Quote Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla View Post
Eh? How can you move to rebut my every point, and then agree with my conclusion, right down to the numbers?
I don't know. I haven't changed my position. I can't really make my mind up about Afghanistan. Last page I said I thought there were reasons to support a surge, and reasons not to.

Then jingoism broke lose: 'disgraceful', 'beneath my dignity', 'no backbone', 'my friends die because of this'.

Which irritated me. So I pointed out that Poland and the UK have contributed less troops to international missions this past decade, and that much of the troops and resources that were committed were send to Iraq. Which is currently commonly regarded as unsuccesful, and also as detrimental to the cause in Afghanistan and other missions.



'Also, where do you get the figure "40,000" from for Iraq? Is that the total number of men we sent overall, because some of those were the same men going back three or four times. Or is it the number for the actual invasion? I'm fairly sure it isn't.'
I was referring to the number of UK troops deployed for the invasion. Wiki below says 46.000. 200 Poles were involved in the invasion as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_Force_-_Iraq