Iraq and Afghanistan

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle -east/truck-bombs-kill-16-people-in-iraq-17790 66.html

This is present day Iraq:

But a recent series of high-profile bombings that have killed hundreds in both major cities and remote areas has raised concerns Iraqi forces are not up to the task.

What makes them think Afghanistan will be any different when NATO forces finally withdraw in the distant future?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/u s-wants-20000-more-troops-to-fight-taliban-177 8947.html

It is widely expected that the UK will send up to 1,500 more troops. At the same time, a force of 700 sent to help provide security for the Afghan elections last week on a temporary basis will become a permanent presence.

While US, British and other foreign troops are dying in what is supposedly a mission to rid Afghanistan of al-Qa'ida militants and make the country safe for democracy, the incumbent President stands accused of forging alliances with brutal warlords and overseeing outright fraud in an attempt to "steal" the national elections, the results of which are still being counted.

Why should we lose anymore of our troops, while the current President is making deals behind our backs?

Leave these two hell hole countries, to their own devices.

[rov1200]

Before we went into Afghanistan the only weapons they possessed were a few Kalshnikovs. Now the Taliban have machine guns, rocket propelled grenades and improvised explosives.

The problem is the Taliban are fighting back with our own weaponry which they have captured or failed explosives that haven't blown up. Therefore the scavengers can use this to attack our own forces. Thank goodness we blew up that downed helicopter otherwise we would be attacked from the air also.