BF2S Forums Germany Refuses to Send More Troops to Afghanistan

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

again, considering that you americans are always so keen on promoting the values of democracy around the globe, you show surprisingly little respect towards democratic processes in other nations. Unless of course, it fits your agenda.

adding doesnt necessarily delete the condescending tone in your message.  What you are saying is, it is against German law to honor treaty commitments?

no. But it is against german law to send combat troops overseas without a sufficient mandate from parliament. And as far as Afghanistan goes, that just isn't the case right now.

B.Schuss wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

more troops means more areas simultaneously occupied.  cant you see where your argument just failed you.

not really. Unless of course, you would have enough troops to occupy the whole freakin country, all 652.225 km².

Let me quote from a RAND study on nation building from 2003:

"The population of Iraq today is nearly 25 million. That population would require 500,000 foreign troops on the ground to meet a standard of 20 troops per thousand residents. This number is more than three times the number of foreign troops now deployed to Iraq (see figure). For a sustainable stabilization force on a 24-month rotation cycle, the international community would need to draw on a troop base of 2.5 million troops. Such numbers are clearly not feasible and emphasize the need for the rapid creation of indigenous security forces even while foreign troops continue to be deployed. The extremely low force ratio for Afghanistan, a country with a population even larger than that of Iraq, shows the implausibility of current stabilization efforts by external forces."

source: http://www.rand.org/publications/randre … urden.html

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Thing is, I draw my conclusions from personal experience.  I assume you are coming to yours through educated guess and other's opinions.  Is there anything more to you believing what you believe other than your prior opinions and online sources?

ah, a subtle low blow, how nice of you. No, online sources and television can only get you so far. Among other things, I base my judgement on the personal experience of this man: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Scholl-Latour

as a journalist, he has been on every major battlefield since WWII, including Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and probably knows more about the region than anyone else among german journalists. He has travelled Afghanistan extensively in recent years.
More importantly, he is genuine, and I trust him.

you want personal experience ? He's got loads.

oh well



How about we talk about my experiences in a little more detail.  I could care less where your friendly journalist went.

In August of 2004 my Task Force was sent to help the marines supressing the Najaf uprising.   My platoon, on the other hand, was attached to a company of national guardsmen.  I was mechanized infnatry.  We had bradleys.  These NG troopers were rolling in gun trucks.  Before my task force left to najaf, our sector was patrolled and secured by dozens of bradleys and tanks and hundreds of infantrymen.  Once najaf started.  My platoon and this NG company had 4 Bradleys and 12 gun trucks to cover this same area.   During the month of August, 2004, this company lost 6 soldiers.  During that same month, my platoon lost our only soldier during the entire deployment.   We were pulling 12 hour shifts of patrols, then rest, then patrols.  This was going on for 3 weeks.   


During the month of August, 2004, I personally missed two gigantic IED's that were off mark.  One detonated 20 meters behind the Bradley I was in and another detonated parallel to me across a canal.  During this month,  We recieved incoming during TCP operations 3 times.   During this month, I went to more soldiers memorials than I did the entire year.  Our tiny little platoon was tasked to cover the same AOR as an entire brigade combat team.   We quickly realized the difference numbers meant, even if it was just for presence.  More Bradleys out in sector meant less incoming mortar and rocket attacks, meant less oppurtunity to plant IED's, meant less time to organize ambush's and routes of regress ofenemy activity.  mean less Iraqi civilians were getting killed by VBIED's.


Less Bradleys out in sector meant more dead soldiers.  Meant more incoming.  Meant more time for the enemy to prepare for attacks and regroup afterwards. 


September, when my TF returned from Najaf was one of the quietest months in Taji in my year deployment. 

DO I want personal experience?  No.  I have enough, you could keep your fancy shmancy journalist reporting on stories to yourself. My experience has also showed journalist dont care about the soldiers that protect them while they report.  They wouldnt be there if it wasnt a shitty story.  Low blow?  no sir,  I simply told you were where I was coming from and gave you an opportunity to give me more than just a hyperlink so I could understand where you are coming from.  But, you gave me more linky linkies.  no thanks.         

Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2008-02-03 12:36:34)

B.Schuss wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

again, considering that you americans are always so keen on promoting the values of democracy around the globe, you show surprisingly little respect towards democratic processes in other nations. Unless of course, it fits your agenda.

adding doesnt necessarily delete the condescending tone in your message.  What you are saying is, it is against German law to honor treaty commitments?

no. But it is against german law to send combat troops overseas without a sufficient mandate from parliament. And as far as Afghanistan goes, that just isn't the case right now.

so my point stands.  The current German parliament does not want to honor treaty commitments.

Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2008-02-03 12:35:24)

Ghandi767 wrote:

Are you f*cking me?

No more than usual.

The Taliban host, base, support and supply Al Qaeda. They also gave them a large amount of their manpower.

Do you have any information which backs up these assertions?
The 9/11 hijackers were mostly Saudi, how are the Taleban the enemy?

The US hosted, based, supported and supplied the IRA for many years. Those are known facts.

Dilbert_X wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Whats with this "You Americans...spreading democracy...."

The problem with this is as soon as Americans start talking about 'democracy' it starts raining bullets, bombs, napalm, depleted uranium, toxic defoliants etc etc.

Plus US 'democracy' is barely a democracy at all.

Ya right.  Tell that to a girl in Afghan who can now go to school.  You have issues dude.

Keyword accident.  Wow.  You really hate the US.  please continue .

Dilbert_X wrote:

I hate belligerent retards bombing civilians for no obvious reason.

That's interesting.  You are right, that is what we do.  Now, it would be nice if you would criticize the insurgents for the same thing.  You know, for fairness and all.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Happy now?

Yes.  Your fairness and non-bias is refreshing.

Dilbert_X wrote:

The Taliban host, base, support and supply Al Qaeda. They also gave them a large amount of their manpower.

Do you have any information which backs up these assertions?
The 9/11 hijackers were mostly Saudi, how are the Taleban the enemy?

Because it wasn't the Saudi government that was complicit in allowing the training camps that trained those Saudis and the infrastructure that funded those Saudis to exist. It was the Taliban. Known facts.

Dilbert_X wrote:

The US hosted, based, supported and supplied the IRA for many years. Those are known facts.

Those were private organizations supporting supporting the IRA, not the government. Known facts.

usmarine wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Why Germany should be criticised for refusing to jump aboard the Neo-con bandwagon is beyond me.

Treaty comes to mind.

Article 11
This Treaty shall be ratified and its provisions carried out by the Parties in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.

?

9/11 was how many years ago?
The Taleban did not attack the US, nor did the Afghans.
It was a terrorist attack, not an act of war.

I don't remember the British invoking NATO over the IRA attacks, funded mostly by US citizens.
And how did the IRA get hold of C4 and Barrett 0.50 rifles? Should we have nuked Boston?

CameronPoe wrote:

usmarine wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Article 11
This Treaty shall be ratified and its provisions carried out by the Parties in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.

?

?

That is Article 11 of the NATO treaty. If supplementing the troop levels in Afghanistan hasn't been passed in the German parliament then sending more would not be 'in accordance with their ... constitutional processes'.

So we can't have an opinion on it?  Or discuss it?