Author Topic: UK sending 1400 more troops (Read 1394 times)

lazs2 · « **Reply #15 on:** February 28, 2007, 08:01:03 AM »

well see.. trotsky believes that with enough force... we can help them.. Not like the backward iraqis.

on the other hand.. dowding believes that they are so backward that they will never want freedom and that we are wasting our time there.

seems that everyone outside the US believes that it is a waste to help one muslim country or another... perhaps we should have taken a vote so that we could know who were the good, worthwhile muslims.

lazs

Thrawn · « **Reply #16 on:** February 28, 2007, 08:17:51 AM »

Your logic there astounds, lasz.

lazs2 · « **Reply #17 on:** February 28, 2007, 08:22:50 AM »

then perhaps you can weigh in thrawn.. which are the good muslim and which are the backward ones?

lazs

Maverick · « **Reply #18 on:** February 28, 2007, 12:08:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by -tronski-
Hrmmm...perhaps we should've finished the job there instead of siphoning off our forces elsewhere?

Tronsky

Please define "finished the job".

lazs2 · « **Reply #19 on:** February 28, 2007, 02:29:11 PM »

my point exactly.

lazs

Hazzer · « **Reply #20 on:** February 28, 2007, 03:00:14 PM »

History repeating itself!The British have fought 3 Afghan wars.in 1842 a whole army was wiped out at Gandamack,in the second Afghan war in 1880 we lost against the Afghans at the battle of Maiwand,only a few stragglers and a dog escaped.The British realised then the futility of their prescence there

Despite the success of the military venture, by March 1880 even the proponents of the Forward Policy were aware that defeating the Afghan tribes did not mean controlling them. Although British policymakers had briefly thought simply to dismember Afghanistan a few months earlier, they now feared they were heading for the same disasters that befell their predecessors at the time of the First Anglo-Afghan War".

If are soldiers go to Kandahar they will see the Guns captured by the Afghans,in the square,maiwand is legend in Afghanistan and the story is still told!They have kicked us out three times,they kicked the Russians out,and I doubt anythig will be achieved this time.Bush and blair would do well to read history instead of repeating it.

P.s. this Sunday 4 March is the anniversary of the Battle of Bahgdad 1917,where a British army faced an insurgency every bit as vicious as that we face today.

Eagler · « **Reply #21 on:** February 28, 2007, 03:31:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hazzer
this Sunday 4 March is the anniversary of the Battle of Bahgdad 1917,where a British army faced an insurgency every bit as vicious as that we face today.

they were supplied arms and cheekboness from Iran back in 1917 too? How bout cell phone activated IEDs? Suicide bombers in chlorine trucks? how about bomb belts?

VooWho · « **Reply #22 on:** February 28, 2007, 04:44:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
They're not doing much of a job governing the area - the opium harvesting has doubled since Al-qaeda was ruling the country.

We have not right to tell Afganistan you can't grow Opium. Afganistan has the right to grow it, America just said, don't export that to us or our allies. They are however starting to grow other crops now. Actually you should be proud that the opium harvesting has doubled because then that shows that we are making a difference in there country. Opium is not a bad plant, its just bad in the hands of an American teenager at a collage party drinking beer.

America has now fought two enemies that couldn't be taking. First were the Japanese. No one has ever been able to beat Japan in a war, and America did in WW2. No one was able to defeat Afganistan, even the Russians couldn't until America came after 9/11.

Al-Qaeda and the Taliban may have more troops and weapons now, but there not going to be that great in strenght. There training is basically the same when we invaded Afganistan, and if we crushed them once, we can crush them again even if they out number us.

Dowding · « **Reply #23 on:** February 28, 2007, 04:55:12 PM »

It wasn't military might alone that beat the Taleban. It was judicious use of their enemies against them - namely local warlords who are now happily growing and selling opium to a hungry world market.

When you talk about 'beating Afghanistan', it seems to me there is an assumption that it is a fairly homogeneous country like some Western democracy. It clearly isn't - a part of it was beaten, but large tracts of the country are effectively outside of NATO control.

VooWho · « **Reply #24 on:** February 28, 2007, 09:46:46 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dowding
It wasn't military might alone that beat the Taleban. It was judicious use of their enemies against them - namely local warlords who are now happily growing and selling opium to a hungry world market.

When you talk about 'beating Afghanistan', it seems to me there is an assumption that it is a fairly homogeneous country like some Western democracy. It clearly isn't - a part of it was beaten, but large tracts of the country are effectively outside of NATO control.

Ah wait your right. I forgot that we sent in like 3,000 guys to invade Afganistan and we had the Northern Alliance and the tribal war-lords fight with us. But we still came out winning, but we couldn't have done it without the help of the Afgan people.

-tronski- · « **Reply #25 on:** March 01, 2007, 03:07:08 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Maverick
Please define "finished the job".

Oh...defeating the Taleban, securing the provinces in the south, finishing the rebuilding process, annilating the remaining Al-Qaeda insurgents...that type of thing...

Tronsky

MrRiplEy[H] · « **Reply #26 on:** March 01, 2007, 04:03:48 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by VooWho
We have not right to tell Afganistan you can't grow Opium. Afganistan has the right to grow it, America just said, don't export that to us or our allies. They are however starting to grow other crops now. Actually you should be proud that the opium harvesting has doubled because then that shows that we are making a difference in there country. Opium is not a bad plant, its just bad in the hands of an American teenager at a collage party drinking beer.

America has now fought two enemies that couldn't be taking. First were the Japanese. No one has ever been able to beat Japan in a war, and America did in WW2. No one was able to defeat Afganistan, even the Russians couldn't until America came after 9/11.

Al-Qaeda and the Taliban may have more troops and weapons now, but there not going to be that great in strenght. There training is basically the same when we invaded Afganistan, and if we crushed them once, we can crush them again even if they out number us.

Opium growth for illegal drug usage is something anyone can say shouldn't be done. Period. As what goes for 'defeating Afghanistan' in which way did you defeat anything? It has no army and Al-qaeda is still freely operating in the area doing guerilla attacks, latest news being against Dick Cheney visiting there. The warlords still rule the country in the old fashion, the western troops are just trying to survive in the middle there.

Or did you mean defeat like Iraq is defeated. I heard a couple years ago (pre attack) that it's a peaceful prospering western civilization at the moment.

Excel1 · « **Reply #27 on:** March 01, 2007, 04:26:05 AM »

I can't see how NATO can make a lot of headway in Afghanistan as long as the Taleban and AQ are allowed to operate with impunity from their safe havens in Pakistan.

It's shades of the NVA and Cambodia. And we all know how that war ended

Why not break out the B-52s?

Operation Menu 2?

It wouldn't stay a secret for long, but it might not take long for the buffs to make a useful impact, and it should work better this time coz I don't think there's much chance of them bombing empty jungle in that part of Pakistan.

lazs2 · « **Reply #28 on:** March 01, 2007, 08:02:44 AM »

Ok trotsky... finishing the job is just finding or getting all the islamfacist terrorists into one area and slaughtering as many of em as you can while at the same time keeping too busy to come to your country and cause grief?

We can do that in any muslim, middle eastern country.. I bigger one with better terrain would be better tho. Something more flat... It would help if it had some resourse that was worth protecting like... I don't know... say a large part of the worlds oil supply or something...

lazs

-tronski- · « **Reply #29 on:** March 01, 2007, 04:25:09 PM »

Well Afghanistans not in the middle east, and the idea was to defeat the enemy there - not just racking up kills in a civil war somewhere else.
I thought finishing the job was only having to risk our diggers as little as possible - not continuingly redeploying because everytime we move out - they move back in...we already tried that in the 1960's and it didn't turn out that well.

Tronsky