NATO's Afghan Strategy - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-30-2006, 02:40 PM   #16
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 01:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Maoilbheannacht
Relatively speaking, Afghanistan is doing very well. The level of violence in the country has reached its lowest point since before the Soviet invasion in 1979.
Just curious...what is your source for statistics on this?
__________________

__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 08-30-2006, 04:21 PM   #17
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 12:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
Good grief.

There are far fewer troops in Afghanistan all around (this has been a huge criticism) so when your total number is reduced, then your fractions thereof are reduced too. What's so confusing about it?

For example, Canada, which did not support the war on Iraq, has troops in Afghanistan, but not in Iraq. And even so, we don't have huge numbers of troops there, because the entire NATO coalition present in Afghanistan is not that large.
There is nothing stopping these other countries who have not contributed anything in Iraq to contributing troops to Afghanistan. The United States is not stopping any European country from sending troops to Afghanistan. Why don't the French send 20,000 troops themselves if they think the "real war" is in Afghanistan? Why are there no Spanish troops in Afghanistan? Why are there only 2,000 German troops in Afghanistan?
__________________

__________________
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 08-30-2006, 04:27 PM   #18
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 12:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep


most would consider Hitlers rise and campaign to be unilateral

the plan was to stop Hitler/ Germany

without the U S pushing and leading the the Iraq War it would not have happened


why don't you give the percentage of non U S troops in each country?

your style is misleading
but the facts are not on your side
The fact is that there are more "non-US troops" in Afghanistan than Iraq. The percentage is irrelevant since the Iraq war is the one that "no one supports", and "everyone supports the war in Afghanistan".

People talk about the lack of troops in Afghanistan, well, why don't the French and Germans step up and send more troops there?
__________________
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 08-30-2006, 04:30 PM   #19
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,290
Local Time: 07:52 PM
I believe the Germans have very complicated legislation regarding sending their troops abroad (this extends to peace missions) which was established post WW2, for obvious reasons, so I'm not sure they are a very good example.

Spain we all know pulled out and I don't know about France. I think they are like this all the time - they proposed the Lebanon force then had to be strong armed into providing manpower so I don't think their reluctance extends to only Afghanistan out of any kind of moral objections.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 08-30-2006, 04:32 PM   #20
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 12:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland

Just curious...what is your source for statistics on this?
I don't have any specific statistics on it, I just know about the history of the country since 1979. The Soviet invasion was far more bloody for the population of Afghanistan. The Soviets lost over 10,000 troops, and over a million Afghans were either killed or wounded. Also, several million people left Afghanistan during the 1980s. Then, in 1991 when the Soviet installed government collapsed, Civil War broke out in the country. Then the Taliban and the Northern Alliance were fighting until, 9/11 when the US pushed the Taliban out of the country. Most of the people who have been killed in Afghanistan this year are Taliban insurgents as opposed to civilians or soldiers. Less than 150 US troops have been killed by hostile fire in Afghanistan over the past 5 years.

I seriously doubt that assement is wrong, but if you have statistics to show that it is, I'd like to see them.
__________________
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 08-30-2006, 04:37 PM   #21
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 12:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
I believe the Germans have very complicated legislation regarding sending their troops abroad (this extends to peace missions) which was established post WW2, for obvious reasons, so I'm not sure they are a very good example.

Spain we all know pulled out and I don't know about France. I think they are like this all the time - they proposed the Lebanon force then had to be strong armed into providing manpower so I don't think their reluctance extends to only Afghanistan out of any kind of moral objections.
Well, then how can anyone blame the United States for not having the right balance of countries involved when so many of the NATO allies have this BS going on? The US gets blamed because their not in Iraq. Why are they not in Iraq, because they did not support the war. But when it comes to the war they did support, where the hell are they?

Perhaps the reality is that the "allies" are unwilling to send troops overseas even if they support the mission which makes all the comments about the United States failing to get them involved in Iraq a bit hollow.
__________________
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 08-30-2006, 04:42 PM   #22
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 12:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




if you're going to get into semantics, there's not going to be much of a point in playing along.

the US and the UK launched a unilateral invasion into Iraq that violated international law and disregarded the expressed will of the UN Security Council.

your second question -- one sentence has nothing to do with the left. it's as if you think opposition to Iraq is predicated upon total numbers of non-US soldiers as being equal to justification for the war.
When I said "everyone" I was refering to other countries, not domestic politics in the United States.

If you understand the definition of "unilateral" then you will realize that it would only apply if the United States invaded Iraq alone. Otherwise we could claim that US intervention in Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Bosnia, and Kosovo was unilateral.
__________________
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 08-30-2006, 05:36 PM   #23
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,489
Local Time: 07:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Maoilbheannacht
If you understand the definition of "unilateral" then you will realize that it would only apply if the United States invaded Iraq alone. Otherwise we could claim that US intervention in Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Bosnia, and Kosovo was unilateral.


show me how the rest of those invasions violated internationl law.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 08-30-2006, 05:44 PM   #24
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 01:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Maoilbheannacht
I don't have any specific statistics on it, I just know about the history of the country since 1979. The Soviet invasion was far more bloody for the population of Afghanistan. The Soviets lost over 10,000 troops, and over a million Afghans were either killed or wounded. Also, several million people left Afghanistan during the 1980s. Then, in 1991 when the Soviet installed government collapsed, Civil War broke out in the country. Then the Taliban and the Northern Alliance were fighting until, 9/11 when the US pushed the Taliban out of the country. Most of the people who have been killed in Afghanistan this year are Taliban insurgents as opposed to civilians or soldiers. Less than 150 US troops have been killed by hostile fire in Afghanistan over the past 5 years.

I seriously doubt that assement is wrong, but if you have statistics to show that it is, I'd like to see them.
What I was curious about was on what grounds you could claim anything about civilian casualties over the last decade, as I don't know of any sources for such data, at least not ones that are broadly considered reliable. You can of course get figures on Coalition fatalities for Operation Enduring Freedom, but this does not include civilian data. Of course the present conflict is not as violent as the Soviet invasion; it would be hard to top that for ferocity and scope--that went on for more than 9 years, involved roughly 175,000 Soviet troops and who knows how many mujahideen.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 08-30-2006, 05:45 PM   #25
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 12:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




show me how the rest of those invasions violated internationl law.

I think one would describe them as interventions and I don't think any of them are considered to be a violation of international law although Vietnam carry's so much baggage that I'm sure someone is bound to claim it was against international law.

I was just pointing out that US efforts in Iraq are far from being unilateral. An example of a Unilateral intervention would probably be the US invasion of Panama in 1989.
__________________
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 08-30-2006, 05:51 PM   #26
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,489
Local Time: 07:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Maoilbheannacht
I was just pointing out that US efforts in Iraq are far from being unilateral. An example of a Unilateral intervention would probably be the US invasion of Panama in 1989.


in precise terms, you are correct. you might also toss Grenada onto that list.

but in political terms, in diplomatic terms, the invasion -- which went ahead in spite of having no UN Resolution to authorize force, which the US and the UK did seek -- was understood to be unilateral.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 08-30-2006, 05:52 PM   #27
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 12:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland

What I was curious about was on what grounds you could claim anything about civilian casualties over the last decade, as I don't know of any sources for such data, at least not ones that are broadly considered reliable. You can of course get figures on Coalition fatalities for Operation Enduring Freedom, but this does not include civilian data. Of course the present conflict is not as violent as the Soviet invasion; it would be hard to top that for ferocity and scope--that went on for more than 9 years, involved roughly 175,000 Soviet troops and who knows how many mujahideen.
The point I'm making is that you have an unbroken string of violence from the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan up through 9/11. I'd be shocked if the Civil War in the early 1990s was not just as bad as the Soviet invasion. After all, some of the worst violence can occur between ethnic groups with primitive technology. Most people in Rawanda were killed with swords in 1994.

Its an assumption based on the periods of violence Afghanistan has been through since 1979 compared with what is seen in Afghanistan today. Its hard to imagine that it was better in the 1990s or 1980s for the civilians than it is now.
__________________
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 08-30-2006, 05:59 PM   #28
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 12:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




in precise terms, you are correct. you might also toss Grenada onto that list.

but in political terms, in diplomatic terms, the invasion -- which went ahead in spite of having no UN Resolution to authorize force, which the US and the UK did seek -- was understood to be unilateral.
Well, does not having a UN resolution make the conflict unilateral? I don't recall there being a UN resolution for Bosnia or Kosovo. In fact, I think Korea and Kuwait are the only conflicts with the type of resolution your talking about. That would mean every other conflict was unilateral which certainly does not make sense.
__________________
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 08-30-2006, 06:02 PM   #29
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,489
Local Time: 07:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Maoilbheannacht


Well, does not having a UN resolution make the conflict unilateral? I don't recall there being a UN resolution for Bosnia or Kosovo. In fact, I think Korea and Kuwait are the only conflicts with the type of resolution your talking about. That would mean every other conflict was unilateral which certainly does not make sense.

it makes it unilateral when one goes to the UN, seeks a resolution, does not get it, and goes ahead anyway.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 08-30-2006, 06:10 PM   #30
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 12:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



it makes it unilateral when one goes to the UN, seeks a resolution, does not get it, and goes ahead anyway.
Well, if there is more than one country involved, why would the invasion suddenly be unilateral? I also think that there was an attempt for a resolution for Kosovo, but it was abandoned because Serbia's big brother sits on the Security Council.
__________________

__________________
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com