NationStates Jolt Archive

I have growing suspicions and fears that something really stupid is on the cards on Afghanistan. And by stupid, I mean a "peace settlement" with taliban and a (partial?) withdrawal by NATO.

Recent 'leaks' and statements are indicating a lot towards that.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/06/afghanistan.military
Brit commander saying "Talks with Taliban the only way forward"

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JJ08Df03.html
Harper talking of pulling out

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JJ08Df05.html
KSA is involved in talks with taliban for a settlement.

On the other hand, I think there is increased focus on Afg in the US due to elections and I must say that I am happy with Obama's views on Afghanistan.

Will it come to a stage that NATO is unwilling to sustain current presence in Afg and favors a pullout ceding control of southern districts to taliban and maintain just enough to keep Karzai safe in Kabul?

Will US go it alone in Afg in that case? or will US also play along...it is hard to see this happening because it is US withdrawal from the region and leaving it to Pak and KSA that led to this mess in the first place. But then...stranger things have happened.

It is also interesting to see how things are being played out in Pakistan. Kiyani just replaced the ISI chief with his man...presumably somebody the US is happy with (guessing this from him visiting US carrier in the region and all). More interestingly, Zardari has just said that Kashmiri jihadis are terrorists and India is not an enemy of Pakistan (and getting lots of flak for that in Pakistan). On the other hand, attacks have increased across both the Lines (Durrand line and Line of Control).

I am still confused (well I am always confused....)..but I do think that something's cooking.

Anybody?

Any ideas on what would be an acceptable peace and victory in Afg? (given current and foreseeable circumstances)

NATO has realised that policing other peoples countries is rather expensive and doesn't really help prevent terrorism that much?

Or maybe they just can't afford to keep paying troops...

On an interesting note Pakistan, major ally in the region, is on the verge of bankruptcy

The governments are doing it to pander to the people. Canada is under going a general election and the Cons don't have a stranglehold on power. They won't garner enough for a majority and could lose the minority, so they want to nab the moderates who can't decide if they can like the Liberals again or if the Cons haven't done enough to fuck up Canada. So... pull out talk is an election tactic.

On an interesting note Pakistan, major ally in the region, is on the verge of bankruptcy
And I'd say that's a much bigger factor to worry about with regards to the Taliban and Afghanistan. Similar events in Indonesia during the '97 crisis for example brought about social unrest, overthrow of government and so on and so forth. It's not like the current Pakistani leadership is on an incredibly strong political footing. And who knows what happens if various bribes and other contraptions in the border regions stop coming.

^ Yeah..I am following that one closely too. Zardari made a plea for $100 Billion. The decades of overspending on military and economic mismanagement have caught up with Pak. Actually they caught up with Pak long time back and it was on life support by US.

Given the funny circumstances of the US itself going into life-support these days, I wonder how long they can keep their sick dog alive.

I am also worried of there will be a pan-taliban movement engulfing pushtun majority areas of Afg and Pak. As bad as Pak sponsored jihad is, there is at least some lines we could keep them at...I dunno what kind of lines we can keep a taliban/AQ sponsored jihad at.

NATO has realised that policing other peoples countries is rather expensive and doesn't really help prevent terrorism that much?


It also seems to me that policing other peoples countries might possibly increase terrorism, sorta like throwing rocks at a beehive.

on the British part its a typical move to split the moderates from the extremist taliban that the media sensationalizes like taffy

on the Canadian side its about a victim complex they have picked up because they didn't actually ever think they would do any of the heavy lifting work

It also seems to me that policing other peoples countries might possibly increase terrorism, sorta like throwing rocks at a beehive.

sorta like when the USSR pulled out of Afghanistan...oh wait

if they cough up Bin Laden any deal is possible.

on the British part its a typical move to split the moderates from the extremist taliban that the media sensationalizes like taffy
Moderate Taliban?

I know that the US has changed the deployment orders of both an Army Combat Brigade and Marine Division from going to Iraq to Afghanistan. That's another six-thousand US soldiers that will be stationed in Afghanistan. Plus another 3200 Marines are getting ready to deploy there, as well.

The short version is that a couple years ago, the Taliban began to realize that they and Al Quaeda were at cross-purposes. The Taliban wanted Afghanistan and Al Quaeda wanted to war against the USA. The more Al Quaeda tried to influence events in Iraq and Pakistan and elsewhere and the less they fought to retake Afghanistan, the more the Taliban realized that Al Quaeda weren't like-minded muslims, they were bitter wackos. So they've been growing more and more distant.

Now, I suspect that the leaders of the Taliban are starting to realize that they're never going to control Afghanistan again. They want to see how much power peace negotiations might get them in an Afghani government.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JJ08Df03.html
Harper talking of pulling out

As much as I wish I could nail that man for saying one thing in the debates and another somewhere else... here he says that NATO could stay there indefinitely. This isn't pulling out at all.

Yes, pull out of Afghanistan so they can stay in Iraq, or gear up for Iran, perhaps.:rolleyes:

I hold out some small hope that a reformed ISI will be a very good thing for Afghanistan, even if Pakistan is in economic crisis. Not having its neighbor actively trying to fuck with its government seems like a less intractable problem than having a chaotic and bankrupt neighbor. It's not like the border areas could be less under Karachi's control than they are now.

take it FWIW. It's actually a good read.

http://www.hindu.com/2008/10/06/stories/2008100655491000.htm
Claude Angeli, veteran journalist of Le Canard Enchaine, got hold of a copy of a coded cable by the French Deputy Chief of Mission in Kabul, Francois Fitou, based on a briefing by the heavyweight British diplomat, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, who serves as ambassador to Afghanistan. What Sir Sherard told Mr. Fitou in confidence is worth recalling:

— “The current situation [in Afghanistan] is bad; the security situation is getting worse; so is corruption and the Government [of Hamid Karzai] has lost all trust.”

— “The foreign forces are ensuring the survival of a regime which would collapse without them … They are slowing down and complicating an eventual exit from the crisis, which will probably be dramatic.”

— “We [NATO allies] should tell them [United States] that we want to be part of a winning strategy, not a losing one. In the short term, we should dissuade the American presidential candidates from getting more bogged down in Afghanistan … The American strategy is doomed to fail.”

— Britain aimed to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan by 2010.

— The only realistic outlook for Afghanistan would be the installation of “an acceptable dictator” and the public opinion should be primed for this.

For the bulk of the Indian strategic community, the unthinkable is happening — the prospect of an Afghan settlement involving the Taliban. From all accounts, the Taliban appears edging closer to the Afghan capital and tightening its control in the provinces ringing Kabul.

Unsurprisingly, Mr. Karzai has appealed to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia to mediate with the Taliban. To request the Saudi King to stake his prestige is serious business. Mr. Karzai couldn’t have acted alone. Alongside there are reports that the British intelligence has been talking to the Taliban envoys in London. The influential Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper reported that senior Taliban functionaries who travelled to Saudi Arabia in the recent days have put forward 11 conditions, which include the withdrawal of foreign forces, political accommodation of the Taliban in key Ministries and the drawing up of a new Constitution that affirms Afghanistan as an Islamic state

Yes, NL, "moderate taliban". What a fucking joke this has turned out to be.

the op's opinion of "something stupid" being what was said, i wonder what their idea of something 'smart' would be, and how they would expect to achieve it?

afghanistan has a history, going back centuries, even millinia, of more powerful people passing through on their way to concor (as in murder, rape, pillage, et al) someplace else.

that's one factor. another is that it was rumsfield, under raygun, who CREATED the tallibon.

Peace and victory, bah such Bolshevism!

NATO has realised that policing other peoples countries is rather expensive and doesn't really help prevent terrorism that much?

Or maybe they just can't afford to keep paying troops...

On an interesting note Pakistan, major ally in the region, is on the verge of bankruptcy



Oh! I know!!!! Let's buy out their debt?? We can own their country then.

that's one factor. another is that it was rumsfield, under raygun, who CREATED the tallibon.


President Raygun? :eek:

Any ideas on what would be an acceptable peace and victory in Afg? (given current and foreseeable circumstances)

Ideally it becoming a moderate Islamic country like turkey. Realistically it'd be acceptable to set up a dictator we like, either one would probably take awhile. I don't think the US will pull out, even if others do. I do think that we'd allow the Taliban into the government if we could get them to find/hand over Osama. Our main problem with the Taliban was simply that they wouldn't allow us to get the bastard.

Ideally it becoming a moderate Islamic country like turkey. Realistically it'd be acceptable to set up a dictator we like, either one would probably take awhile. I don't think the US will pull out, even if others do. I do think that we'd allow the Taliban into the government if we could get them to find/hand over Osama. Our main problem with the Taliban was simply that they wouldn't allow us to get the bastard.

And that they were a horrible repressive regime that didn't have anything we wanted in the long term.

Our main problem with the Taliban was simply that they wouldn't allow us to get the bastard.

I don't think that is true. They were willing. The "negotiating team" led by Lt. Gen. Mahmud Ahmed advised taliban not to hand over Osama. Influential members of taliban are still puppets of ISI.

One thing many people have failed to do is understand Afghanistan. I am no expert, but I was lucky enough to study under one just as Iraq was coming into full swing.

Afghanistan in unlike most of its neighbors. Over the years, it has been under very tenuous control...sway the warlords, and you control the country. This has alot to do with how people identify in that nation. For long periods of time, being of one ethnic group would get you killed. So an uzbek claimed to be an afghan. Or an afghan claimed to be a turk. Or a turk claimed to be a kurd. And so on.

The taliban had power because they opposed the Russians. The warlords liked this, as it gave them power. The taliban screwed them over, and they signed on with the next nation to step in...the US. Not because they like us, not because of anything but providing them with control the taliban was taking away systematically, trying to form a government like Iraq and Iran. Hence, the Northern Alliance. Control the warlords, control the nation. The alliance was always tenuous.

"Victory" will be difficult given this. Yes, the initial fighting was easy. We swept in, conquoring one province after another. But we ultimatly failed. We didn't give the warlords what they wanted. The Russians wanted a Russian style government. The Taliban wanted a government like Iraq and Iran. We wanted a government like the US. Now, the assorted warlords will take what they can to get their power back.

"if they cough up Bin Laden any deal is possible."

If they thought him a furrball in their windpipe they would cough him up but they don't and they won't.
Our only hope is that he falls off the perch due to the ill-health that he reportedly has or that someone takes him out - and I don't mean to the prom.

He has powerful symbolic pull to the Moslem world. Living, he's a threat - and who knows....maybe a bigger one as a martyr for Islam.
It's a mess!

There never was a chance of an outright victory in Afghanistan. Politicians take a long time to realise these things.

NATO has realised that policing other peoples countries is rather expensive and doesn't really help prevent terrorism that much?

As opposed to before, when the government was just flat out supported terrorism?

Not to mention being one of the worst and most oppressive governments in history. Why is it that when nature causes suffering, like a famine or hurricane, people scramble to help, but when human governments do it deliberately, intervening and stopping it is wrong and a mistake?

As opposed to before, when the government was just flat out supported terrorism?

Not to mention being one of the worst and most oppressive governments in history. Why is it that when nature causes suffering, like a famine or hurricane, people scramble to help, but when human governments do it deliberately, intervening and stopping it is wrong and a mistake?

Because none of the ones who could intervene are innocent of doing the same thing and no one interfered with them when they were doing it. Basically, it's a want to not have to pay for their own crimes.

is Bin Ladin even alive? If he's in those mountains like they say he is, chances are he stepped onto a mine that we left there..

Hell, for all I know, he could be working at a Department Store in Kansas.

I know a couple people who theorize Bin Laden's actually a cab driver in New York City, and that he has been since before Bush was elected. He snail-mails the speeches to his lackeys and has a body double do all of the actual talking.

Personally, I find it humorous.

I know a couple people who theorize Bin Laden's actually a cab driver in New York City, and that he has been since before Bush was elected. He snail-mails the speeches to his lackeys and has a body double do all of the actual talking.

Personally, I find it humorous.

As Rich Hall says he is in the Deep South of America - "look at the man, beard, camouflage jacket, automatic rifles, that is every man in Alabama".

I think that to defeat our enemy in Afg, there needs to be much more of a concerted effort on the ground and also - wasn't the EU meant to have funded/trained some sort of rapid response units? Couldn't Commanders use these units to more effectively combat the guerilla warfare that seems to be happening as well as using conventional troops to secure taken ground etc.?

Then again, it would be nice if other NATO member states would actually do some heavy-duty work for a change - or even some helichoppers would be most handy!?

There you go...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-usafghan10-2008oct10,0,6743460.story
.......Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who is in Budapest, Hungary, to discuss the Afghanistan war with North Atlantic Treaty Organization defense ministers, said Thursday that the U.S. would be open to reconciling with the Taliban.

"There has to be ultimately, and I'll underscore ultimately, reconciliation as part of a political outcome to this," Gates said. "That's ultimately the exit strategy for all of us."..........

All these years Musharraf was banking on this when has said that he is allying with US just like the Hudaibiya treaty of Prophet Moh'd. Too bad for him that he got ousted before this.

Not that there was any doubt about the taliban being Proxies of Pak with several members being serving officers of Pak institutions...but of late there are some acknowledgment in "western" sources as well...not just the "biased" Indian sources.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/10/01/europe/EU-Spain-Pakistan-Taliban.php
Western intelligence agencies have long suspected that elements of Pakistan's spy service have aided the Taliban in Afghanistan, but a Spanish government report leaked to the media appears to be the first published assessment that spells out such cooperation.

The August 2005 report says Pakistan's shadowy Inter-Services Intelligence agency helped the Taliban procure roadside bombs and may even have provided training and intelligence to the Taliban in camps set up on Pakistani soil.

The Pakistani agency, known as the ISI, planned to have the Taliban use the explosives "to assassinate high-ranking officials" in Afghanistan, the report said.

and more importantly

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article4926401.ece
British officials covered up evidence that a Taliban commander killed by special forces in Helmand last year was in fact a Pakistani military officer, according to highly placed Afghan officials.

The commander, targeted in a compound in the Sangin valley, was one of six killed in the past year by SAS and SBS forces. When the British soldiers entered the compound they discovered a Pakistani military ID on the body.

It was the first physical evidence of covert Pakistani military operations against British forces in Afghanistan even though Islamabad insists it is a close ally in the war against terror.

Britain’s refusal to make the incident public led to a row with the Afghan president Hamid Karzai, who has long accused London of viewing Afghanistan through the eyes of Pakistani military intelligence, which is widely believed to have been helping the Taliban.
..
So furious was Karzai that he threatened to expel British diplomats.
..
However, repeated accusations from Karzai about Pakistan’s active support for the Taliban have been backed by a senior US marine officer.

Lieutenant-Colonel Chris Nash, who commanded an embedded training team in eastern Afghanistan from June 2007 to March this year, told the Army Times that Pakistani forces flew repeated helicopter missions into Afghanistan to resupply a Taliban base camp during a fierce battle in June last year. Nash said: “We were on the receiving end of Pakistani military D-30 [a howitzer]. On numerous occasions Afghan border police checkpoints and observation posts were attacked by Pakistani military forces.”

Comments by Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith in The Sunday Times last week that a decisive military victory against the Taliban was not possible and negotiations should be opened have received widespread backing.

General Jean-Louis Georgelin, France’s military chief, said: “There is no military solution to the Afghan crisis and I totally share this feeling.”

Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, who initially dismissed the brigadier’s comments as “defeatist”, said on Friday that the US was now prepared to back talks with the Taliban.

I think we should pull out of Iraq by 2010, because there's now way anyone can get the country back to how it was now, and move those troops to Afghanistan.

I have growing suspicions and fears that something really stupid is on the cards on Afghanistan. And by stupid, I mean a "peace settlement" with taliban and a (partial?) withdrawal by NATO.



Peace settlement? Was there ever a war? Shock & Awe? That was yawn & Snore!:mad:

If we had captured Bin Ladin early, too much Military-Industrial Complex money would have been left on the table. Just like a fixed football game. Coach Bush was paid to lose.

The Bush strategy in both Iraq and Afghanistan was to install puppets and then claim that he was defending "democracy " in the region.

I think the best strategy is to get the hell out of both counbtries. Everthing Bush touches turns to SHIT!!!!
Better to give some weapons to the non-Taliban tribes and let them defend themselves rather than waste lives and money doing another Vietnam.
And thank those filthy neo-cons for the death and destruction they caused by pulling out of a war that hadn't been concluded to attack oil-rich Iraq on the WMD lie.

That article

The SAS aren't exactly careful at who they shoot at. He could've been in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Peace settlement? Was there ever a war? Shock & Awe? That was yawn & Snore!:mad:

is this a continuation of your famous "why didn't they send tanks into the mountains?!" logic

Better to give some weapons to the non-Taliban tribes and let them defend themselves rather than waste lives and money doing another Vietnam.

yeah lets just leave them to die along with any hope of Afghanistan ever recovering because thats the right thing to do

is this a continuation of your famous "why didn't they send tanks into the mountains?!" logic


That must have been somebody else. It was a skeleton invasion force and still is, is my beef. And why was the ray gun never deployed in Afghanistan or Iraq? Incredibly cheap and effective.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/29/60minutes/main3891865.shtml

That must have been somebody else. It was a skeleton invasion force and still is, is my beef. And why was the ray gun never deployed in Afghanistan or Iraq? Incredibly cheap and effective.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/29/60minutes/main3891865.shtml

Perhaps because the Taliban have a nasty habit of not mulling around in the open near large generators?

That must have been somebody else. It was a skeleton invasion force and still is, is my beef.

so you think the US should not of used the Northern alliance to take Afghanistan but instead ignored all the lessons learned from the soviet invasion and just sent an army of western troops to overthrow a government thats is established on fighting infidel invaders?

And why was the ray gun never deployed in Afghanistan or Iraq? Incredibly cheap and effective.

because you cannot base a war on experimental weaponry

Perhaps because the Taliban have a nasty habit of not mulling around in the open near large generators?

Until they attack. With a ray gun protecting you and helicopters protecting the ray guns, you can't be attacked. Once completly isolated in the mountians, it's just a matter of how many boots you have marching on your side.

My theory for a war like Afghanistan or Iraq is you go in with at least 400,000 troops from day one or you don't go at all. for those kind of numbers you need allies. We would have had more allies if Bush had not said "Your either with us or against us!" You DON'T use threats to gain allies. (unless you have another agenda like Bush & Cheney did)

Until they attack. With a ray gun protecting you and helicopters protecting the ray guns, you can't be attacked. Once completly isolated in the mountians, it's just a matter of how many boots you have marching on your side.

...thats not how helicopters can work not that you won't be hard pressed to find any pilots who will be willing to do guard duty in a helicopter

flying in slow moving aircraft is for deployment of troops, supplies or tank killing from an extreme distance

My theory for a war like Afghanistan or Iraq is you go in with at least 400,000 troops from day one or you don't go at all.

why?

Until they attack. With a ray gun protecting you and helicopters protecting the ray guns, you can't be attacked. Once completly isolated in the mountians, it's just a matter of how many boots you have marching on your side.

My theory for a war like Afghanistan or Iraq is you go in with at least 400,000 troops from day one or you don't go at all. for those kind of numbers you need allies. We would have had more allies if Bush had not said "Your either with us or against us!" You DON'T use threats to gain allies. (unless you have another agenda like Bush & Cheney did)

Until, you know, you run out of juice. Assuming the piece of complicated, brand new technology doesn't break down on you at some point. Which probably would happen. It's a really, really bad idea to base your tactics on a piece of technology that can be blocked with a simple piece of metal.

Have you never heard of the Soviet Invasion? The Soviets did exactly the same thing you suggested, and got their asses kicked.

Furthermore, where in the hell are we getting nigh half a million troops from? That's most of the active duty combat force, both army and marine. You can't just zergrush Kabul. Again, what the Soviets tried. We tried the smarter path. And I daresay it worked better then the Soviet strategy of killing everything.

Several years in Iraq & Afghan. Trillions of dollars spent with a result of a less stable Middle East and you want to know why a very large number of troops is needed?

Until, you know, you run out of juice. Assuming the piece of complicated, brand new technology doesn't break down on you at some point. Which probably would happen. It's a really, really bad idea to base your tactics on a piece of technology that can be blocked with a simple piece of metal.

Have you never heard of the Soviet Invasion? The Soviets did exactly the same thing you suggested, and got their asses kicked.

Furthermore, where in the hell are we getting nigh half a million troops from? That's most of the active duty combat force, both army and marine. You can't just zergrush Kabul. Again, what the Soviets tried. We tried the smarter path. And I daresay it worked better then the Soviet strategy of killing everything.

The Ray gun probably wouldn't work againt Russia or China but it's just what is needed in Afghanistan and Iraq. If they are hiding behind a piece of metal then they cant shoot at you can they? And you would know exactly where they are.

As I said, for 1/2 a million troops you need more allies. Bush did everything he could to keep the allied numbers low.

Several years in Iraq & Afghan.

yes thats what peacekeeping involves

Trillions of dollars spent with a result of a less stable Middle East and you want to know why a very large number of troops is needed?

I'm sorry aren't you the one advocating using hordes of troops from the go?

If they are hiding behind a piece of metal then they cant shoot at you can they? And you would know exactly where they are.

so what happens when this super weapon is disabled by say a land mine and all hell breaks loose?

[QUOTE=Dragontide;14093290]As I said, for 1/2 a million troops you need more allies. Bush did everything he could to keep the allied numbers low.

source?

More troops from day one is how you get a quick victory. A skeleton invasion force just pisses the enemy off more and adds to their resolve and determination. My God, Afghanistan is STILL the top poppy producer. We couldn't even do something about THAT??? WTF??!!

Only a few million dollars has been spent on the ray gun. (13.1 million I think) So several can be deployed at still a very cheap cost. I mean... to not even try the goddamm thing? WTF??!!

Source?
"W: "Your either with us or against us" Did they come pouring out to help us after he said that? No!

More troops from day one is how you get a quick victory.

tell me are you also one of the types who think more police is what solves crime? how about cooking?

A skeleton invasion force just pisses the enemy off more and adds to their resolve and determination.

I'm sorry but the Northern alliance was able to take Kabul

My God, Afghanistan is STILL the top poppy producer. We couldn't even do something about THAT??? WTF??!!

we don't care about poppy production as long as it keeps the afghans working with the government

Only a few million dollars has been spent on the ray gun. (13.1 million I think) So several can be deployed at still a very cheap cost. I mean... to not even try the goddamm thing? WTF??!!

"oh noez my favourite toy is not being used!!1" seriously are you the owner of this or something? its a giant ray gun that you want to see deployed into peacekeeping regardless of any faults it may have you cannot draw some massive conspiracy over such a thing surely

tell me are you also one of the types who think more police is what solves crime? how about cooking?
Johnny coke head and bank robber Bob are not the same as an enemy military force.

The Taliban has regained strength. The latest assesment by the new commander calls for more troops. If were just going to nickle & dime this war, we cannot win. That is going to put several trillion more dollars into the hands of the M-IC. (Cheney's cronies)

Did you notice how we backed off N Korea at the same time Iran got more uppity? If we had somehow accidently found Bin Ladin too fast, Kim Jong Ill was the backup plan to keep the scam running at full capicity. Now Iran is the backup plan.

Eisenhower warned us about the M-IC. He was right.

EDIT: As for the "it's a new toy" part. Yea it is kinda is like a toy. Watching the video on 60 minutes made me giggle like a kid. Dozens of different stratigies went through my head. I was happy to see we now have something to win wars against these renagade madmen. If anything, it makes the enemy use one of their precious missiles on one. We can easily make more ray guns than they have missiles. And then our soldiers would only be dying by the 100s instead of 1000s.

Johnny coke head and bank robber Bob are not the same as an enemy military force.

yes they are hence all the talk of NATO's policing abilities not that the current conflict zones are a stand up fight

The Taliban has regained strength. The latest assesment by the new commander calls for more troops. If were just going to nickle & dime this war, we cannot win. That is going to put several trillion more dollars into the hands of the M-IC. (Cheney's cronies)

yes because the Taliban have certainly been winning stand up fights lately haven't they?

and just how long has the Taliban been regaining strength? was it when they failed to push NATO out of Helmond in 2006 or are we talking about the switch to Iraq style IED fighting after the losses from 2007?

hell the Taliban has begun breaking away from al Qaeda to have talks of integration

Did you notice how we backed off N Korea at the same time Iran got more uppity?

Iran got uppity in 1998 :confused:

If we had somehow accidently found Bin Ladin too fast, Kim Jong Ill was the backup plan to keep the scam running at full capicity. Now Iran is the backup plan.

proof?

Eisenhower warned us about the M-IC. He was right.

yes because Eisenhower is exactly the man who would understand the world today having said that in 1961

on the Canadian side its about a victim complex they have picked up because they didn't actually ever think they would do any of the heavy lifting work


I take offense. Canada had fuck-all to do in Afghanistan to begin with. The only reason we're there is because the USA called on us to help them there. And now we're being branded as whiny because we're not happy about having our young men and women killed in another's war? As far as I'm concerned, we should never have left the safety of Kandahar and gotten into the heavy fighting. We're not the ones who wanted to go there in the first place.

It's all well and good to be watching your back, but this was never our war to fight.

SNIP

omg you mean Canada is in NATO now :eek:

yes they are hence all the talk of NATO's policing abilities not that the current conflict zones are a stand up fight



yes because the Taliban have certainly been winning stand up fights lately haven't they?

and just how long has the Taliban been regaining strength? was it when they failed to push NATO out of Helmond in 2006 or are we talking about the switch to Iraq style IED fighting after the losses from 2007?

hell the Taliban has begun breaking away from al Qaeda to have talks of integration

Sounds like you think were winning in Afghanistan. So the request for more troops, 6 1/2 years later is for?...

Iran got uppity in 1998 :confused:

Iran got nuke & missile uppity recently.

proof?

After Bush is out of office the indictments will begin.

yes because Eisenhower is exactly the man who would understand the world today having said that in 1961
Not that hard a prediction if you do the math. Eisenhower did the math.

omg you mean Canada is in NATO now :eek:

Why don't you point to me when and where the Afghan army attacked the USA?

Oh, wait, you can't. Because it didn't.

NATO is a defensive alliance. We don't have to gear up and go get involved into every fight you pick with the rest of the world.

We still did anyway to try to be nice and remind you that we're on your side. But you seem unable to grasp the fundamental difference between "friend and ally" and "underling to boss around as you see fit".

Like someone said earlier in this thread, ever since Bush has been in office there hasn't been a lot done to keep relation cordials with your allies, less alone try to warm things up with people who didn't like you to begin with.

So try and not to get too snippy about us not shoveling as much shit around as you'd like us to, because we don't have to suck up to you guys. If you won't even be marginally grateful for the support you're getting from us, maybe next time we'll tell you to shut up and take care of your messes alone.

This mission will have, by the of it in 2011, have cost the Canadians a minimum estimated 18 billion dollars. 18 billion dollars we could have very well spent on education, health care, renewable energy, public transportation, infrastructure or a damn many more useful priorities instead of sending our youth to die just to get along well with the US. If you don't want to recognize that contribution, then you can shut up and go whine to somebody who really cares.

I take offense. Canada had fuck-all to do in Afghanistan to begin with. The only reason we're there is because the USA called on us to help them there. And now we're being branded as whiny because we're not happy about having our young men and women killed in another's war? As far as I'm concerned, we should never have left the safety of Kandahar and gotten into the heavy fighting. We're not the ones who wanted to go there in the first place.

It's all well and good to be watching your back, but this was never our war to fight.

You mean the safety of Kabul, Kandahar is where we are now.

omg you mean Canada is in NATO now :eek:

shh. It's a secret.

You mean the safety of Kabul, Kandahar is where we are now.

Uh, yes, yes I do. All those weird "k"-starting names get confudazzling after a while. But I really did mean Kabul, the capital, and not the province of Kandahar where our troops are currently deployed. Thanks for pointing it out.

The SAS aren't exactly careful at who they shoot at. He could've been in the wrong place at the wrong time.

No. It maybe really hard for you to accept that a "close ally" is actually having serving officers with the enemy.

A few years ago when Clinton fired a few cruise missiles into Afg from aircraft carriers, Hamid Gul was fulminating how Pakistan was not warned. The reason was the several of his officers died in those buildings targeted for killing AQ/taliban.

Why go that far, even during the initial stages of the war, the Kunduz airlift was allowed by coalition so Pak can airlift its officers trapped behind the lines.

Yeah...a whole lot of people were in the wrong place at the wrong time..:rolleyes:

Added Later:

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3733901

and these heli's too, I guess.