posted on February 15, 2007 10:10:52 AM newBush orders more troops to Afghanistan
Thu Feb 15, 2007 11:41am ET
By Tabassum Zakaria
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -
President George W. Bush said on Thursday 3,200 more U.S. troops being deployed to Afghanistan will help NATO forces launch a spring offensive against the Taliban.
The Pentagon announced on Wednesday that a U.S. Army brigade of 3,200 troops will now go to Afghanistan instead of Iraq in order to maintain higher troop levels against the Taliban.
In a speech before the American Enterprise Institute, Bush said he was asking the U.S. Congress for $11.8 billion over the next two years to help the Afghan government of President Hamid Karzai.
"I've ordered an increase in U.S. forces in Afghanistan.
We've extended the stay of 3,200 troops now in the country for four months and will deploy a replacement force that will sustain this force for the foreseeable future," Bush said.
"These forces and funds are going to help President Karzai defeat common enemies," Bush said.
NATO, U.S. and Taliban commanders have warned of an increase of fighting in the spring when the snow melts, after the bloodiest year since the hard-line Islamists were ousted by a U.S.-led coalition in 2001.
"This spring there's going to be a new offensive in Afghanistan, it's going to be a NATO offensive, and that's part of our strategy -- relentless in our pressure," Bush said.
For NATO to succeed in Afghanistan, Bush said member nations "must provide commanders on the ground with the troops and the equipment they need."
He said NATO allies must help fill security gaps and lift restrictions on the forces they supply "so NATO commanders have the flexibility they need to defeat the enemy wherever the enemy may make a stand."
Bush is bolstering the anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan at the same time when he is sending 21,500 more U.S. troops to Iraq, a decision for which he has drawn sharp criticism from Democratic lawmakers in the U.S. Congress as well as many of his Republican allies.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on February 15, 2007 12:16:24 PM new
Gosh.....no praise from the liberals here who have been whining for so long that we need to address Afghanistan???
I would have thought they'd be THRILLED that President Bush is sending MORE troops to deal with the taliban.
Just goes to show....no matter what he does....they don't like it.
So I'm glad he hasn't been listening to them...but rather going forward and doing what HE believes is in our Nations BEST interests.
posted on February 15, 2007 01:02:32 PM new
LIAR_K
I guess if not many other countries want to help by sending troops and money BUSHY he has no choice but to send more American troops and tax dollars to Afghanistan.
What a shame right after 9/11 we had most of the World on our side willing to help but BUSHY has now waisted all that support with his poor leadership and policies.
I guess his poor leadership and policies is why only 32 percent of Americans think he is doing a good job as our President and commander and chief.
BUSHY needs to pull a rabbit out of his hat soon or his Presidency will end in disgrace.
See below about international support for BUSHY
BBC NEWS Thursday, 15 February 2007, 12:38 GMT
US troops diverted to Afghanistan
The US is expecting Taleban attacks in the spring
The US says that 3,200 troops of the 173rd Airborne Brigade will be deployed to Afghanistan in the spring, instead of Iraq.
The UK is sending more troops to Afghanistan. The US, UK and Canada have criticized other Nato nations for not committing extra soldiers or resources to the campaign.
On Tuesday, a Canadian Senate committee said the government should consider withdrawing from Afghanistan unless its Nato allies provide additional troops.
It is widely predicted that Taleban insurgents will increase their attacks over the coming months in an effort to pressure the international presence in the country.
posted on February 15, 2007 03:39:18 PM new
"""Gosh.....no praise from the liberals here who have been whining for so long that we need to address Afghanistan???""""
Well make up your mind...if i answer I'll be "obsessed" with you, if I don't then you decide what "they" like or don't like.....
""I would have thought they'd be THRILLED that President Bush is sending MORE troops to deal with the taliban.
Just goes to show....no matter what he does....they don't like it.
So I'm glad he hasn't been listening to them...but rather going forward and doing what HE believes is in our Nations BEST interests.""
Yes, he went forward with Iraq ...and now look at the mess it's in.....
posted on February 15, 2007 06:13:08 PM new
Well, backed her into a corner again...
have to wait for the "sybildoublestandardliarnolinkobsessedIhaveansweredthequestionsyoujustcan'tseethem"...reply LOL!
[ edited by mingotree on Feb 15, 2007 11:42 PM ]
posted on February 15, 2007 11:55:35 PM new
""""For NATO to succeed in Afghanistan, Bush said member nations "must provide commanders on the ground with the troops and the equipment they need.""""
equipment they NEED
Quite a FLIP-FLOP from what Rummydummy said ....OH MY GAWD! Do you think bushy LEARNED something!!!!!!!
Plus, it's nice to know bushy actually REMEMBERS Afghanistan !!!
posted on February 16, 2007 07:52:35 AM newFor NATO to succeed in Afghanistan, Bush said member nations "must provide commanders on the ground with the troops and the equipment they need.
Yep now Bush wants other countries to fight his war. "For NATO to Succeed". Doesn't the US have enough troops to fight Bush's war.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on February 16, 2007 08:20:48 AM new
Gosh.....no answer from the neocon here who have been whining for so long that if I answer it's obsession and if I don't I'm not thrilled by bush finally remembering Afghanistan.
I would have thought they'd be THRILLED that CANADA has sent troops to deal with the taliban.
posted on February 16, 2007 08:21:31 AM new
Bush yanked them out of Afghanistan for Iraq and he is unable to fight one war, let alone two at one time.
He's sending the felons in now, about 44,000 convicted of serious misdemeanors and 59,000 drug abusers and those who score lower on aptitude tests because of the lack of volunteers.
"The real problem is that, increasingly, the military fails to recruit the best and the brightest."
posted on February 16, 2007 08:53:13 AM new
Yelp, LIAR_K stuck her big foot into her even bigger LYING mouth and now she is gone. She has run off like a dog with her tail between her legs.
The republican party is split between Rudy Giuliani and John McCaine talk about a party divided. People are saying its a choice between a baby killer/gay lover and another warmonger new-con.
posted on February 16, 2007 04:37:12 PM new
February 15, 2007
Bush Tells NATO to Reinforce Afghanistan
By DEB RIECHMANN
ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON (AP) -
minuteworld
President Bush said Thursday that NATO allies need to supply more soldiers to Afghanistan and be willing to send them into the most violent battles with Taliban fighters, who are gearing up for a new spring offensive.
"When our commanders on the ground say to our respective countries `We need additional help,´ our NATO countries must provide it," Bush said in a speech five years after U.S.-led forces toppled Afghanistan´s repressive Taliban regime.
Flush with money from heroin-producing poppy crops, Taliban fighters have proven much tougher than NATO expected when it deployed its first contingent of peacekeepers there in 2003. Calling poppy cultivation a threat to a fragile democracy, Bush implored President Hamid Karzai to address the marked increase in harvests last year, after a decline in 2005.
"I have made my concerns to President Karzai pretty clear - not pretty clear, very clear - and that in order for him to gain the confidence of his people, and the confidence of the world, he's got to do something about it, with our help," Bush said in an hour-long speech sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute.
Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, just back from a trip that included a stop in Pakistan, said the planned offensive in Afghanistan was an attempt to react ahead of an expected seasonal Taliban offensive.
"What we want to do this spring is have this spring offensive be our offensive and, and have the initiative in our hands rather than reacting to them," he said.
Asked whether he had talked with Pakistan President Gen. Pervez Musharraf about the hunt for al-Qaida fugitive Osama bin Laden, Gates said he would not "get into specifics" about their talks.
But, said Gates, "If I were Osama bin Laden, I'd keep looking over my shoulder."
The call for NATO nations to supply more soldiers and equipment to fight the Taliban was a nudge to Germany and other NATO nations that have kept their troops out of the most violent parts of Afghanistan.
Politicians in Canada, Britain, the United States and other nations with troops in southern Afghanistan have been irked by the reluctance of some European allies to commit extra troops to the 35,500-strong NATO force, and in particular to allow their troops to be deployed to the Taliban's heartland in the south and east.
"Allies must lift restrictions on the forces they do provide so NATO commanders have the flexibility they need to defeat the enemy wherever the enemy may make a stand," Bush said.
On Capitol Hill, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos, D-Calif., said NATO commanders should not have to beg for troops from countries like Germany, France, Italy and Spain.
"It is an outrage that only troops from the United States, Canada, the Netherlands, Denmark and the United Kingdom are deployed to the most hazardous spots," Lantos said.
"No longer should this administration stand passively by while our so-called allies take advantage of American generosity and courage."
Bush called 2006 the most violent year in Afghanistan since the invasion.
"Across Afghanistan last year, the number of roadside bomb attacks doubled, direct fire attacks on international forces almost tripled and suicide bombings grew nearly fivefold," Bush said.
This week, NATO's top commander renewed an appeal for allies to fill gaps in the international military force in Afghanistan, warning that failure to send reinforcements was weakening the mission and jeopardizing the lives of soldiers fighting the Taliban.
In Canada, a Senate committee said Tuesday that the government should a consider withdrawing its 2,500 troops unless NATO allies deliver additional troops.
posted on February 16, 2007 04:48:37 PM new
posted on February 15, 2007 03:39:18 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"""Gosh.....no praise from the liberals here who have been whining for so long that we need to address Afghanistan???""""
Well make up your mind...if i answer I'll be "obsessed" with you, if I don't then you decide what "they" like or don't like.....
""I would have thought they'd be THRILLED that President Bush is sending MORE troops to deal with the taliban.
Just goes to show....no matter what he does....they don't like it.
So I'm glad he hasn't been listening to them...but rather going forward and doing what HE believes is in our Nations BEST interests.""
Yes, he went forward with Iraq ...and now look at the mess it's in.....
posted on February 17, 2007 09:53:05 AM new"No longer should this administration stand passively by while our so-called allies take advantage of American generosity and courage."
You can blame Bush for this as well. If he did not piss off the majority of the world, Bush might have support. Since Bush has the "coalition of the willing", he should be asking them for some more help.
If Bush chose to take on this war alone - without all the support from its allies - then he shouldn't have chosen to invade Iraq without the necessary forces to fight a long drawn out war.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on February 17, 2007 10:46:53 AM new
Oh....so what? Now "Bush would have answered he doesn't approve of this war" nutcase thinks we should just SUFFER?
Or maybe his cowardly character says we should just give up and let the taliban take over Afghanistan AGAIN????
Oh...but I must remember he IS on America's side. LOL LOL LOL LOL sure he is. NOT!!!
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on February 17, 2007 11:26:15 AM new
The US has ALWAYS had the MOST troops in Afghanistsan.....and look who's going to 'run out' on NATO forces if....lol
canada
How many troops do they have there now? 700? 800?
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on February 17, 2007 12:39:47 PM new
Bush started a war as if he was committed to it so other countries went in to support him. But he wasn't as committed as he pretended to be and after pulling out some of the troops he even said Bin Laden wasn't that important to him. He was so foolish he started another war and expects everyone else to step in and clean up both messes now.
Canada has been a peace keeping nation, working more towards peace worldwide and not the primitive endless wars that never solve anything. It's a step backwards to continue fighting wars.
posted on February 17, 2007 02:31:38 PM new
Whether the much lower figures of 700 or 800 were stated to be condescending or through lack of knowledge, it does display an ignorance.
Canada has about 2500 troops stationed in Afghanistan, mostly in the southern most dangerous area near Kandahar.
It's not all about war and the number of troops on the ground, it's about making a country better for all with a concentrated effort towards reconstruction with others from Canada working there too.
Canadian missions in Afghanistan included:
Heavy weapons cantonment: Helping the Afghan government collect, store and decommission 10,000 heavy weapons left over from decades of war, including artillery, tanks and rocket launchers.
Demining: Foreign Affairs says Canada has helped clear about one third of the estimated 10 million to 15 million mines in Afghanistan.
Microloans: Money from Canada has been used to provide microloans to more than 140,000 people in Afghanistan, 89 per cent of the clients are women.
Training: Canada also has a role in training the Afghan police and army. A group of Canadian Forces instructors were in Kabul to train members of the Afghan National Army. That unit remained in Kabul while the rest of the Canadian contingent moved south to Kandahar. Canadian troops are also training Afghan soldiers in Kandahar and the RCMP has a commitment to train Afghan police officers.
The Department of National Defence has also admitted that Canada's secret special forces, Joint Task Force Two, has been operating alongside the American and other special forces units in Afghanistan but no details have ever been released.
posted on February 17, 2007 04:33:26 PM new
In June 2002 canada only had sent between 700-800 troops. They haven't always had the 2500 there they do now.
Make you look it up LOL LOL LOL
as I previously had posted....lol...
"In Canada, a Senate committee said Tuesday that the government should a consider withdrawing its 2,500 troops unless NATO allies deliver additional troops."
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
[ edited by Linda_K on Feb 17, 2007 04:47 PM ]
posted on February 17, 2007 04:58:48 PM newHow many troops do they have there now? 700? 800?
Lindak, when you said "now" I thought you were referring to the year 2007.
If you think "now" is still 2002 it may explain some of the conflict you have with others whenever current issues over Iraq and Afghanistan are being discussed here, including the escalating violence.
2002 was about five years ago and things have changed somewhat as the years have gone by though you may not realize it.
Back in 2001 Canada pledged to send 2000 troops there. Here is a timeline of events if you choose to not believe the info I post here and it may bring you up to current times and that means 2007.
posted on February 17, 2007 05:01:58 PM new
here sybil....for you and anyone else that doesn't believe the communist honor john kerry and all anti-war protestors from the VN era.
yes, kiara, lol, I see that you MISSED my first post where I did list how many troops canada has there NOW. lol
And I prefer the canadian timeline I already posted.
Want to answer the question if you feel all those lives were "WASTED"?
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Feb 17, 2007 05:08 PM ]
posted on February 17, 2007 05:29:27 PM new
Kiara, ""If you think "now" is still 2002 it may explain some of the conflict you have with others whenever current issues over Iraq and Afghanistan are being discussed here, including the escalating violence.
2002 was about five years ago and things have changed somewhat as the years have gone by though you may not realize it."""
