Swedish soldier injured in Afghanistan

Oh come on Sweden. Learn from USA! They ruined their economy by being invaders. Stop ruining yourself and stop fighting for others! You have your own troubles to deal with!

Teach him for not recycling...

@muscle: As an American citizen thoroughly disgusted by the U.S. government's unprovoked imperialistic wars of aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan, I heartily agree with you!

Leave those poor people and their oil alone!

Don't cry for me Argentina

The truth is I never left you

All through my wild days

My mad existence

I kept my promise

Don't keep your distance

If the Swedish language isn't a problem I'd really recommend watching SVT's documentary Krig för fred as it gives a better understanding of why Sweden is there and what the troops actually are achieving.

And what about Sweden's presence in Lybia? Is Sweden there helping the NATO in its efforts for peace? Or only to sell Jas-Gripen planes to the world.

Personally I find the decision to participate in Libya was prematurely and made in a rush. It is almost like "Hello world! Sweden has also a military and look what it can do! Buy our war material, give us your money and you can do this too!". However I think Sweden has to be careful not to play the game at too high of a level. Sweden cannot, should not, play such a game at the same level as France, the UK or some other country with more muscles - there are fewer people living in the whole of Sweden than in the city of London.

I think the key question is that Libya as well as Afghanistan are countries rich of natural resources. But Sweden has natural resources as well... And our neighbour nextdoor, Norway, has the oil... So I don't really get it. Maybe Sweden should tell NATO to handle their imperialistic affairs on their own..? :P

If the Swedish language isn't a problem I'd really recommend watching SVT'

@#5. The Swedish language isn't a problem and that is why I would never watch SVT for a better understanding of anything...except what a joke state-TV is.

@ cogito

"The Swedish language isn't a problem and that is why I would never watch SVT for a better understanding of anything...except what a joke state-TV is."

I see. Then I look forward to hear about your presumably better suggestion of the subject than the documentary Krig för fred.

This is so unfortunate that a country like Sweden is wasting its people for a false war.

11:23 August 14, 2011 by rise

From the Wiki.

In 2002, the US Geological Survey published a list of more than 1000 deposits, mines, and occurrences in Afghanistan to confirm the country's wealth of mineral and hydrocarbon resources. Among the minerals found in abundance are gold, copper, iron, mercury, lead, and rare metals such as cesium, lithium, niobium, and tantalum. Tantalum, which is also known as coltan, is a rare element essential in the manufacture of cell phones, computers, and digital cameras. Lithium is necessary for high-tech batteries, specialty glasses and ceramics, and for some high-performance metal alloys. Niobium is used in steel alloys.

As part of its economic liberalization and privatization strategy, USAID is directing the sale of every Afghan state enterprise in transportation, communications, manufacturing, and resource extraction.

In October 2006, the British Agencies Afghanistan Group announced privatization of the Jawzjan gas field, Karkar-e Dodkash coal mine in Baghlan, a fluoride mine in Uruzagan, a gold mine in Herat, a precious stones mine in Nuristan, and cement factories in Ghori and Parwan.

Natural gas, petroleum, coal, copper, uranium, gold, silver, chromite, talc, barites, sulfur, lead, zinc, iron ore, salt, precious and semiprecious stones.

Lest say that Aghanistan has everything. If one country has something and all the others don't have well can be found in afghanistan.

Why do you ant other think the USA went there? After the September 11,2001, attack, Osama gave the "gringos" the reason they needed to declare war to a very rich country.

When they leave Afghanistan, if they ever do it correctly, I would like to find out how many American business are established in the country exploiting its naturl resourses. Including opium, but of course.

Taken from Wiki: "Opium production in Afghanistan has been on the rise since U.S. occupation started in 2001. Based on UNODC data, there has been more opium poppy cultivation in each of the past four growing seasons (2004-2007) than in any one year during Taliban rule. Also, more land is now used for opium in Afghanistan than for coca cultivation in Latin America. In 2007, 92% of the opiates on the world market originated in Afghanistan"

@local-aam

"This is so unfortunate that a country like Sweden is wasting its people for a false war."

They are not fighting, but on a contrary - bribing, negotiating and what not, so the local warlords would NOT fight and allow the kids (including girls) to study in schools every day and citizens to be able to live peaceful lives.

A unit of 150 swedes keep an enormous region in peace, which otherwise would be ripped by the "religion of peace" fanatics, like it happens in Iraq.

Every one agrees that one cannot just leave Afghani population to die in thousands at the hands of returning Taliban, but nobody wants to stay there and do the work.

Taken to a German field hospital, that is good news.

Its not just the natural resources of Afghanistan. There are many other reasons as well. Afghanistan is the key country that is closer to China's border, through Pakistan's north western frontier region, and it has a huge border with Pakistan. The US presence is more than just for the resources of Afghanistan. It is also running units for penetration in to China, to create problems in various provinces of China.

Pakistan has to safeguard the interests of China, its biggest friend. In order to create more difficult for Pakistan to handle these insurgents, India's presence in Afghanistan is well known as well. Thus, Pakistan has to look for both sides, which is difficult due to the limited resources. China, having conflicts with India and US, has to support Pakistan, to keep, atleast, India busy. India has to support US presence in Afghanistan, to keep Pakistan busy from both sides.

Pakistan, on the other hand has to support the Talibans unofficially, as her counter force against US and Indian forces in Afghanistan. Come on, we are a poor country, we do not have the power to declare openly our opposition against different forces :). The US, on the other hand, finds it easy to motivate it's presence in Afghanistan, due to the rising Talibans presence. Now

Pakistan and India are moving towards having good relations, WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE A LONG TIME AGO. And internal economic issues in USA, is also forcing it to give up the Afghanistan option. Which doesn't surprise me, the country, Afghanistan, has led to the breakup of USSR. Before that it has managed to defeat other nations, including the British influence. Its a mess out there.

Many of you do not realize the problems of Afghanistan, because you don't have the access to national newspapers of Pakistan or Afghanistan. You just get to read from international media, which is usually not showing the complete picture. For example, I am sure many of you will not have the information about the US agents killed, arrested in Pakistan or Afghanistan, every year. The rising fury of China, against the presence of USA. Because the international media doesn't speak much about it!

The only people who suffer the most, are the Afghans.

What surprises me is the participation of Sweden, and other countries in the war in Afghanistan. These countries are not even getting big benefits compared to the rising hatred for them by poor nations. They are only paying a price for their membership in Nato.

Nobody in his right mind would invade Afghanistan for the natural resources. The sole reason was to show the third world that attacks on US will not be tolerated and the leadership of these countries will suffer. The invasion into Afghanistan was supported by the entire world including Russia and China.

As a result of invasion into Afghanistan, the nuclear plans of Qaddafi were given up and nuclear race of Iran became public center of attention.

Now, if one already invades this wonderful heaven on earth, one does the maximum to make up for the costs and starts a research of the local riches. This is smart and logical, especially given that the war costs US much more than it would make out of Afghanistan even if it would be as peaceful as Portugal.

However, claiming that the resources of Afghanistan were the target is like saying that Nazi invasion into France was to take control over African colonies, by that disregarding the correct picture.

In addition, claiming that Afghanis won the war against USSR or winning against USA, is like claiming that the Belorussian and Dutch partisans were the sole reason for the German defeat. After all, the partisans never stopped fighting, while Germans did stop. By definition, it is impossible to win against guerilla fighting without total war including purging the local population of men.

The reason for the troops in Afghanistan RIGHT NOW is to maintain the fragile balance in relative peace. Neither China, nor Pakistan would prefer Taliban as their neighbor to the americans, since islamism is more contagious than capitalism. Mistake of the americans is the choice of the ruling clan, which obviously cannot unite the rest.

The question is whether there is an alternative? What is the proposal? To leave afghanis to be eaten by Taliban and Al Qaida predators? One million are already dead in Iraq and the killers are not the USA.

-----What surprises me is the participation of Sweden, and other countries in the war in Afghanistan. These countries are not even getting big benefits compared to the rising hatred for them by poor nations. They are only paying a price for their membership in Nato.

This might be the only part I might disagree to you. I think Swedish politicians, most likely as anywhere else in the West, are somehow bribed by some international profit group.They use the money of tax payer as investment, while the profit go back to those elites who are controlling the politicians.