US from Afghanistan to Iraq

[Topaz]

Today, Clinton has come out and said that Bush wants to pull troops out of Afghanistan and transfer them to Iraq. She said its a time when more troops should be sent to Afghanistan and pulled out of Iraq instead. Clinton said that the Taliban have plans of a major re-grouping in Afghanistan in the spring, putting more NATO troops in more danger. So, it looks that under Bush, the west, is going to lose two wars.

[weaponeer]

I'll believe it if I see it.

[weaponeer]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/lib...70111-dod05.htm

Here's a great link that spells out (very slowly) where US is getting additional troops for Iraq...

[bush_cheney2004]

Today, Clinton has come out and said that Bush wants to pull troops out of Afghanistan and transfer them to Iraq. She said its a time when more troops should be sent to Afghanistan and pulled out of Iraq instead. Clinton said that the Taliban have plans of a major re-grouping in Afghanistan in the spring, putting more NATO troops in more danger. So, it looks that under Bush, the west, is going to lose two wars.

Canada may send more troops anytime it pleases. Bush does not command NATO.

[Catchme]

Your article is out of date it says January 11 and I read it very slowly and it said this:

Other combat-support and combat-service-support units may also be deployed as necessary once new requirements are assessed.

The Marine Corps will extend two reinforced infantry battalions

Nor does it say where the reinforced marine battalions will come from as:

The Marine presence in Iraq is centered around the I Marine Expeditionary Force and the 1st Marine Division. One Marine Expeditionary Unit, the 15th MEU is deployed to Kuwait. One Marine Expeditionary Unit is also in the region, though it is currently supporting operations in Afghanistan

Then Bush seemed to single out:

Army Rangers from the 3rd Battalion, 75th Regiment for their fighting in Afghanistan

for praise at Fort Benning when he was on his selling "The surge" talks.

Further, I would believe Hilary knows what she is saying, she would not say things untrue now she has stepped forward and being "in to win" and all.

[Fortunata]

Baltimore Sun:

As a last-ditch effort, President Bush is expected to announce this week the dispatch of thousands of additional troops to Iraq as a stopgap measure, an order that Pentagon officials say would strain the Army and Marine Corps as they struggle to man both wars.

Already, a U.S. Army infantry battalion fighting in a critical area of eastern Afghanistan is due to be withdrawn within weeks in order to deploy to Iraq.

According to Army Brig. Gen. Anthony J. Tata and other senior U.S. commanders here, that will happen just as the Taliban is expected to unleash a major campaign to cut the vital road between Kabul and Kandahar. The official said the Taliban intend to seize Kandahar, Afghanistan's second-largest city and the place where the group was organized in the 1990s.

"We anticipate significant events there next spring," said Tata.

[blackascoal]

The Bush Administration doesn't care about Afghanistan or Bin Laden and there was never enough troops sent there to support the so-called "mission". All they care about is the pipeline they're building.

It's all about the oil.

Nor does the Bush Administration care about Iraq .. outside of the proposed oil contracts giving the west exclusive rights to Iraq's most precious resource at highly inflated profits.

It's all about the oil.

[Catchme]

Baltimore Sun:

...Already, a U.S. Army infantry battalion fighting in a critical area of eastern Afghanistan is due to be withdrawn within weeks in order to deploy to Iraq.

According to Army Brig. Gen. Anthony J. Tata and other senior U.S. commanders here, that will happen just as the Taliban is expected to unleash a major campaign to cut the vital road between Kabul and Kandahar. The official said the Taliban intend to seize Kandahar, Afghanistan's second-largest city and the place where the group was organized in the 1990s.

"We anticipate significant events there next spring," said Tata.

Well, there we go, so much for those who say they are in "the know" makes one wonder, alright.

[Guthrie]

anyone who thinks troops can be added to Iraq without negatively affecting troop levels in Afganistan, has his head up his hind end

[blackascoal]

anyone who thinks troops can be added to Iraq without negatively affecting troop levels in Afganistan, has his head up his hind end

Absolutely correct.

We're juggling just trying to find the additional 20,000 to send to Iraq.

We've extended, over-extended, and stop-lossed our troops to the brink of desperation already.

[Catchme]

Well, The Surge now has to come from units already deployed around the world, as the Senate said NO, to Bush's requests today.

[geoffrey]

Well, The Surge now has to come from units already deployed around the world, as the Senate said NO, to Bush's requests today.

Silly Democrats undermining the mission in Afghanistan. Now Bush will have to pull them from that mission, instead of leaving the humanitarian and reconstruction (and defense) in Afghanistan at it's current level.

I think Hilary should be impeached! Ok, kidding about that. But in all honesty, this is why I can't stand the Democrats even though they are more in line with me on the political spectrum. They oppose things just because. NO MORE TROOPS TO IRAQ! Ok fine. But at what cost? The mission in Afghanistan now get's hurt too?

The total harm is much greater by forcing Bush to draw from Afghanistan than just giving him the additional troops.

Shame on the Dems for putting political points ahead of the interest of Americans, Afghanis, Iraqis and the troops over there.

[gc1765]

Silly Democrats undermining the mission in Afghanistan. Now Bush will have to pull them from that mission, instead of leaving the humanitarian and reconstruction (and defense) in Afghanistan at it's current level.

...or Bush could leave them in Afghanistan

Shame on the Dems for putting political points ahead of the interest of Americans, Afghanis, Iraqis and the troops over there.

Come on, you can't possibly blame this on the Democrats ....it's Bush who wants more troops in Iraq. I'm sure if the Democrats had their way, the troops would stay in Afghanistan rather than Iraq and the world would be a safer place

EDIT: from the opening post "She (Clinton) said its a time when more troops should be sent to Afghanistan and pulled out of Iraq instead". Bang on, 'nuff said.

[blackascoal]

For the First Time, Americans Oppose Afghan War

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/...em/itemID/14497

Many adults in the United States express dissatisfaction with the war on terrorism, according to a poll by Opinion Research Corporation released by CNN. 52 per cent of respondents oppose the U.S. conflict in Afghanistan, up four points since September.

---------------------------

U.S. extends combat tours in Afghanistan

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/4496899.html

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has decided to extend the combat tour of 3,200 soldiers from a 10th Mountain Division brigade in Afghanistan for four months in hopes of quelling the violence.

The decision comes a week after Defense Secretary Robert Gates met with commanders in Afghanistan and heard a request for more troops.

Already, President Bush's plan to send more than 21,000 additional troops to Iraq is running into criticism on Capitol Hill as he struggles to persuade the Democratic-controlled Congress and a weary public to have patience with his war policies.

The decision further stresses a military straining to wage major wars on two fronts. Army and Marine Corps leaders, meanwhile, are telling Congress they are concerned about the readiness levels of their units at home.

The extension also raises questions about the future course of the conflict in Afghanistan. NATO and U.S. troops have struggled to control an increased flow of Taliban fighters into the country and a stubborn drug trade that has financed the insurgency.

------------------------------------------------------

The foolish, needless misadventures of Iraq and Afghanistan have already been lost.

It doesn't matter what the US does at this point, America has already been defeated.

[gc1765]

"52 per cent of respondents oppose the U.S. conflict in Afghanistan"

That's surprising, considering they were the ones attacked on Sept. 11. There is at least as much support, if not more, from Canadians than there is from Americans. We are there to help out the Americans...and most of them don't even want us there? Perhaps some of them don't make a distinction between Iraq and Afghanistan. Or perhaps they are happy now that bin laden is as good as dead in some people's eyes, and don't really care about the reconstruction aspect.

In October 2001, support for the war was over 90% : Link

[blackascoal]

"52 per cent of respondents oppose the U.S. conflict in Afghanistan"

That's surprising, considering they were the ones attacked on Sept. 11. There is at least as much support, if not more, from Canadians than there is from Americans. We are there to help out the Americans...and most of them don't even want us there? Perhaps some of them don't make a distinction between Iraq and Afghanistan. Or perhaps they are happy now that bin laden is as good as dead in some people's eyes, and don't really care about the reconstruction aspect.

In October 2001, support for the war was over 90% : Link

Perhaps we (Americans) know a bit more about 9/11 and our attack on Afghanistan than the Canadians who support this fraud do.

Perhaps the Canadians who support this fraud don't know that the attack on Afghanistan was planned long before 9/11.

Perhaps those Canadians don't know of the UNOCOL pipeline component of this fraud.

Perhaps they don't know how "We will carpet you in gold, or carpet you in bombs" plays into this fraud.

Perhaps the Canadians who support this fraud don't know why the Bush Administrtation doesn't care about Bin Laden and never did.

Perhaps the Canadians who support this fraud because of 9/11 should ask themselves how many Americans believe that 19 guys from caves could defeat the most sophisticated defense system on the planet armed with box cutters.

Perhaps they should ask themselves why in the hell are they trusting the Bush Administration when Americans don't.

Perhaps Canadians should be asking why your leaders led you into this without asking these questions.

[M.Dancer]

The suggestion that the conflict in Afghansistan and the fighting to keep the Taleban from retaking afghanstan and giving Al Qaeda a safe nation to operate from is because of a gas pipeline is right up there with the moonbat theories that the twin towers were destroyed by the US gov't.

As with all moonbat theories, the proof is in the pudding. Quite simply, there are cheaper, more relaible ways to make money and ensure energy supplies than fighting a war half way round the globe to try a re-invent the wheel and create an energy infastructure in the midst of a war zone.

[blackascoal]

As with all moonbat theories, the proof is in the pudding. Quite simply, there are cheaper, more relaible ways to make money and ensure energy supplies than fighting a war half way round the globe to try a re-invent the wheel and create an energy infastructure in the midst of a war zone.

Knowledge is a wonderful thing ...

From the 1998 Congressional Record

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlr.../hfa48119_0.HTM

STATEMENT OF JOHN J. MARESCA, VICE

PRESIDENT OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, UNOCAL CORPORATION

excerpts..

I would like to focus today on three issues. First, the need for multiple pipeline routes for Central Asian oil and gas resources. Second, the need for U.S. support for international and regional efforts to achieve balanced and lasting political settlements to the conflicts in the region, including Afghanistan. Third, the need for structured assistance to encourage economic reforms and the development of appropriate investment climates in the region. In this regard, we specifically support repeal or removal of section 907 of the Freedom Support Act.

The second option is to build a pipeline south from Central Asia to the Indian Ocean. One obvious route south would cross Iran, but this is foreclosed for American companies because of U.S. sanctions legislation. The only other possible route is across Afghanistan, which has of course its own unique challenges. The country has been involved in bitter warfare for almost two decades, and is still divided by civil war. From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of the pipeline we have proposed across Afghanistan could not begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders, and our company.

Mr. Chairman, the Caspian region contains tremendous untapped hydrocarbon reserves. Just to give an idea of the scale, proven natural gas reserves equal more than 236 trillion cubic feet. The region's total oil reserves may well reach more than 60 billion barrels of oil. Some estimates are as high as 200 billion barrels. In 1995, the region was producing only 870,000 barrels per day. By 2010, western companies could increase production to about 4.5 million barrels a day, an increase of more than 500 percent in only 15 years. If this occurs, the region would represent about 5 percent of the world's total oil production

As with the proposed Central Asia oil pipeline, CentGas can not begin construction until an internationally recognized Afghanistan Government is in place.

---------------------------------------------

The US government saw the Taliban regime "as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of an oil pipeline across Central Asia" from the rich oilfields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. Until now, "the oil and gas reserves of Central Asia have been controlled by Russia. The Bush government wanted to change all that."

The Bush administratino began to negotiate with the Taliban immediately after coming into power in February. US and Taliban diplomatic representatives met several times in Washington, Berlin and Islamabad.

But, confronted with Taliban's refusal to accept US conditions, "this rationale of energy security changed into a military one", the authors claim. "At one moment during the negotiations, the US representatives told the Taliban, 'either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs,'"

-------------------------------------------------

The US informs other governments of its plan to invade Afghanistan months before 9/11

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/preplanned.html

September 9, 2001: Bush given Afghanistan invasion plan

http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/qf911.html

October 7, 2001: Bush announces opening of Afghanistan attacks

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/10/07/ret.attack.bush/

June 13, 2002: Former UNOCAL Consultant, Hamid Karzai, elected as new Afghan leader.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2042040.stm

December 27, 2002: Afghanistan pipeline deal signed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2608713.stm

-------------------------------------------------

Every word is verifiable and most of it public record.

But feel free to maintain any belief you choose.

After all, gotta be careful of "moonbats"

[margrace]

Do you think we, meaning North America, were lured into Afghanistan by Bin Laden and friends? Why didn't the US with its suppeior man power and machines stay there until it was cleaned up? Why did they leave and go to Iraq.?

[blackascoal]

As with all moonbat theories, the proof is in the pudding. Quite simply, there are cheaper, more relaible ways to make money and ensure energy supplies than fighting a war half way round the globe to try a re-invent the wheel and create an energy infastructure in the midst of a war zone.

I know it's just coincidence, happenstance, and pure luck that since the invasion, energy companies have made the highest record profits of any corporations in the history of Man.

And about that ridiculous claim that anyone would build an "energy infrastructire in the midst of a war zone" .. It's being built as we speak.

[blackascoal]

Do you think we, meaning North America, were lured into Afghanistan by Bin Laden and friends? Why didn't the US with its suppeior man power and machines stay there until it was cleaned up? Why did they leave and go to Iraq.?

Bin Laden was NEVER the priority. He was a CIA operative prior to 9/11.

The Bush Administration NEVER put in adequate manpower to catch him if they wanted, allowed him to escape from Tora Bora, and called off the team to capture him.

Bin Laden didn't lure us into Afghanistan, but the Bush Administration lured other nations like Canada there .. then on to Iraq to rape their oil reserves.

SEE: Iraq Oil Law

[M.Dancer]

He was a CIA operative prior to 9/11.

Nonsense. What's more there is not a shred of evidence he was an operative.

Note, there is a huge differene between receiveing funds and weapons and being an operative. If that was the case, every afghan mujeehadin, every mercenary there awere operatives.....

That distintion though is lost on the partisan brigade.

[M.Dancer]

As with all moonbat theories, the proof is in the pudding. Quite simply, there are cheaper, more relaible ways to make money and ensure energy supplies than fighting a war half way round the globe to try a re-invent the wheel and create an energy infastructure in the midst of a war zone.

I know it's just coincidence, happenstance, and pure luck that since the invasion, energy companies have made the highest record profits of any corporations in the history of Man.

And about that ridiculous claim that anyone would build an "energy infrastructire in the midst of a war zone" .. It's being built as we speak.

Sure it is.......and it's just a coincidence that energy companies right now are cutting their earnings.....

[Catchme]

"52 per cent of respondents oppose the U.S. conflict in Afghanistan"

That's surprising, considering they were the ones attacked on Sept. 11. There is at least as much support, if not more, from Canadians than there is from Americans. We are there to help out the Americans...and most of them don't even want us there? Perhaps some of them don't make a distinction between Iraq and Afghanistan. Or perhaps they are happy now that bin laden is as good as dead in some people's eyes, and don't really care about the reconstruction aspect.

In October 2001, support for the war was over 90% : Link

Perhaps we (Americans) know a bit more about 9/11 and our attack on Afghanistan than the Canadians who support this fraud do.

Perhaps the Canadians who support this fraud don't know that the attack on Afghanistan was planned long before 9/11.

Perhaps those Canadians don't know of the UNOCOL pipeline component of this fraud.

Perhaps they don't know how "We will carpet you in gold, or carpet you in bombs" plays into this fraud.

Perhaps the Canadians who support this fraud don't know why the Bush Administrtation doesn't care about Bin Laden and never did.

Perhaps the Canadians who support this fraud because of 9/11 should ask themselves how many Americans believe that 19 guys from caves could defeat the most sophisticated defense system on the planet armed with box cutters.

Perhaps they should ask themselves why in the hell are they trusting the Bush Administration when Americans don't.

Perhaps Canadians should be asking why your leaders led you into this without asking these questions.

Not sure how accurate gc is in his statement more Canadians approve than Americans.

Canadians in the polls, and none have been done since offensive operations that I could find responded to the question of;

Seventy per cent of Canadians in a new EKOS survey said they supported the “peace-support” operation currently underway in Afghanistan.Ekos Research (03.03.06)

And this was almost a year ago now, so who knoews where Canadians are at.

Perhaps those asked, not only do not understand why the USA is in Afganistan, they do not understand what our military is actually doing there as opposed to "peace support".

And thanks for presenting the oil/natural gas pipeline info. Again I say; our military is being used as a private oil industry army, while tax payers subsidize it.

[blackascoal]

He was a CIA operative prior to 9/11.

Nonsense. What's more there is not a shred of evidence he was an operative.

Note, there is a huge differene between receiveing funds and weapons and being an operative. If that was the case, every afghan mujeehadin, every mercenary there awere operatives.....

That distintion though is lost on the partisan brigade.

I suggest that you actually research what you claim .. which does not appear to be the case.

Bin Laden comes home to roost

His CIA ties are only the beginning of a woeful story

By Michael Moran

MSNBC

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1245.htm

NEW YORK, Aug. 24, 1998 — At the CIA, it happens often enough to have a code name: Blowback. Simply defined, this is the term that describes an agent, an operative or an operation that has turned on its creators. Osama bin Laden, our new public enemy Number 1, is the personification of blowback. And the fact that he is viewed as a hero by millions in the Islamic world proves again the old adage: Reap what you sow

-----------------------------------------

Osama Bin Laden

CIA’s Toy Gone Awry

http://www.worldpress.org/1101binladen_cia.htm

Ranjit Bhushan, Outlook (independent weekly), New Delhi, India, Sept. 17, 2001.

Ironic as it may sound, Osama bin Laden, the most-wanted man in the world and the perceived symbol of evil, received his first lessons in the art of clandestine operations and subterfuge from the CIA.

Rewind to the late ’70s. It was at the Jawora base near Host, Afghanistan, that U.S. intelligence set up a training ground to equip young men to fight a guerrilla battle against the erstwhile U.S.S.R. Belonging to the royal Saudi family, Bin Laden was a VIP student of the CIA. Fired by a strong anti-left stand, Bin Laden launched his operations against the Soviet troops in Afghanistan with religious fervor. Indeed, when the then-Soviet Politburo decided to send an army of “infidels” into Afghanistan, Bin Laden knew his call had come. He audaciously shifted his business from Saudi Arabia to Afghanistan with hundreds of loyal workers, along with state-of-the-art construction equipment, and began to erect military lines of communication and bases of resistance there. He also teamed up with Abdullah Azam, who was in charge of a Palestinian organization called the Muslim Brotherhood. It was through the Brotherhood that they set up recruitment offices all over the Islamic world.

The once-favored pupil of the CIA is the one man the agency now badly wants. But he has proved supremely elusive. And as the hunt takes on a new dimension following Black Tuesday, the CIA can dip into its own records of this millennium’s Dr. No.

---------------------------------------------

Most people would call this more than just a "shred of evidence" .. and there is much much more.

None of this is a secret, and in fact, is WIDELY known.