Australian troops to replace US forces in Oruzgan , page 1


Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 10 times
Topic started on 31-5-2012 @ 03:53 AM by daaskapital

Australian troops to replace US forces in Oruzgan


m.smh.com.au
Australia will replace the United States in leading the transition in Afghanistan's Oruzgan province during the next 12 to 18 months.

Defence Minister Stephen Smith said the national security committee of cabinet had approved the move this week, which will put Australia in the driver's seat as troops are withdrawn from Afghanistan by 2014.

"Australia is taking on the leadership now ... it puts us in a better position to manage the transition process," Mr Smith said.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.abc.net.au
www.dailytelegraph.co m.au


reply posted on 31-5-2012 @ 03:58 AM by BigBruddah
reply to post by daaskapital



What do you expect? None of our politicians bar Bob Katter have a backbone and hes barking mad anyways. We're just the US's doormat as far as I'm concerned.



reply posted on 31-5-2012 @ 03:59 AM by daaskapital
Originally posted by BigBruddah
reply to
post by daaskapital


We're just the US's doormat as far as I'm concerned.


We have been since WW2...

edit on 31-5-2012 by daaskapital because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 31-5-2012 @ 05:25 AM by Rockpuck
reply to post by daaskapital



We all know Aussies like sloppy seconds. Australia is keen on being seen in the World, not just when their loony left wing nutcases pass an absurd ridiculous law, but also their military prowess.. don't blame us for what you want.


reply posted on 31-5-2012 @ 05:37 AM by CrimsonKapital
Originally posted by daaskapital


I knew it. I knew the US would use Australia as a scapegoat so they could pull out safely. I can picture it in my head:

"Hey, Australia, you're going to take a leadership role in parts of Afghanistan so we can pull out - you can manage it all"

"What, ah, screw it. Have it your way, as always."

______________________________________________

What strikes me the most is, the US has 90,000 troops over there, yet Australia gets given the leadership role in the pull out phase. We only have around 1550 soldiers over there. Somehow, we are expected to maintain a direct leadership role in numerous provinces while the US pulls out - absurd. We could at least have conducted a shared leadership role with Britain or France...

Furthermore, it is well known that the Taliban may conduct extreme terrorist attacks while the coalition is pulling out, yet we are left to hold the # bag...

This is not the first time Australia has been screwed over!

m.smh.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)


Daaskapital you and I normally agree on most things, but this time I don't see what the problem is? Most of Australias 1550 soldiers are deployed in Oruzgan province, when the Dutch withdrew a few years ago (I think in 2007?) the US asked Australia to take the leadership role for that province but because there was an election in Australia at the time and they didn't want more Australian casualties they refused.
Now as the war is winding down, America is again having to ask Australia to take leadership in Oruzgan Province and this time they have accepted. I think its better to have a larger role that way when history books are written about the war Australia will be remembered for playing a critical part.


reply posted on 31-5-2012 @ 05:43 AM by daaskapital
Originally posted by CrimsonKapital
Originally posted by daaskapital


I knew it. I knew the US would use Australia as a scapegoat so they could pull out safely. I can picture it in my head:

"Hey, Australia, you're going to take a leadership role in parts of Afghanistan so we can pull out - you can manage it all"

"What, ah, screw it. Have it your way, as always."

______________________________________________

What strikes me the most is, the US has 90,000 troops over there, yet Australia gets given the leadership role in the pull out phase. We only have around 1550 soldiers over there. Somehow, we are expected to maintain a direct leadership role in numerous provinces while the US pulls out - absurd. We could at least have conducted a shared leadership role with Britain or France...

Furthermore, it is well known that the Taliban may conduct extreme terrorist attacks while the coalition is pulling out, yet we are left to hold the # bag...

This is not the first time Australia has been screwed over!

m.smh.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)


Daaskapital you and I normally agree on most things, but this time I don't see what the problem is? Most of Australias 1550 soldiers are deployed in Oruzgan province, when the Dutch withdrew a few years ago (I think in 2007?) the US asked Australia to take the leadership role for that province but because there was an election in Australia at the time and they didn't want more Australian casualties they refused.
Now as the war is winding down, America is again having to ask Australia to take leadership in Oruzgan Province and this time they have accepted. I think its better to have a larger role that way when history books are written about the war Australia will be remembered for playing a critical part.


Yeah, i agree there, but it isn't my point. The US is decreasing their commitment to the province while Australia may have to send more troops there to support ourselves. Taking up the leadership has put our soldiers in further danger of attacks.

It doesn't matter whether we have a large role or not in the war, we will be marginalised, and at times silenced in the history books, just as we were in WW2 and Vietnam...
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>    ^^TOP^^