inflame public opinion (especially in the Muslim world) and cause more terrorism against your people.

The Taliban only number in the low tens of thousands, at best. Much of the rest of the Afghan people just want to be able to get on with a normal life. Again, how would carpet bombing help? Such a short-sighted and oh-so familiar American response.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


right and we never fought against the german people either. we fought against the regime. but we bombed them into submision
like i said close the borders and spend money to protect our borders from invasion
the war over there is doing no good except to spend lots of money-which is what they want



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfoot1212
 


Big difference there chap.

In WW2, the fight was against a nation, it's institutions, it's infrastructure and a people that whole-heartedly supported the regime. In Afghanistan, you do not have this. Quite how you think you can compare the two is beyond me.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by bigfoot1212
 


Big difference there chap.

In WW2, the fight was against a nation, it's institutions, it's infrastructure and a people that whole-heartedly supported the regime. In Afghanistan, you do not have this. Quite how you think you can compare the two is beyond me.


You can compare the two because they are both a state of war. If you are in a war the way you win is to destroy the government and the people until they cannot take another minute of the pain you inflict on them and then they totally surrender. Ask Japan, they seem to know how to surrender quite well when faced with overwhelming annihilation.

[edit on 5-12-2009 by HotSauce]



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 12:13 AM
link   
not all people supported the nazis- i'm not saying that all did- but of course alot did
same as afghanistan and iraq- not all do but alot do and protect them. why they have suicide bombers and such killing their own people.
civilians get killed in war i'm sorry.
but if you want to win a war you have to eradicate the enemy and if that means civilian deaths i'm sorry. why my country stalemated in korea and lost vietnam- to politically correct and tree huggers protesting.
of all people i would think a britian would agree with bombing innocent civilians after what happened to your country and what they did in return



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by HotSauce
 


reply to post by HotSauce
 


Again, missing the point. This isn't a war between States! It's a low-intensity conflict between a small group of insurgents.

The Afghan Government and, for the most part, the Afghan people are against the Taliban. Only a small group of extremists support them.

It's like saying that the whole of Ireland should have been bombed into oblivion by the RAF because of the few nutters in the IRA. It's madness!

Your logic fails you, in epic fashion.

reply to post by bigfoot1212
 


See above for the difference matey. We are not at war with Afghanistan, but a small number of extremists within the country. You're basically saying that people in Kandahar and Kabul should be obliterated because of a few religious nutters roaming the wilds in Helmand. You're as sick and twisted as they are.

EDIT: And don't even try to lecture me on how I should think because of the Blitz. The Germans bombed us for nearly 3 months solid in 1940. 3 Months! And the US stood by and did nothing while cities burned and thousands were killed.

Even when, during the Tizzard mission, we handed over EVERY damned secret we had to the US (which helped you get the edge you have today), you still could only manage expensive, long term loans and overpriced equipment. Even after the intense bombing we suffered, the retaliatory attacks back at German cities, which caused mass civilian casualties, were massively unpopular in the UK, even after what they did to us.

And now you think you can incite me to mass-murder because of a few religious nutters? Your logic is flawed.



[edit on 5/12/09 by stumason]



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 12:21 AM
link   
The problem isn't the majority of Afghans in their cities building war material like Germany or Japan.

The Problem is that it is hard to tell the difference between the small minority who are in their opinion fighting a holy war against the west.

The Majority of the Afghans don't want the Taliban back, But will they fight them for their own country?


So Bombing them back to the stone age or flattening the country like what we did to Germany or Japan would kill even more innocent people than we already have.

That's exactly what we are trying to avoid.

Two very different philosophies.

[edit on 5-12-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 12:42 AM
link   
i'm just saying pull out and let them mind their own business.- they want to kill themselves good riddance
or just wipe the country out and be done with it since the us seems to want to rule the world and think they should(which i don't agree with)
bring the troops home and protect our borders the hell with the middle east
let them fight over themselves
if we spend as much money here as they have overthere we could close our borders and eliminate alot of debt- and help homeless people but for some reason we feel we should give more aid to other countries than our own people
and as for ww2 i know our special forces were trained by britains- they and australians and canadians are some of the most viscious on the planet
my grandfather was highly decorated in ww2 and trained in britain before being shipped to north africa in the 82nd airborne



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 01:02 AM
link   
125 Albanian troops? So how important is all this to Albania? How much does it cost to pay an Albanian to send off 125 of his own people to, maybe, die? This is a freaking joke, folks. It's a sad joke, it's a cruel joke upon many.

Oh, lookee! Obama has returned the U.S.A.'s great standing within the world, or at least Europe. Hah.

This is freaking sad. It's all so horrible, also.

Leave these people alone!

Wow. I come from a family of Democrats and farmers. I come from a family of folks that used to have compassion for others, in far away countries. Folks that had compassion for their own families and countrymen. Now these folks are sending me emails with pictures of bullets, saying, we have some chips that can be inserted into terrorists. WTF?
Please don't tell me I will soon hear the old crap, like during the Viet Nam War, that war is good for our economy. And, besides, if your house was overrun by rats, wouldn't you want to destroy the rats? Yikes!

In Viet Nam and in Asia, there are NO rats taking over my cellar. It ain't my cellar!
There are no rats in my cellar, other than the rats that run out of D.C.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 02:54 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 





The Afghan Government and, for the most part, the Afghan people are against the Taliban. Only a small group of extremists support them.


"Only a small group of extremists support them."

What small group of extremists are you referring to?



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 03:52 AM
link   
reply to post by plumranch
 




being a consistant Cynic....
your list of nations:


1,000 from Italy,
600 from Poland,
500 from Britain,
240 from Slovakia,
125 from Albania
100 from Romania,
100 from Portugal.
100 from Czech Republic.
Turkey, 60 more experts to train Afghan soldiers.

Several non-NATO nations:
Georgia with 900,
South Korea with 400,
Sweden with 125,
Australia with 125,
Colombia with 84.


in the days, weeks, months to come.... Watch & keep track just how much 'Aid' money the USA sends these listed countries in proportion to their manpower committments.
Billion$ in USD will be sent these Leaders, (which also helps defer the collapse of the USD as a 'parriah' currency)

Notice too, that this 'stepping forward' by both NATO allies and others,
comes right on-the-heels of the Dubai Crisis where some $80Bn is said to be in default to various 'western' banks, mostly London is the word.


[edit on 5-12-2009 by St Udio]



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 07:26 AM
link   
How many of those troops will be combat ones? The mission of many NATO country troops has been one of reconstruction/support, not combat. This new surge will need to have the troops more out in the field, where they will have to engage in battles to clean out and secure an area.

Until Afghans themselves are willing to spill their blood for their country, it will still stay a mess. Iraq didn't start turning around till they started taking ownership of their situation.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by St Udio
 


maybe my math is wrong but all those troops add up to 4459.
but we are sending another 30.000?
and after our messiah president ran on a campaign he was going to pull all troops out by 2010?
well guess what he now has 3 weeks to do it but instead is sending more to prolong the war.
why is it the us's job to control the world and with the majority of troops?
i remember after iraq costa rica said they were pulling there troops out- what all 4 of them? geez thanks for the help!!
and also who the f are we to tell other countries how to rule their country?obama and billary were up in arms after the hondurans actually did something about a corrupt gov't and they proceeded to denounce it.
but in the same week they said iranians should have the right to voice their opinion. if that isn't hypocritical i don't know what is. hell we americans don't even have a right to free speech anymore but we tell other countries they do?
yes if it is a threat to our country then we should do something about it- so why haven't we declared war on mexico? illegal aliens from latin america stealing our tax money and drug wars and other crime they make are more of athreat than some muslim 8,000 miles away.
and don't tell me with our technology we can't find bin laden



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by plumranch


I'm shocked! This was supposed to be an unpopular war in Europe!

New contributions made public over the past few days include 1,000 from Italy, 600 from Poland, 500 from Britain, 240 from Slovakia, 125 from Albania and 100 each from Romania, Portugal and the Czech Republic. Turkey, which has resisted calls to send more combat troops beyond the 720 it has on the ground, said it would deploy about 60 more experts to train Afghan soldiers. Several non-NATO nations also said they would send fresh troops including Georgia with 900, South Korea with 400, Sweden and Australia with 125 each and Colombia with 84.

Even non-NATO nations?


news.xinhuanet.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


First these are paltry numbers. Great Brittan 500 additional soldiers, wow talk about stepping up to the plate there!

The reality is that countries who want a piece of the Afghani pie have to sit at the table to get their slice and that’s all this is. The numbers you have posted from those sources don’t even add up to 7,000 by the way.

It’s a lot of window dressing and lipstick on a pretty ugly pig, that chances are U.S. Tax Dollars are paying to encourage happening, leave it to the spin maestros to claim 7,000 people from a group of nations equal in combined size and resources if not greater than the U.S. is some kind of ‘commitment’.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfoot1212
 


....we are sending another 30.000?

and after our messiah president ran on a campaign he was going to pull all troops out by 2010?

well guess what he now has 3 weeks to do it
but instead is sending more to prolong the war


______________________________________________________

you've listed a lot of points in your reply,

all i can guess is that 'events/circumstances have changed since the campaign' or something to that effect is what the Obama press corps reports.

Pres. Obama sounded very hawkish-neoconish in the WestPoint speech, when he stated that the nuclear arsenal of Pakistan is under a very real threat of being seized by the militant Taliban, in the not too distant future...in couched language of course

the real threat is Z. Brzezinski, Obamas master-mind of geo-political intrigues..who wants to launch from Afghanistan into Pakistan to lock-in a Pakistan leadership that is antagonistic to China instead of maintaining their present hands-off/non aggressive stance with China.

Brzezinski is following the successful 'Balkinization' of Afghanistan and is the ordained future of Pakistan itself...and Obama is along for the ride.



[edit on 5-12-2009 by St Udio]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join