palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
If you believe that, you're out of your fucking mind! Just one sect of the Taliban, of many, was responsible for more than 1200 civilian deaths in Pakistan and Afghanistan just last year. When added up, the ratio of civilian kills by the Taliban vs. NATO is roughly 1000 to 1.
Saying the opposite is true is simply ridiculous... not that I'm surprised.
"Foreign fighters"?! That will do nothing to stop the terror being exported by the Pakistani-based Taliban. The true "massacres" are being carried out by your own fucking countrymen; and you're either too dumb to understand that, or your being purposely dishonest. Which is it?
Really?! Then why are Pakistanis still able to launch attacks throughout Pakistan and Afghanistan?
The answer, and the bottom line: whatever it is you think you're doing, it's simply not enough. Your forces have been grossly ineffective in stopping the terror that is currently being exported from your territory. Hence the reason we have to do it ourselves...
You didn't answer the fucking question.
You're full of shit. You don't answer the questions because the true answers would identify and demonstrate Pakistan's complete and total failure to control their territories. On one hand, you claim sovereignty over an area that you can't control. In doing so, you must also take responsibility for the crimes and criminals based in those same territories.
But you don't.
Instead, you continue to pay lip service to NATO and the terrorists in a never ending cycle of uselessness. Face it, Pakistan has failed miserable to control the terrorists within their own supposed borders. You have tried for years to have it both ways in your dealings with the West. You want the money to continue flowing in, but you couldn't care less if the Taliban or AQ are ever actually defeated.
Your military fights like a bunch of fucking girls and gets their ass handed to them every time they go up against the frontier terrorists. THAT is why you have lost more men than NATO in the GWOT. It's because your entire country is fighting the war in a half-assed manner. With a population the size of Pakistan's, if the country REALLY wanted to be rid of the terrorists, they would send 1 million soldiers into the frontier region and clear it the fuck out. Instead, you send 100,000 pussies who nibble at the edges of the frontier -- some times -- but most of their time is spent sitting in a defensive posture in hardened bases along the edge of the frontier, doing nothing!
meanwhile, the southwest area of the frontier thrives with terrorists who continue to run back and forth across the border wreaking havoc throughout Afghanistan. Pakistan has done almost nothing to secure their own fucking border... NOTHING!
Granted, the U.S. is not much better. We too have pussies like Lemon Law who tie our own hands and prevent us from finishing what we started. Like you, they want to fight these wars with two hands behind our backs, and they really don't believe in ending the terrorism once and for all -- hell, some of them don't even acknowledge the threat. They expect us to work in a restricted manner for all eternity and then berate us when the results are less than spectacular. Have intel on a top Taliban warlord? screw it, the panzies in our own country say that we should ignore that, or perhaps pass the info on to the most corrupt agency in the world -- ie. the Pakistani ISI. They don't understand that doing so essentially ensures that the high value target will receive a warning phone call from the ISI, and we'll end up hitting a bunch of goats and kids instead. But hey, that's the price we pay for "respecting" Pakistan's sovereignty!?
fuck that!
I believe the U.S. military and government are starting to get fed up with Pakistan's half-assed and two-faced ways of doing business. I'm happy to see our newfound tenacity and commitment to destroying the Taliban and AQ, with or without Pakistan's assistance and support. Begging for permission to kill terrorists is the most asinine concept I can think of -- yet that's exactly what you and pussies like LL want us to do!
My only regret is that we waited more than seven years to start hitting the targets in NW Pakistan. The Taliban and AQ should never have been given the opportunity to rest, regroup, and grow -- essentially unhindered -- in that part of the world, or any other.
As far as I'm concerned, Pakistan's efforts have been useless. It's long past time when we need to destroy the terrorist fuckers hiding in their backyard.
If I had my way, I'd create a 25-mile wide DMZ between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Any breathing thing in that area would become a legitimate target. We'd drop leaflets and allow the true civilians 21 days to clear the area. After that, the entire fucking zone would become a free-fire zone. Anything that moves, dies. Then, after 10 years of relative peace along the border, and stability throughout Afghanistan, we would allow civilians to trickle back to the border area. The ANA and Pakistani military would become responsible for ensuring that none of those civilians own more than one hunting rifle and one handgun. Anything more would be considered a legitimate threat, and they'd be arrested for possession of an illegal firearm.
The only question you really need to answer TGB is this one: Do you honestly feel that Pakistan is doing enough to combat the Taliban and AQ based in Pakistan? If so, then how do explain their continued presence and strength? If not, why not?
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A very respectable troll thread nick1985, first you quote me totally out of context,
then you miss the point, while I do not dis respect the mere rank of a Captain,
I am pointing out that Captains do not set military policy and that thus far, two and only two military officers stationed or formerly stationed in Afghanistan have advocated a kill all Taliban policy as draconian or as unfeasible as of those advocated by only JOS or palehorse.
We are talking about the wisdom of a policy, not military rank, but Lt. Calley, Benedict Arnold, General William Westmoreland, and many others were officers, but that did not guarantee their policies were correct or that they were on the winning side.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
Finally palehorse says something I have been somewhat advocating.
"If I had my way, I'd create a 25-mile wide DMZ between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Any breathing thing in that area would become a legitimate target. We'd drop leaflets and allow the true civilians 21 days to clear the area. After that, the entire fucking zone would become a free-fire zone. Anything that moves, dies. Then, after 10 years of relative peace along the border, and stability throughout Afghanistan, we would allow civilians to trickle back to the border area. The ANA and Pakistani military would become responsible for ensuring that none of those civilians own more than one hunting rifle and one handgun. Anything more would be considered a legitimate threat, and they'd be arrested for possession of an illegal firearm. " Which is a direct palehorse quote.
While I hardly think a 25 mile DMZ would be required, it would basically shut down Al-Quida and Taliban cross border traffic. The problem is, I doubt it would do anything to solve the problems in Afghanistan itself which have more to do with anarchy and corruption, but at least it would shut palehorse and JOS up in blaming Pakistan. I also remind you that Nato had that Taliban chased away situation in Afghanistan for most of the first two years of the Nato Afghan occupation, at least at first, almost all of the Afghan population supported Nato, but when Nato failed to address the corruption problems in Afghanistan, and its still impossible to get anything done government wise in Afghanistan, Nato lost a good part of their popular support, as a result, the Taliban is seen as the answer for forming a functioning government. Which is why they were able to take over originally.
When and if Nato turns their efforts to fighting corruption, building government institutions that insure justice, then and only then will the Taliban be toast. General Petraeus at least is smart enough to see it that way. Or so I hope.
"If I had my way, I'd create a 25-mile wide DMZ between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Any breathing thing in that area would become a legitimate target. We'd drop leaflets and allow the true civilians 21 days to clear the area. After that, the entire fucking zone would become a free-fire zone. Anything that moves, dies. Then, after 10 years of relative peace along the border, and stability throughout Afghanistan, we would allow civilians to trickle back to the border area. The ANA and Pakistani military would become responsible for ensuring that none of those civilians own more than one hunting rifle and one handgun. Anything more would be considered a legitimate threat, and they'd be arrested for possession of an illegal firearm. " Which is a direct palehorse quote.
While I hardly think a 25 mile DMZ would be required, it would basically shut down Al-Quida and Taliban cross border traffic. The problem is, I doubt it would do anything to solve the problems in Afghanistan itself which have more to do with anarchy and corruption, but at least it would shut palehorse and JOS up in blaming Pakistan. I also remind you that Nato had that Taliban chased away situation in Afghanistan for most of the first two years of the Nato Afghan occupation, at least at first, almost all of the Afghan population supported Nato, but when Nato failed to address the corruption problems in Afghanistan, and its still impossible to get anything done government wise in Afghanistan, Nato lost a good part of their popular support, as a result, the Taliban is seen as the answer for forming a functioning government. Which is why they were able to take over originally.
When and if Nato turns their efforts to fighting corruption, building government institutions that insure justice, then and only then will the Taliban be toast. General Petraeus at least is smart enough to see it that way. Or so I hope.
I didn't think he still had people thinking he was a Special-Forces-SAS-Team-Black-SEAL-Captain-Commando-Intel-Analyst... I guess I was wrong
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bbdub333, pardon me for asking, can you please define why you are posting this and how have you advanced this thread in any way?
No one here, as far as I know, have questioned JOS's or palehorse's military competence or their ability to effectively kill the "bad guys", the question is will it lead to any victory as they kill the wrong people also while losing the hearts and mind of the very people they try to occupy?
That's exactly the attitude that fuels terrorism. I'd support the terrorists cut your head up and put it up on display.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,265
- 126
I think he's yanking your chain to make you lose control.
Notwithstanding that I haven't read all 400+ posts, it seems to me that Bush is going to have to back off and allow the new Pakistani President some time to get control. If he does not, then the effect is to subvert the new government who just might be more inclined to do someting about the Taliban. If he had any sense (and I know this is Bush we're talking about so this probably isn't going to happen) he'd allow several months for Pakistan to stabilize. If it fails, then he can honestly say that he gave the new guy a shot.
ranmaniac
Golden Member
- May 14, 2001
- 1,939
- 0
- 76
Explosion at Pakistan Marriott hotel kills 40
http://www.breitbart.com/artic...3AHQEO0&show_article=1
Looks like Pakistan will finally start taking the gloves off against the militants. Some JF-17s dropping fuel air explosives over some militants will get the point across.
http://www.breitbart.com/artic...3AHQEO0&show_article=1
Looks like Pakistan will finally start taking the gloves off against the militants. Some JF-17s dropping fuel air explosives over some militants will get the point across.
JohnOfSheffield
Lifer
- Jun 26, 2007
- 11,925
- 2
- 0
I like how you did that, like hyperbole that was never claimed would help you.
I could say you have claimed to be Superman and my claim would be just as factual as the one you just made.
Are you in this forum to prove how stupid you really are or do you actually want me to prove to you, personally, who i am?
A clever man would go through my posts and see that some (many) things that i have said have been reported a day - a week after i said it, take a wild guess why.
And it's not as complicated as you might think, although some people simply do not get that NATO troops in Afghanistan=ISAF and we're not ISAF.
Watch the news tomorrow.
Jaskalas
Lifer
- Jun 23, 2004
- 33,428
- 7,489
- 136
We already knew you were among them and supportive of them. If I had my way, our military would force you to surrender hostilities or die. Good thing is, the more people you kill in Afghanistan and other regions around the world ? the more likely it is we will come for you.
Keep it up Green Bean.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My best guess is that the hotel bombing and the Yemeni embassy bombing are a none too subtle message sent by Al-Quida that if these Nato air strikes do not stop, that there will be many more of these type attacks in and outside of Pakistan.
In the case of the Marriott, it at least had some security in place, but that security, as we see, was not enough.
In terms of Home Land Security in the US, I have little faith it could stop another 911 that did not use airplanes. And since Al-Quida, according to our own NIE, is now as operational capable as it was before 911, I would not rule out the possibility that continued Pakistani air strikes may inspire retaliatory Al-Quida strikes in either the UK or the US.
I certainly hope I am wrong in my prediction, but cycles of tit for tat violence benefit no one, but tend to benefit terrorists in the end. As for the terrorists committing these acts, they are not limited to the tribal areas of Pakistan.
I have the same anger you Americans had after 9/11. This just goes to show that Terrorism does not see religion as a boundary. They're killing muslims and non-muslims alike. May God curse them and punish them soon. The Taliban haven't claimed responsibility. Nor has Alqaeeda. Could it be state-sponsored terrorism? I wouldn't rule it out. We have so many enemies - Afghanistan, India (after their Delhi blasts), Israel and now the USA.
Do you see the gravity of the situation yet? Or will you somehow pin this on us?
Hopefully you guys are now sick of allowing a lawless frontier inside your borders.
Has it ever occurred to you that if you have so many enemies, then the problem is with YOU????
Pakistan is a dysfunctional country which should never have been created in the first place. The sooner it's broken up into it's constituent parts and absorbed by Afghanistan (NWFP, Pashtunistan), Iran (Balochistan), India (Sindh, Punjab, Kashmir) and the like so that historical natural borders are restored, the better it is for the whole world.
But Islamism, like Nazism, has to be completely defeated before sanity can be restored to the world.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,265
- 126
OK GB,
I'll try to explain something once for you and the others.
America has been historically protected by having two oceans east and west, and two friendly nations north and south. We're effectively isolated here and anything bad that happens is very rare. We also have had the resources to create a military force unequaled by any other.
When 9/11 hit, Americans who had thought of this country as invulnerable found out otherwise. Rational thinking people should have realized that was never the case. Our situation made us resistant but not immune.
The ones who attacked us were protected by Afghanistan, and IMO we were justified in removing those who harmed us. The Taliban decided that it would provide aid and comfort to our enemy making them complicit in our eyes. We went to war to remove the threat.
That's the end of anything that makes sense, however humans and sense often do not go together. We have a President and members of his administration who leveraged American fear to attack Saddam. Note the rhetoric of the time 9/11...Saddam...9/11...Saddam.
Now Americans are as gullible as any others, and the fact that they believe they aren't makes them even more so. Bush effectively connected 9/11 with Saddam. No, he never said that Saddam was guilty, but he linked what had happened with the idea that Saddam had the means, motivation and opportunites to do what Al-Qaeda did.
Now keep in mind that Americans are isolated. It's rare for anyone to have seen someone suffer in war, and it's even more uncommon to have suffered at all because of one. The idea that Iraqis would suffer and that it mattered were not seen as something we could understand, but we did understand fear in the form of another WTC incident. We didn't go to war with Iraq, we went to war with Saddam. It didn't breech the collective conscience that it's absurd to think one can wage a war on an individual and leave the innocent go free. So we inflicted a thousand WTCs on Iraq in order to get Saddam. Oh we were careful to minimize damage, but it happened just the same.
We then found out that we were wrong. Saddam posed no threat. So how does a nation deal with that? Avoidance. Pretend it was for something noble and that in the long run Iraq would be better. Perhaps that's true, however someone once said "In the long run we're all dead". That's also true, but nothing most claim to wish for. America went into denial.
Further, you cannot understand just how rich and isolated we are. As long as we can have our things and be secure, what we do doesn't matter to us. We pay soldiers to do the work, and we go play on internet forums, or drink beer, or drive our cars. We get more stuff. That's what we do. We're completely self absorbed. The effects of what we do are irrelevant to most of us unless we lose a loved on in combat. The war might as well be a video game.
So this leaves the military to prosecute a war crafted by incompetent politicians. If America does one thing right, it makes war well. We completely overwhelmed Iraq and Afghanistan. They did what they do very well indeed. The problem is that the military gave the victory back to those same nitwits who got us into this mess to begin with. We had no clue what to do once we won. Worse, the politicians didn't know what "win" means, and still the definition of victory has never been given. We are in a perpetual war with no clear goal. That sucks incredibly if you are in the military, and it doesn't help the nations they are fighting in.
Now it came to pass that we are still in Afghanistan because we don't know what the heck to do with the place. We don't want it to fall into the hands of those we kicked out, and there isn't real stability to prevent it if we leave. That means that soldiers are stuck where they don't want to be doing that which they cannot fully understand because no one does.
Here's where your country comes in. I believe that almost no one here understands that your country isn't as closely connected as the US is. We aren't a collection of different people. Races yes, however parts of Pakistan are distinct from others in ways that Americans in general cannot conceive. We don't get that you aren't a Little America, with rebels that think differently than many others. They don't understand that the outlying regions do not recognize central authority the same as we do, and don't understand close tribal ties. We don't get it. They also have no idea about the terrain of your country and how it affects military action, nor do they understand that power isn't consolidated as it is here.
In the US, the government barks and you jump. If not you are arrested. Oh yes, that government is restricted however if anyone disagrees I suggest that they call the IRS and say they will no longer pay taxes.
So you have your political situation and we have ours. Neither side really understands the wants and political realities of the other. What we do have is the charge to keep Afghanistan secure, and there are those near the border which use your country as a protected base. Now if someone here decides to come in to my yard and shoot at me, they will not be able to retreat to my neighbors and stick their tongue out in safety. No, I will cross that border and strike. That's what's going on. Pakistan is being used by a base of operations by our enemies and we will remove them. We aren't going to be riding into your major cities because have no interest in doing so. Any mission we engage in will be limited for practical reasons. You people aren't our enemies.
So what has to happen for things to improve?
First on our end-
We need a leader who understands subtleties. We don't have that now, and he's never going to have insight so we have to wait. For all the McCain/Obama hype either represents a clear improvement as far as your situation goes. No we aren't going away, however we won't be nearly so belligerent. We need to give your new leadership some time and maneuvering room to implement changes that will be beneficial to both sides. We need to back down on provocative strikes (provocative from your political POV) however, realize that we won't be putting off incursions if there aren't genuine signs of following through on his anti terror talk. Things will go back to where they are.
For your part, you need to come to grips with all that I said about us. We aren't malicious, but we are great big blundering elephants in a china shop. If we're upset we trample just like pachyderms and that's not good for your people. How to handle us is for your goverment to reassure us with action (not words) that they're both capable and sincere. If they work with us to secure the border (not an easy job I realize) then we'll be inclined not only to reduce or eliminate incursions, but provide material support for you to do so. We have intelligence capabilities and equipment we would part with IF we had signs of good faith.
The result is that if sensible people on both sides stand down for a bit the situation can improve. Where will it ultimately go? I can't say, but I can say it won't be in your yard.
I'll try to explain something once for you and the others.
America has been historically protected by having two oceans east and west, and two friendly nations north and south. We're effectively isolated here and anything bad that happens is very rare. We also have had the resources to create a military force unequaled by any other.
When 9/11 hit, Americans who had thought of this country as invulnerable found out otherwise. Rational thinking people should have realized that was never the case. Our situation made us resistant but not immune.
The ones who attacked us were protected by Afghanistan, and IMO we were justified in removing those who harmed us. The Taliban decided that it would provide aid and comfort to our enemy making them complicit in our eyes. We went to war to remove the threat.
That's the end of anything that makes sense, however humans and sense often do not go together. We have a President and members of his administration who leveraged American fear to attack Saddam. Note the rhetoric of the time 9/11...Saddam...9/11...Saddam.
Now Americans are as gullible as any others, and the fact that they believe they aren't makes them even more so. Bush effectively connected 9/11 with Saddam. No, he never said that Saddam was guilty, but he linked what had happened with the idea that Saddam had the means, motivation and opportunites to do what Al-Qaeda did.
Now keep in mind that Americans are isolated. It's rare for anyone to have seen someone suffer in war, and it's even more uncommon to have suffered at all because of one. The idea that Iraqis would suffer and that it mattered were not seen as something we could understand, but we did understand fear in the form of another WTC incident. We didn't go to war with Iraq, we went to war with Saddam. It didn't breech the collective conscience that it's absurd to think one can wage a war on an individual and leave the innocent go free. So we inflicted a thousand WTCs on Iraq in order to get Saddam. Oh we were careful to minimize damage, but it happened just the same.
We then found out that we were wrong. Saddam posed no threat. So how does a nation deal with that? Avoidance. Pretend it was for something noble and that in the long run Iraq would be better. Perhaps that's true, however someone once said "In the long run we're all dead". That's also true, but nothing most claim to wish for. America went into denial.
Further, you cannot understand just how rich and isolated we are. As long as we can have our things and be secure, what we do doesn't matter to us. We pay soldiers to do the work, and we go play on internet forums, or drink beer, or drive our cars. We get more stuff. That's what we do. We're completely self absorbed. The effects of what we do are irrelevant to most of us unless we lose a loved on in combat. The war might as well be a video game.
So this leaves the military to prosecute a war crafted by incompetent politicians. If America does one thing right, it makes war well. We completely overwhelmed Iraq and Afghanistan. They did what they do very well indeed. The problem is that the military gave the victory back to those same nitwits who got us into this mess to begin with. We had no clue what to do once we won. Worse, the politicians didn't know what "win" means, and still the definition of victory has never been given. We are in a perpetual war with no clear goal. That sucks incredibly if you are in the military, and it doesn't help the nations they are fighting in.
Now it came to pass that we are still in Afghanistan because we don't know what the heck to do with the place. We don't want it to fall into the hands of those we kicked out, and there isn't real stability to prevent it if we leave. That means that soldiers are stuck where they don't want to be doing that which they cannot fully understand because no one does.
Here's where your country comes in. I believe that almost no one here understands that your country isn't as closely connected as the US is. We aren't a collection of different people. Races yes, however parts of Pakistan are distinct from others in ways that Americans in general cannot conceive. We don't get that you aren't a Little America, with rebels that think differently than many others. They don't understand that the outlying regions do not recognize central authority the same as we do, and don't understand close tribal ties. We don't get it. They also have no idea about the terrain of your country and how it affects military action, nor do they understand that power isn't consolidated as it is here.
In the US, the government barks and you jump. If not you are arrested. Oh yes, that government is restricted however if anyone disagrees I suggest that they call the IRS and say they will no longer pay taxes.
So you have your political situation and we have ours. Neither side really understands the wants and political realities of the other. What we do have is the charge to keep Afghanistan secure, and there are those near the border which use your country as a protected base. Now if someone here decides to come in to my yard and shoot at me, they will not be able to retreat to my neighbors and stick their tongue out in safety. No, I will cross that border and strike. That's what's going on. Pakistan is being used by a base of operations by our enemies and we will remove them. We aren't going to be riding into your major cities because have no interest in doing so. Any mission we engage in will be limited for practical reasons. You people aren't our enemies.
So what has to happen for things to improve?
First on our end-
We need a leader who understands subtleties. We don't have that now, and he's never going to have insight so we have to wait. For all the McCain/Obama hype either represents a clear improvement as far as your situation goes. No we aren't going away, however we won't be nearly so belligerent. We need to give your new leadership some time and maneuvering room to implement changes that will be beneficial to both sides. We need to back down on provocative strikes (provocative from your political POV) however, realize that we won't be putting off incursions if there aren't genuine signs of following through on his anti terror talk. Things will go back to where they are.
For your part, you need to come to grips with all that I said about us. We aren't malicious, but we are great big blundering elephants in a china shop. If we're upset we trample just like pachyderms and that's not good for your people. How to handle us is for your goverment to reassure us with action (not words) that they're both capable and sincere. If they work with us to secure the border (not an easy job I realize) then we'll be inclined not only to reduce or eliminate incursions, but provide material support for you to do so. We have intelligence capabilities and equipment we would part with IF we had signs of good faith.
The result is that if sensible people on both sides stand down for a bit the situation can improve. Where will it ultimately go? I can't say, but I can say it won't be in your yard.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The entire country of Afghanistan is now essentially a lawless region inside of Nato's sector of occupation.
Divided up by Nato into control by very weak ruling entities in turn controlled by corrupt thugs looking to profit on the opium trade. And now Afghanistan looks very much like it looked not long after the Russian left, but now its less open civil war and more corruption.
And now Nato seems to be taking a position that we cannot have a stable Afghan government until the Taliban is beaten, and as long as the Taliban can find shelter inside of Pakistan, the Taliban cannot be beaten. So the solution is to beat the Taliban in the Tribal areas of Pakistan. A nice opium pipe dream fantasy to have with only 72,000 troops, especially when the Taliban look exactly like the very same non Taliban people in the tribal regions, and sadly the Taliban do not wear black Turbans with T's on them with T shirts saying shoot me please. Nor are the Taliban amenable to appeals to report to the nearest extermination camp, and they have the option to stay and hide in plain sight, run to various Stans to the North, or sneak right back into Afghanistan now denuded of troops. Or Nato can simply bomb the Tribal regions of Pakistan, the Nato intel may be decent for a limited period, and thereafter will all have to be gathered from aerial surveillance because human assets will not have much life expectation.
I take a hopefully smarter position, the Taliban can be beaten only with a stable
Afghan government free of corruption. And that must come first. Because even the Taliban is better than the corruption that is now wrecking Afghanistan. And once the corruption is removed or at least greatly reduced, the Taliban loses their only appeal to the ordinary Afghan. And that is doable even with only 72,000 troops, although it will have to start with only parts of the country and then be built outward.
Sadly, Nato is now, IMHO, steadily losing, because the Afghan people have no government that works after nearly seven years of occupation, and worse yet, they see no progress now towards any kind of a government in the Nato priorities.
Which is why the Taliban is coming back because they, at least, had a track record of bring a government that enforced laws and prevented total corruption.
And if Nato does not bring corruption free government to Afghanistan, the Taliban will.
8 years and Bush has yet to defeat Al Qeda. Though what can one expect when you spend the majority of your resources invading and occupying a country that had nothing to do with Al Qeda.
JohnOfSheffield
Lifer
- Jun 26, 2007
- 11,925
- 2
- 0
Sometimes... i you impress me, in this case both in knowledge and understanding that knowledge.
I shouldn't be surprised since you are in the know since before, but still, i am.
You're a big man Haya.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 9K
-
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter