Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-04-2009, 08:33 AM
 
Location: Florida
77,013 posts, read 47,481,489 times
Reputation: 14806

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrhman92 View Post
Yes, the Iraqis made the Americans job a lot easier because they were against Al-Qaeda. I know that Al-Qaeda and other insurgent groups were not weak
The sunni insurgents were Iraqis. And so were the shiite insurgents. And they both fought against us for six years. Yes, in the end the mentality changed, and that is precicely what they are trying to do in Afghanistan now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-04-2009, 08:37 AM
 
Location: Florida
77,013 posts, read 47,481,489 times
Reputation: 14806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth View Post
Those Sunni fighters- men of conviction.

How much would it take to get them to fight in Afghanistan?
Taleban are mostly Sunnis, so I don't think that's going to work. This is also why Iran was very happy to see us fight the Sunnis there. Almost as happy as seeing us take out their #1 enemy in Iraq.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2009, 08:41 AM
 
Location: Tampa Florida
22,229 posts, read 17,823,173 times
Reputation: 4585
I prefer to let the military commanders fight the war in Afghanistan. I suspect they have actual knowledge of what they are facing, not the baseless drivel being opined in this forum. Now that the people involved, have a plan and objective, I am quite sure they are fully capable of carrying it out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2009, 09:38 AM
 
Location: Florida
1,313 posts, read 1,548,773 times
Reputation: 462
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridasandy View Post
looks like germany and france don't want in on this "adventure":
France, Germany refuse to commit more troops for Afghanistan | Raw Story (http://rawstory.com/2009/12/france-germany-refuse-commitment-troops-afghanistan/ - broken link)

let me add a quote from supkis:

From day one, our ‘allies’ have been, at best, very tepid. The only exception has been Britain. But the troops and systems support from Britain have been less than 1/10th of US efforts. And in Britain, support for these insane wars is fading very fast. For example, when Obama/Bush announced 30,000 US troops will go there to die, Britain peeped that they would join us and send….500 troops! Whoopee!
no surprise there
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2009, 10:22 AM
 
13,631 posts, read 20,722,659 times
Reputation: 7640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
Taleban are mostly Sunnis, so I don't think that's going to work. This is also why Iran was very happy to see us fight the Sunnis there. Almost as happy as seeing us take out their #1 enemy in Iraq.
I was being facetious, although one must wonder about the motivations of those who will switch sides en masse when a few bucks are thrown their way.

Not that it matters, but something tells me Iraqi Sunnis and anyone associated with the Taleban would not see eye to eye unless they had a common enemy- which they no longer have.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2009, 10:52 AM
 
29,939 posts, read 39,401,256 times
Reputation: 4798
Quote:
Of the approximately 65,000 U.S. forces in Afghanistan, about 53,000 are part of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) that operates throughout Afghanistan, and the remainder are under the separate U.S.-led Operation Enduring Freedom. U.S. and partner forces also run 26 regional enclaves to secure reconstruction (Provincial Reconstruction Teams, PRTs), and are expanding an Afghan National Army and reforming an Afghan National Police force—the two combined now total about 175,000. The United States has provided about $40 billion in assistance to Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban, of which about $18 billion was to equip and train these Afghan forces. Breakdowns are shown in the tables at the end. See also CRS Report RL33627, NATO in Afghanistan: A Test of the Transatlantic Alliance, by Vincent Morelli and Paul Belkin; and CRS Report RL32686, Afghanistan: Narcotics and U.S. Policy, by Christopher M. Blanchard.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL30588.pdf

Quote:
Between 2001 and 2006, ISAF proceeded in four stages to extend its area of responsibility over the whole of Afghanistan. Although the allies agree on ISAF’s mission, they have differed on how to accomplish it. Some allies continue to restrict their forces from engaging in counter-insurgency operations and have placed operational restrictions on their troops...

Most observers suggest that ISAF’s efforts to stabilize Afghanistan will require a long-term commitment from the allies. The Obama Administration has made the conflict a policy priority. On March 27, 2009 President Obama announced a new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan and at the April 3-4 NATO summit successfully gained allied unity for the new strategy. The President committed an additional 17,000 U.S. military forces to address the conflict and to support the national elections held in August. The 111th Congress continues to support the United States commitment in Afghanistan, and now toward Pakistan, despite some rising opposition influenced in part by a growing negative public opinion in the United States towards the war. The Congress has also demanded more integration and cooperation among all parties involved in the stabilization and reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan. See also CRS Report RL30588,
Afghanistan: Post-Taliban Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy, by Kenneth Katzman and CRS Report R40156, War in Afghanistan: Strategy, Military Operations, and Issues for Congress, by Catherine Dale.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33627.pdf

Moderator: This is from the CRS and is public information so there is no copyright violation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2009, 02:03 PM
 
Location: Unknown
731 posts, read 775,032 times
Reputation: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
The sunni insurgents were Iraqis. And so were the shiite insurgents. And they both fought against us for six years. Yes, in the end the mentality changed, and that is precicely what they are trying to do in Afghanistan now.
I know they were both Iraqis, especially the shiites they welcomed the U.S. when Saddam was ousted, then the Shiites and sunnis were fighting each other, so basically the shiites joined the U.S. faster because the new iraqi government had a lot of shiites and favored them more, then after sometime the sunnis agreed to follow the same path but the situation in Afghanistan is not the same.

Last edited by mrhman92; 12-04-2009 at 02:20 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:40 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top