Afganistan vs Iraq

[bryan]

Hi

Why is Bush sending more troops to Iraq and not to Afganistan?Has he forgotten who attacked us?It seems to me that he is pitting the US soldiers in Iraq against the US soldiers in Afganistan.

Why does the news constantly report on Iraq but avoids talking about Afganistan?Its like the soldiers over their have been forgotten.

When spring comes the Taliban and al Queida troops will be back trying to recapture Afganistan.They have done this every spring since they fled in late 2001 and early 2002.Its like our government is sitting around waiting for a disaster that they know is coming but they aren't going to do anything about it.Is it because they are regular troops and not reserves?Is it that our government doesn't take the Taliban seriously?Isn't that the same mistake that the USSR made?Or is it a matter of big business wants the land along the Tigris River? Or is it oil?Personal revenge?

Just like to here others thoughts on these matters.

 

[greg334]

Bryan,
You said; "Why does the news constantly report on Iraq but avoids talking about Afganistan?"

Well I don't know how old you are so you may never remember the press of the 60’s. The press is very controlled a select group of elitist and very very liberal. They will ignore the good news to tell us the bad news because of the hatred many of them have for the United States.

Read the journalist manifesto, it has no allegiance to our country and puts forth that the story, whether true or not comes first before the country’s safety. One reason that we could lose the war in Iraq is the embedded reporter and the reporters who interview terrorist and don’t report back to the US officials. Could you image how a soldier’s family feels when they could se a report about a terrorist that was interviewed by Katie Kuric admitting that he will kill Americans and later that day he kills a bunch of soldiers. Of course Katie isn’t at fault, or is she?

The word that comes to mind is Disaffection – loss of allegiance to U.S.

This word also applies to John Kerry, who should be brought up on ethics charges for his comments against the country while on foreign soil during a meeting that also had the former president of the Iran standing near him. Will anything happen to him? No because no one cares. What bothers me the most is that people actually defend this piece of ****, glad he is not our president maybe he should move to Iran.

I for one think that many of the things that have happened with the press would have never ever happened 30, 40 or 50 years ago. The people would have been brought up on treason charges and rightfully put in jail for the rest of their lives. I can’t stand people making reporters heroes, they are not.

As for the rest of your question, I think Aviator can explain things better than anyone else.

 

[tallcal101]

Glad to know it's John Kerry's fault,as well as the liberal press of the 60's.Once again Greg,you failed to answer any of the questions Bryan raised,but the deflection was oh so grand!@!

 

[greg334]

Sorry Bryan for hijacking the thread.

Tallcal,

See you are doing that liberal democrat talking point thing again (or is it institutionalized spinning, I don't know which one), I think that you are better than that.

The 60's press was the turning point for the country and the press starting to be hostile to the country.

As for Kerry, blame him for what? He is a problem and an elitest.

I think Kerry is as bad as Gore (cry baby) but I think he has read Carter's play book and now going down that path.

Let me ask you, do you feel that John Kerry's remarks in Davos, Switzerland were not proper coming from a representative of our country?

Just to remind you what he said;
"When we walk away from global warming, Kyoto, when we are irresponsibly slow in moving toward AIDS in Africa, when we don't advance and live up to our own rhetoric and standards, we set a terrible message of duplicity and hypocrisy"

"So we have a crisis of confidence in the Middle East — in the world, really. I've never seen our country as isolated, as much as a sort of international pariah for a number of reasons as it is today."

When I first heard his comments and came up to the part "when we don't advance and live up to our own rhetoric and standards, we set a terrible message of duplicity and hypocrisy" I thought he was talking about the democrat party not the Bush Administration (which everyone knows who he was talking about), I think that it truly applies to the democrat party more than anything else.

Now he was on the same stage with a person who was the president of Iran, a country that supports terrorism and also wants to see the destruction of Israel and the US when he said this - Mohammad Khatami.

Your answer?

or do you defend his right of freedom of speech on foreign soil?

Oh yea, if we are such an outcast, then maybe we should start cutting off foreign aid, cut UN funding, pull out all of our troops out of every continent and pull completly out of NATO. The world needs us more than we need them, we need to start going back to that attitude and stop worrying about what France or the EU thinks about us.

I did indeed tell Bryan what I think that is problem, why the media ignores the things going on in Afghanistan and focus on Iraq.

Deflection?

What? did you read that in one of the talking points memo?

You know I also get them from the Dems.

 

[Aviator]

I am in Afghanistan. The reason is that we no longer "control" Afghanistan. Nato Does. ISAF (International Security and Assistance Forces) run the show here. It is a multinational group. ISAF took control of Kandahar air base last July when I was down there. Attacks increased as soon as it happened. ISAF has been in charge of Kabul for years now. The bad guys do not respect and/or fear sayd the Dutch and French as much as they do the US. But, there has been great pressure put on the administration for the deal here in Afghanistan to become more "multinational" and it has.

On the good side of this, the Canadians, and Brits are dooing a bang up job of everything here. Really taking it to the Taliban. Bagram Air base is still primarily under US control as well as a lot of the FOBs (Forward Operating Bases). We have plenty troops here. The US Mission in Afghanistan differs from ISAF. ISAF does not consider the "War on Terror" part of their mission.

Aviator

 

[bryan]

Hi

Thanks Aviator that explains alot.One more question though.Is the ISAS treating this as a policeing mission,a peace keeping mission or a search for justice.

 

[Aviator]

>Hi
>
>Thanks Aviator that explains alot.One more question
>though.Is the ISAS treating this as a policeing mission,a
>peace keeping mission or a search for justice.


All of the above, and more. It all depends on the country. French have stated that they are here to build business alliances as well as the Dutch. Germany, Romania, Estonia, and some others are treating it as a policing mission. England and Canada are doing all of the above as well as agressivly going after the terrorists. Brits are also lead in the Opium eradication program. They are doing a lot in that realm.

So, how different countries troops act and react while outside the wire all depends on what the country they are from is mainly here for. Dutch and French being less agressive and taking fewer risks.

I do know, that I would not want to be the person riding herd on all these groups, with all the different goals they all have.


Aviator