Nato should send more troops to Afghanistan, say British

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,429
1,668
113
British defence secretary Des Browne has said that other NATO troops need to be sent to Afghanistan. The number of British soldiers in Afghanistan has recently risen from 5,500 to 7,700 and Browne wants other countries - notably France and Germay - to pull their weight instead of leaving all the burden on the British, Americans, Canadians and Dutch. France has just 1000 troops in Afghanistan and Germany has the third-largest contigent with 3000 there. But both armies do not actually fight the Taliban, unlike the British and Americans.

'More troops for Afghanistan'


By SEBASTIAN LANDER
July 18, 2007
The Sun


There are 7,700 British soldiers in Afghanistan, the second-biggest NATO force in Afghanistan after the United States and over twice the number of troops as the third-biggest force Germany. The number of British sodliers in the region has risen recently from 5,500 and Britain now wants other countries to pull their weight



DEFENCE Secretary Des Browne has backed a report calling on Nato for more troops and aid for Afghanistan.

Mr Browne said he welcomed the “balanced” report by the Commons Defence Select Committee which said it was “deeply concerned” at the continuing reluctance of some Nato members to contribute to the alliance’s International Security Assistance Force (Isaf).

The Defence Sec also said he welcomed the way the document “rightly” praised Brit forces and the civilian workers who support them in the country.

Mr Browne said: “There are many positives, but there are still things to be done.

“I agree with the report’s recommendation that Nato countries need to do more.”

His remarks come after the the committee said that Isaf was still two battalions short of the requirement set by Nato commanders while some member states were continuing to impose restrictions on where their troops could operate.

While Isaf currently has almost 37,000 troops in the country, it said that a far larger force - backed by increased development aid - was needed to stabilise the country.

The report stated: “It will require a sustained military and financial commitment by the international community, working with the government of Afghanistan, to create the environment in which enduring democratic institutions can be established.


Backing ... British Defence Secretary Des Browne


“If that commitment is to succeed, its size and strength must be very great, and in our view considerably greater than the international community is at present willing to acknowledge, let alone to make.”

The committee’s criticisms echo complaints that the brunt of the combat effort in Afghanistan has been borne by countries such as Britain, the US and Canada, while others - such as France and Germany - have been unwilling to commit troops to areas where the fighting is heaviest.

The report said: “We remain deeply concerned that the reluctance of some Nato members to provide troops for the Isaf mission is undermining Nato’s credibility and also Isaf operations.”

Asked about the spread of Taliban violence, Mr Browne said Isaf forces had brought “tangible improvements” to the people of Afghanistan.

But he warned that Taliban violence should not be “underestimated”, saying they were seeking to spread violence out of the south into the more settled and prosperous north and west.

Number of NATO troops in Afghanistan

United States - 17,000
Britain - 7,700
Germany - 3000
Canada - 2,500
Netherlands - 2,200
Italy - 1,950
Poland - 1,200
Turkey - 1,200
France - 1000

Others include Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain

thesun.co.uk
 

Logic 7

Council Member
Jul 17, 2006
1,382
9
38
The whole coalition of chicken has been at war with them for 5 years,8 years with the russian(when smart people like you were supporting alqueada at the time) still taliban, alqueada are stronger as they never been, don't you think it is about time to use your brain(diplomacy) once and for all?
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
Seven...

No the British aren't about to give up the opportunity to jump onto the war-spending song and dance... and it won't matter that the profits being made are on body-bags.....

Bow Wow Wow WoooooF...another American lapdog springs into the fray....
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
The whole coalition of chicken has been at war with them for 5 years,8 years with the russian(when smart people like you were supporting alqueada at the time) still taliban, alqueada are stronger as they never been, don't you think it is about time to use your brain(diplomacy) once and for all?

Diplomacy with whom?

The TALIBAN?

The Yanks tried that before they invaded in 2001.
 

Minority Observer84

Theism Exorcist
Sep 26, 2006
368
5
18
The Capitol
Diplomacy with whom?

The TALIBAN?

The Yanks tried that before they invaded in 2001.
No they didn't . It was the Taliban that tried to mediate offering bin laden up if the us could come up with any proof that he was responsible after the yanks refused bin laden himself offered to stand trial in pakistan . It was not a case of refusing to do the right thing it was a case of refusing to do the right thing in the right way at the right time in other words defiance to the all mighty us .
 

Logic 7

Council Member
Jul 17, 2006
1,382
9
38
No they didn't . It was the Taliban that tried to mediate offering bin laden up if the us could come up with any proof that he was responsible after the yanks refused bin laden himself offered to stand trial in pakistan . It was not a case of refusing to do the right thing it was a case of refusing to do the right thing in the right way at the right time in other words defiance to the all mighty us .


Bingo!
 

Logic 7

Council Member
Jul 17, 2006
1,382
9
38
Diplomacy with whom?

The TALIBAN?

The Yanks tried that before they invaded in 2001.

Yanks never tried this, just like everything you spew in here, is just spéculation based on fairy tail.

Afganisthan facts= 8 years of war against russian and 5 years of wars against the "brave" (for some)and ignorant(for others) coalition.

Using diplomacy would be the smartest thing the coalition of the brave could ever do in their entire life, i really doubt it, when you know the coalition(especially usa and canada towards natives indians) of the brave brief history.
 

Unforgiven

Force majeure
May 28, 2007
6,770
137
63
Yanks never tried this, just like everything you spew in here, is just spéculation based on fairy tail.

Afganisthan facts= 8 years of war against russian and 5 years of wars against the "brave" (for some)and ignorant(for others) coalition.

Using diplomacy would be the smartest thing the coalition of the brave could ever do in their entire life, i really doubt it, when you know the coalition(especially usa and canada towards natives indians) of the brave brief history.

So what you're saying is that should anyone not agree they can resort to terrorism as an aid to negotiation?
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
Unforgiven

Study the School of the Americas.....American foreign policy as exposed through assasination attempts on foreign leaders.....American arming of revolutionaries around the world....

Neither the Taliban nor the Afghanis have the corner on "terrorism".
 

Unforgiven

Force majeure
May 28, 2007
6,770
137
63
Unforgiven

Study the School of the Americas.....American foreign policy as exposed through assasination attempts on foreign leaders.....American arming of revolutionaries around the world....

Neither the Taliban nor the Afghanis have the corner on "terrorism".

I have heard about the SOA but I honestly don't see a huge difference between them and the Taliban or Al Qaeda other than the religious fanaticism. That, we have learnt to hide much better.

What we seem to be doing here is acknowledging terrorism as a legit tool to enhance negotiation.
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
Americans have regarded terrorism as appropriate unless it's terrorism targetting America.
 

BitWhys

what green dots?
Apr 5, 2006
3,157
15
38
The British say more troops are needed and O'Connor says our troops will be stepping back and letting ANA take over. Such mixed messages.

who to believe

who to believe
 

regis

New Member
Jul 15, 2007
8
1
3
36 nations are in Afghanistan and they have the o.k. of ONU.

It's not the time to decide if we want to go there or not to fight the sort of order that Taliban believe in, we have already do that step.

But, it's not always at canadians to die in the plans that others have made like in wwII.
In France, may be they will take off the red and the blue on their flag and keep only the white.
 

Logic 7

Council Member
Jul 17, 2006
1,382
9
38
So what you're saying is that should anyone not agree they can resort to terrorism as an aid to negotiation?


Well the coalition of the chiken does terror in afganisthan , iraq and so on, everywhere they go, they use terrorism to get their goal. that is the best définition of terrorism.


So terrorism is just a word used by western leaders to keep their citizen in fear, by using your logic and many in here like especially COLPY, those who freed the United states, were just and simples terrrorists,
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
Well the coalition of the chiken does terror in afganisthan , iraq and so on, everywhere they go, they use terrorism to get their goal. that is the best définition of terrorism.


So terrorism is just a word used by western leaders to keep their citizen in fear, by using your logic and many in here like especially COLPY, those who freed the United states, were just and simples terrrorists,

Hi Logic.

Sorry I can't understand at all what you are trying to say.

I guess I'll start worrying when I DO understand what you are trying to say.......:lol:
 

Unforgiven

Force majeure
May 28, 2007
6,770
137
63
Well the coalition of the chiken does terror in afganisthan , iraq and so on, everywhere they go, they use terrorism to get their goal. that is the best définition of terrorism.


So terrorism is just a word used by western leaders to keep their citizen in fear, by using your logic and many in here like especially COLPY, those who freed the United states, were just and simples terrrorists,

Pretty sure I'm with Colpy on this one what ever it is. ;-)
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
The whole coalition of chicken has been at war with them for 5 years,8 years with the russian(when smart people like you were supporting alqueada at the time) still taliban, alqueada are stronger as they never been, don't you think it is about time to use your brain(diplomacy) once and for all?

This is how twisted and false your thinking is. Neither the Taliban nor Al Queda were around during the Soviet-Afghan War. The Taliban was created from Afghan refugees, boys, that crossed into Pakistan during the war. Most were too young to even fight the Soviets. They emerged for the first time after the Soviets left and gained power in the Afghan Civil War. Al Queda was created even after the Taliban by Bin Laden and was given sanctuary by the Taliban.

The US supported the Mujhadeen which was made up of all kinds of Afghans. That included elements of the Northern Alliance who sided with the US in Afghanistan. Guys like Bin Laden were kept far away from US Operatives in theater because of his outward hatred of the US. The Afghan Warlords didn't want this spoiled Saudi screwing it up for them wrt getting Stinger Missles.
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
210
63
In the bush near Sudbury
The US, Britain, Canada, NATO et al are going to have to back-tech a thousand years if they're ever going to go on near equal terms against the boys with home turf advantage. All the Star Trek gadgetry in the world doesn't amount to shyte if a man on the ground can still take you out with a coffee can packed with explosive and nails.

Wolf
 

Unforgiven

Force majeure
May 28, 2007
6,770
137
63
Hell they stuff IEDs into garbage and roadkill now.

The US, Britain, Canada, NATO et al are going to have to back-tech a thousand years if they're ever going to go on near equal terms against the boys with home turf advantage. All the Star Trek gadgetry in the world doesn't amount to shyte if a man on the ground can still take you out with a coffee can packed with explosive and nails.

Wolf