Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: anonymous on August 07, 2004, 11:23:13 AM
-
you might find some of this interesting reading. declassified docs from us intel on their analysis of soviet-afghani war. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB57/us.html
-
Robert K.`s play ground.
Man, there were some excellent accounts of guerilla warfare in that era.
-
Thanks.
I have friends who served there in different years, from 1980 to maybe 1987, and I rely on their stories. Most of them say that they didn't have such troubles that they see on TV from Iraq :(
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Thanks.
I have friends who served there in different years, from 1980 to maybe 1987, and I rely on their stories. Most of them say that they didn't have such troubles that they see on TV from Iraq :(
different situation. i know a couple of russians who fought in afghanistan. was very interesting to talk to them about it. posted the link to give you an view of what "the other side" was thinking and hearing about at the time. one thing you can be happy about theres a bunch of murderous bastard chechens who never made it out of afghanistan to come back and murder people in chechnya. ;)
-
Started reading from "The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan: Five Years After". Interesting reading. Seriously.
It's interesting how things have changed. "Shuravi" (Soviet) have been always a good word, a sign of respect, before 1979, and from what we are told on TV (and I take it with a grain of salt) - it is again.
Did your media cover Russian assistance to Northern Alliance in 2001? 201 division built two pontoon bridges over Pianj river to send all armour (mostly old T-55 tanks and BMP-1 familiar to Afghani personell) and supplies requested by Northern Alliance... Our media denied the fact that all that equipment came with Russian "instructors" and "advisors", and it means that there were some, no doubts ;)
-
Originally posted by anonymous
different situation. i know a couple of russians who fought in afghanistan. was very interesting to talk to them about it. posted the link to give you an view of what "the other side" was thinking and hearing about at the time. one thing you can be happy about theres a bunch of murderous bastard chechens who never made it out of afghanistan to come back and murder people in chechnya. ;)
Sure ;)
BTW, several "Russian citizens" were transferred from Guantanamo to Russia to be trialed in Russian courts about half-year ago IIRC. That's a good example of cooperation in a "war on terrorism".
OTOH look at this: http://www.mosnews.com/news/2004/08/06/ilyas.shtml
Double standards?... :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Started reading from "The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan: Five Years After". Interesting reading. Seriously.
It's interesting how things have changed. "Shuravi" (Soviet) have been always a good word, a sign of respect, before 1979, and from what we are told on TV (and I take it with a grain of salt) - it is again.
Did your media cover Russian assistance to Northern Alliance in 2001? 201 division built two pontoon bridges over Pianj river to send all armour (mostly old T-55 tanks and BMP-1 familiar to Afghani personell) and supplies requested by Northern Alliance... Our media denied the fact that all that equipment came with Russian "instructors" and "advisors", and it means that there were some, no doubts ;)
us media didnt cover it because they arent really "keeping up with world wide events" more "report on disaster or scandal of the day". but plenty of fighters in west knew about it and russian heavy weapon really aided northern alliance. and thats not double standards its bullsheet and a big mistake. no way that guy should get off. but read closely us govt against it mass court is one that granted him a break.
-
Thanks :)
I wonder what was in the "blank spaces" of that document.
I know that US media usually doesn't pay attention to anything but American affairs, but in this case I find it strange: Russians really helped, the "troops" equipped and (probably ;)) trained by them did most of the job in defeating Taliban - and it's an American victory in the media...
As for Akhmadov - he's a known terrorist, and I don't understand why that Mass court gave him asylum... It's one of the drawbacks of "democratic" system: when some individual in charge has problems with common sence - everything gets f@#ked up :(
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Thanks :)
I wonder what was in the "blank spaces" of that document.
I know that US media usually doesn't pay attention to anything but American affairs, but in this case I find it strange: Russians really helped, the "troops" equipped and (probably ;)) trained by them did most of the job in defeating Taliban - and it's an American victory in the media...
As for Akhmadov - he's a known terrorist, and I don't understand why that Mass court gave him asylum... It's one of the drawbacks of "democratic" system: when some individual in charge has problems with common sence - everything gets f@#ked up :(
newer equipment was often russian for northern alliance. training before coalition got there most was left over from pakis training warlord friendly to us and uk when they fighting you guys. cold war manners made it so uk and us pm operators only rarely directly train muj they had to train pakis and pakis then train muj. not like pakis always need the help they have some great operators of their own. after coalition get there training mainly composed of basic combat medic for everyone who didnt have it and basic fo skills but main emphasis was on staying out of way so they didnt get confused with atf units and get jdam'd. when it came down to combat skill like tactical move and tactical shoot they basically did what they have always done. if anything killed al qaeda and atf it was c4i that didnt exist when you guys were fighting them and all coalition being near top effectiveness at night they were lacking in nods and all but tier one al quaeda lacking in heavily nighttime tactical experience. also jdams and combat mobility killed them. if russians had same gear and same c4i would have been much easier to pin down enemy when russians fighting there. keep in mind that tier one al qaeda some were former soviet special operations and sometimes even former soviet special operations cadre. not russians but chechen and some others. so they know combat skills as well as anybody. but they out of loop on new western c4i. theyd have fallback position prepared that would have hacked it against eighties or nineties cas but with jdam they getting pegged while falling back eight hundred meters at night. leave position cover three hundred meters and whappo they eating a jdam. all but a few had no idea how vulnerable they were at night i think. c4i also helped set up landing zone for helos that were mg free which is something you guys never had in eighties. also you know afghanis as soon as tide started to turn no small # of warlords previously with atf only because they controlled food and villages of warlords home area began coming over to northern alliance. pretty quickly it became diehard atf and al quada only against coalition and a couple of very aggressive pro coalition warlord. so once majority of countryside not against coalition and they still hating al qaeda foreigner life became almost impossible for taliban and al qaeda. taliban really fediddleed it up they offered couple hundred million a year in cash to secure pipelines for west if they hand over al qaeda and they said no. dumb move especially because they went down covering for foreigner who didnt really give a damn about them and only jumped in to fight russians after majority of hard fighting was over.
-
Most of them say that they didn't have such troubles that they see on TV from Iraq
ROFLMAO
Funny Boroda, you are one funny yet deluded tard.
Didnt have troubles in Afghanistan! Yup, that is why they were so successful and today can call it a Russian Republic. Tell me about other great successes!!!!
Geez, does the light of the reality lamp ever make it throught your dirty glasses?
dago
-
If a blind man's glasses are dirty does it really make a difference?
-
Originally posted by Dago
ROFLMAO
Funny Boroda, you are one funny yet deluded tard.
Didnt have troubles in Afghanistan! Yup, that is why they were so successful and today can call it a Russian Republic. Tell me about other great successes!!!!
Geez, does the light of the reality lamp ever make it throught your dirty glasses?
dago
I wonder for how long I'll tolerate some intellectually challenged individuals calling me a "tard"?... :rolleyes:
You have no idea of what was going on in Afghanistan since 1973, and you try to make conclusions about things that you not only don't know but simply can't imagine and unable to understand at all. From your post I see that you are clueless about Central Asian political history and current situation (just as 99% of your compatriots). You also know nothing about political system of Russian Empire and Soviet Union.
Guess who deserves a honorable title of a "deluded tard"?.. :rolleyes:
-
Tell me then Boroda, tell me of the great Russian victories in Afghanistan. Tell me that Russia didn't pull out with it's tail between it's legs. Tell me that your troops weren't continually ambushed and killed.
Then tell me what Russia has been doing in Afghanistan up until the USA came in and kicked the snot outta the Taliban.
Tell me about all the Russian occupiers who must have still be there to greet them, as you must have still had a controlling force there since you had no troubles.
Please, find some leftover communist propaganda rag from the 70s that tells of the great and glorious victories over the capatalist pigs or filty mongrels. :rofl
Someday, you will be exposed to more truths than you know existed, more realities than right now you can conceive, and on that day you will be dizzy with confusion and angry with the betrayal you will feel. I pity you that day, and rejoice in the hope you will see that day.
dago
-
Originally posted by Dago
Tell me then Boroda, tell me of the great Russian victories in Afghanistan. Tell me that Russia didn't pull out with it's tail between it's legs. Tell me that your troops weren't continually ambushed and killed.
Then tell me what Russia has been doing in Afghanistan up until the USA came in and kicked the snot outta the Taliban.
Tell me about all the Russian occupiers who must have still be there to greet them, as you must have still had a controlling force there since you had no troubles.
Please, find some leftover communist propaganda rag from the 70s that tells of the great and glorious victories over the capatalist pigs or filty mongrels. :rofl
Someday, you will be exposed to more truths than you know existed, more realities than right now you can conceive, and on that day you will be dizzy with confusion and angry with the betrayal you will feel. I pity you that day, and rejoice in the hope you will see that day.
dago
actually russian combat troops were superior to muj almost every time they met. it was training of muj to focus on hit and run warfare against supply column and support and rear echelon that made russians leave because cost of securing all soft target was not worth it. theres a good book called charlie wilsons war that explain in great detail us and uk support of soviet-afghani conflict. its new book and has information in it recently cleared under foia.
-
Gee Dago.. your so proud.. Why do you make it personnal against Boroda? Why do you make fun of the Russian/Afgan war?
Then tell me what Russia has been doing in Afghanistan up until the USA came in and kicked the snot outta the Taliban. Dago
LoL.. Your so ignorant you cant even realize that these two events you speak of in no way compair. Had Russia or China supported the Taliban like the US supported Afganistan, the US would still be there dying..
You wanna compare wars, compare VN and Russia's Afganistan..
Someday, you will be exposed to more truths than you know existed, more realities than right now you can conceive, and on that day you will be dizzy with confusion and angry with the betrayal you will feel. I pity you that day, and rejoice in the hope you will see that day. Dago
This statement screams ironic!
hopefully all of us have this day.. Because none of us has seen it yet..
-
Originally posted by Dago
Tell me then Boroda, tell me of the great Russian victories in Afghanistan. Tell me that Russia didn't pull out with it's tail between it's legs. Tell me that your troops weren't continually ambushed and killed.
My best friend served in airborne troops there in 85-87. List of victories is definetly much longer then American combat achevements in last 3 years. Passing through Panjsher galley loosing only 2 (two) soldiers is one of the things that your amateur army will never repeat.
Tail between the legs? Really? Better try to remember how your glorious "fighters for peace and democracy" ran away from Vietnam, and your bellybutton still must be aching. JFYI: Soviet troops were withdrawn because of Gorbachev's strange policy. Entering Afghanistan was a stuidity, but withdrawing was a crime. It brought the same war to Soviet Central-Asian republics, and guess who's peace-keeping force is there now...
About "continually ambushed and killed" - this applies more to American troops there now. My friend was stationed in Kabul, they didn't get "vacations" in the city, but they usually left their quarters without permission, and he doesn't remember any accident when anyone was "ambushed and killed", kidnapped or even treated in an impolite way. Shuravi are still respected people in Afghanistan.
Originally posted by Dago
Then tell me what Russia has been doing in Afghanistan up until the USA came in and kicked the snot outta the Taliban.
USA came in and kicked the snot outta the Taliban?! LOL! I thought it was NA troops armed and trained by Russians. While US of A was carefully breeding Taliban and assisting them to get the power - Russians kept supporting field commanders who supported them. I bet you'll never hear anything about it in your brainwashing media. Unfortunately Estel is at the vacation now, you should ask him, he made over 600 combat sorties at Tajik-Afghan border in mid-90s. At that time glorious US of A was making friends with Taliban and even had a Taliban ambassador (just like they had talks with Chechen "ambassador" Akhmadov that is on an international terrorist list and nevertheless have got political asylum in your country).
Originally posted by Dago
Tell me about all the Russian occupiers who must have still be there to greet them, as you must have still had a controlling force there since you had no troubles.
I fail to understand what you meant by this.
USSR withdrew all the troops from Afghan by Feb. 15th 1989. JFYI: Afghani government stood for 3 years after all the assistance from Russian Federation was stopped, while your country was still giving full-scale support to terrorists and gangsters there.
Originally posted by Dago
Please, find some leftover communist propaganda rag from the 70s that tells of the great and glorious victories over the capatalist pigs or filty mongrels. :rofl
Very clever. You are no doubt as wise and clever as Cicero.
Originally posted by Dago
Someday, you will be exposed to more truths than you know existed, more realities than right now you can conceive, and on that day you will be dizzy with confusion and angry with the betrayal you will feel. I pity you that day, and rejoice in the hope you will see that day.
I am exposed to many "truths" now, and I am open to any source and opinion, while you are stuck in your provincial narrow-minded americentric propaganda. Otherwise you could admit that your policy of supporting terrorism worldwide, that your country still follows, have done no good to nations you fight against as well as to your own people.
-
When discussing the Soviet/Afghan war, this is what Boroda had to say. Anyone who paid any attention to the Soviet experience in Afghanistan, and is not a complete idiot, realizes the falacy in his statement. Ridiculous to the point of awe inspiring.
Most of them say that they didn't have such troubles that they see on TV from Iraq
They didn't have such troubles??? The Russians were chased out of Afghanistan. The Russians did have troubles with native guerilla fighters. The Russians did experience ambushes and death. I never heard of any Afghannis supporting or working with the Russians.
The US military in Iraq has not been chased out of Iraq. The US military has support of the majority of the population. The US military is making great improvements in many peoples lives there. Iraq has now an established government and the police and military security services are growning and improving greatly.
How can Boroda make such a stupid comment comparing the Russian experience in Afghanistan as better than the US experience in Iraq??
BTW, I never said the Mujhadeen were better fighters then the Russian troops. Pay attention. It was never about that.
dago
-
Instead of a civilized discussion you again stick to one phrase, that is 100% true. Noone of my friends who served "behind the river" remembers any cases of kidnapping Soviet servicemen or accidents when Soviet soldiers or officers were killed in the streets at Kabul or other city.
Your brave armed forces started an unprovoked agressive war against Iraq and now occupy the country, and don't tell me about "government" or "police forces" on "new" Iraq. OTOH Soviet troops in Afghanistan took part in a civil war, on the side of legitimate government, while your country was supporting terrorist groups there, and later did it's best to install a Taliban regime, not recognized by any country except USA and Pakistan.
Soviet Army was not "chased out of Afghanistan". It was a planned retreat ordered by political leadership of USSR. Najibulla's regime lasted for about three years after USSR/RF stopped any assistance. Let's see if current Iraqi collaborators will be able to last for three hours without sitting on American bayonets.
Majority of Afhganis did work with Russians and support them. Even now most of the NA commanders as well as civilian workers can somehow speak Russian. Afghanistan has traditional links with USSR/Russia since 1920s. "Shuravi" ("Soviet") is a word of respect in Afghanistan. OTOH in Iraq I see collaborators who want to join the "police" being blown up at conscription offices almost every day.
Your army has three times more personell in Iraq then Soviet Army had in Afghanistan, and you can not even make it look like you control the situation. Agression against Iraq turned out to be a much worsr political and military failure then Soviet interference in Afghanistan. Your only advantage is that you can withdraw without being afraid of the same war coming across your border, like it happened with USSR in 1989.
Indeed, how can Boroda make such a stupid comment comparing the Russian experience in Afghanistan to the US experience in Iraq??... :rolleyes:
Get real. Stop watching TV and try to develop your own opinoin based on facts, not on your provincial americentric anti-Soviet propaganda.
-
Originally posted by Dago
Then tell me what Russia has been doing in Afghanistan up until the USA came in and kicked the snot outta the Taliban.
dago
Afghanistan is still a basket case and in many provinces the Taliban in all but name are still running the show. And given that the US is largely responsible for inflicting the Islamofascist scourge on that poor benighted country in the 1st place, I'd suggest you either learn about a subject before posting or STFU.
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Afghanistan is still a basket case and in many provinces the Taliban in all but name are still running the show. And given that the US is largely responsible for inflicting the Islamofascist scourge on that poor benighted country in the 1st place, I'd suggest you either learn about a subject before posting or STFU.
yeah americas fault again. damned if we do damned if we dont. if wed tried to influence who led afghanistan after soviets leave wed have been imperialists. because us choose to not interfere with anything in afghanistan after soviets pull out now we are responsible because taliban come in after warlords beat each other down trying to take power. and you think america largely repsonsible? saudi pakistan uk and others equally responsible for helping afghanis because they couldnt make it work amongst themselves is no ones fault but afghani leaders. i would seriously consider taking your own advice.
-
boroda your analysis of whats going on in afghanistan and iraq right now is not very accurate.
-
Boroda,
Your misinformation stuns me. I really do wonder if you actually believe what you are saying?
I strongly suggest you save some money, buy a ticket to another country, go to their library, do some reading, then, with whatever money you have left, buy a clue.
BTW, there are a number of video clips on the internet showing those Russian troops "not experiencing" any problems. (helicopter shoot down, personel carrier blown up, soldier crawling away then executed). Yeah, we know all about how they didn't have any of those problems in Afghanistan.
Also, if they were just helping out in a civil war (lol), why did you refer to it as the Russia/Afghan war?
dago
-
Originally posted by anonymous
boroda your analysis of whats going on in afghanistan and iraq right now is not very accurate.
I know it ;)
I just want to say that my friends who served "behind the river" find many things they see on TV about Iraq horrible and impossible in Afghanistan in the 80s.
And if we compare Soviet assistance to Afghani government in the 80s to war against soverign state of Iraq - it's absloutely clear that Soviet soldiers were on the right side, while Americans are occupants and the war complies with a definition of "agression" according to UN regulations.
OTOH, just like Soviet Army in Afghanistan - if you leave Iraq now it will literally blow up the whole Middle East and Central Asia :(
-
Originally posted by Boroda
I know it ;)
I just want to say that my friends who served "behind the river" find many things they see on TV about Iraq horrible and impossible in Afghanistan in the 80s.
And if we compare Soviet assistance to Afghani government in the 80s to war against soverign state of Iraq - it's absloutely clear that Soviet soldiers were on the right side, while Americans are occupants and the war complies with a definition of "agression" according to UN regulations.
OTOH, just like Soviet Army in Afghanistan - if you leave Iraq now it will literally blow up the whole Middle East and Central Asia :(
boroda iraq signed ceasefire in 1991. we had them on the ropes they were running with much of army cut off waiting to be destroyed and we signed ceasefire to prevent further loss of life. that any with arab forces in coalition may have gotten complicated if we drove into iraq. but ceasefire signed by sadaam and he spit in face of us and other for ten years after that. if he signed ceasefire with russia in 1991 and did what he did to us and others russians would have crushed him like a bug in 1993 at latest and it would have been right thing to do.
-
Originally posted by Dago
Boroda,
Your misinformation stuns me. I really do wonder if you actually believe what you are saying?
Don't you think that I am a little closer to the sources of information about Afghan war? I envy people who have blind faith in some things.
Originally posted by Dago
I strongly suggest you save some money, buy a ticket to another country, go to their library, do some reading, then, with whatever money you have left, buy a clue.
JFYI: even in USSR we had all sorts of Western literature published and availible to public. I doubt that you have an access to any Soviet sources of information on many affairs.
The problem is that there are no serious studies of Afghan war other then your Ministry of Propaganda brainwashing anti-Soviet crap about Rambo.
Originally posted by Dago
BTW, there are a number of video clips on the internet showing those Russian troops "not experiencing" any problems. (helicopter shoot down, personel carrier blown up, soldier crawling away then executed). Yeah, we know all about how they didn't have any of those problems in Afghanistan.
Beautiful. Ignorance a it's best.
JFYI: Russian army fights international terrorists in a Chechen republic, that is a part of Russia for 200 years. Chechen terrorists are supported by organisations like Al Quaeda, different Moslim foundations and some Western governments, US and UK included. The films you mention are the reports and evidence that terrorists have to provide to get further fundings. Just like Afghani snipers who got paid in dollars (from American military budget) for shooting Soviet officers.
Unfortunately your country fights terrorism only in pathetic statements of your president, at the same time giving political asylum to known terrorists, providing them with political and material assistance and openly supporting regimes that host terrorist bases (Georgia).
Originally posted by Dago
Also, if they were just helping out in a civil war (lol), why did you refer to it as the Russia/Afghan war?
dago
Where did I say anything about "Russia/Afghan war"? This conflict is called in Russia an "Afghan war", or, officialy, "operations of the limited contingent of Soviet troops in Afghanistan" or "international assistance to Afghanistan".
-
Originally posted by anonymous
boroda iraq signed ceasefire in 1991. we had them on the ropes they were running with much of army cut off waiting to be destroyed and we signed ceasefire to prevent further loss of life. that any with arab forces in coalition may have gotten complicated if we drove into iraq. but ceasefire signed by sadaam and he spit in face of us and other for ten years after that. if he signed ceasefire with russia in 1991 and did what he did to us and others russians would have crushed him like a bug in 1993 at latest and it would have been right thing to do.
I am sorry, but it's difficult for me to read your posts.
I think that any sane person has to admit that a war against Iraq was an act of agression. Iraq didn't threaten US of A in any way, and it wasn't a state that started the hostilities. Spitting in anyone's face doesn't justify the use of force, so it is an agression according to any international documents. Sorry.
-
I am sorry for spelling "aggression" with one "g". Just checked in the dictionary and found that I was wrong writing it as "agression" copying the Russian spelling :(
-
Originally posted by Boroda
I am sorry, but it's difficult for me to read your posts.
I think that any sane person has to admit that a war against Iraq was an act of agression. Iraq didn't threaten US of A in any way, and it wasn't a state that started the hostilities. Spitting in anyone's face doesn't justify the use of force, so it is an agression according to any international documents. Sorry.
my typing sucks. let me try and go slow here and make sense. in 1991 gulf war hostilities ended when coalition offered iraq a cease fire. this was offered when majority of iraqs army was cut off in or near kuwait or getting murdered trying to retreat into iraq. the cease fire was offered to prevent further loss of life. with iraq military no longer a threat to coalition or kuwait the coalition reasoned that killing iraqi soldiers stuck in kuwait or trying to flee into iraq was pointless. the cease fire had many provisions one of them being sadaam allowing full and unrestricted access to un wmd inspection teams so us uk and others could be assured of dismantling of iraq wmd programs and removal of any wmd capability. this provision and many others having to do with iraq not attempting to rearm itself in a manner that made it capable of offensive actions against neighbors were blatantly violated by sadaam for over ten years. the west wanted to avoid another war if possible but they were played for suckers for years. all i am saying is that the attack was not "illegal". sadaam was in clear violation of more than one aspect of a cease fire agreement that he signed on. what i am saying is that if sadaam had been in violation of cease fire granted by russians out of mercy they would have crushed him all the sooner and it would have been right and a wiser decision. all "trying to be nice" accomplished was tens of thousands of iraqis starving or dead during the years sadaam played games and abused oil for food program.
-
UN resolutions didn't give any conditions that could allow any military action against Iraq. Any use of force had to be approved by Security Counsil or General Assembly.
Iraq have allowed UN inspectors to check supposed WMD sites.
No WMD were found in Iraq after the occupation.
Cease fire agreement of 1991 doesn't have any relations with American agression. Looks like you repeat an "official" American version that shows you as "brave fighters for peace and democracy", but, as usual, contradicts with reality, international laws and common sence :( Just as in 1999 criminal war against Yugoslavia - you are an agressor, and there is nothing that can justify your actions :( It's the case when Charter of the United Nations simply can't be misinterprited.
-
Iraq didn't threaten US of A in any way,
Ignoring reality again?
It has been established that Husseins governent was in contact with Al Queda.
It has been shown there were plans to develop nuclear weapons in Iraq.
Iraq did have an extensive WMD program in place that was dismantled because of USA pressure.
Iraq was in direct violation of the peace accords signed that ended Desert Storm and as a result was subject to attack.
Iraq was in violation of multiple UN resolutions
Iraq was in violation of the "Oil for Food" program.
Iraq attempted to assinate a United States President.
etc etc etc
dago
-
Originally posted by Dago
Ignoring reality again?
Yes, I'll ignore what you call "reality" if it's what you are fed on TV.
Originally posted by Dago
It has been established that Husseins governent was in contact with Al Queda.
Established by whom?! How a civilian leader could "establish contact" with religious fundamentalists? Sources please.
Originally posted by Dago
It has been shown there were plans to develop nuclear weapons in Iraq.
There are plans to develop nuclear weapons in dozens of countries. Many countries already have nuclear weapons, like Pakistan, that is well-known to host and support terrorists, with the assistance of the US.
Sources, please.
Originally posted by Dago
Iraq did have an extensive WMD program in place that was dismantled because of USA pressure.
It was dismantled, so - there was no WMD thread BEFORE you invaded? You contradict yourself.
Sources, please.
Originally posted by Dago
Iraq was in direct violation of the peace accords signed that ended Desert Storm and as a result was subject to attack.
This could not be a subject to attack. Look at the UN resolutions - they don't mention any conditions to use force against Iraq without UN SC or General Assembly decision.
Funny that you don't know such things.
Originally posted by Dago
Iraq was in violation of multiple UN resolutions.
Name them and tell me when and what parts did it violate. I ask because I want to educate myself, but I am afraid it's again "everyone knows" or "they told it on TV", and you just repeat it like a brainwashed parrot without bothering to develop an opinion of your own or merely check the facts.
Originally posted by Dago
Iraq was in violation of the "Oil for Food" program.
How?! Again I beg for sources.
Originally posted by Dago
Iraq attempted to assinate a United States President.
Assinate? Are you serious? :rofl Best joke on this board in last several months!
I assume that all you posted above this brilliant piece was also a joke of humor? ;)
LOL they not only attempted, they succeded!!! :rofl
-
Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated sixteen United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) designed to ensure that Iraq does not pose a threat to international peace and security. In addition to these repeated violations, he has tried, over the past decade, to circumvent UN economic sanctions against Iraq, which are reflected in a number of other resolutions. As noted in the resolutions, Saddam Hussein was required to fulfill many obligations beyond the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Specifically, Saddam Hussein was required to, among other things: allow international weapons inspectors to oversee the destruction of his weapons of mass destruction; not develop new weapons of mass destruction; destroy all of his ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers; stop support for terrorism and prevent terrorist organizations from operating within Iraq; help account for missing Kuwaitis and other individuals; return stolen Kuwaiti property and bear financial liability for damage from the Gulf War; and he was required to end his repression of the Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated each of the following resolutions:
UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990
* Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait) "and all subsequent relevant resolutions."
* Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."
UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991
* Iraq must release prisoners detained during the Gulf War.
* Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.
* Iraq must accept liability under international law for damages from its illegal invasion of Kuwait.
UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991
* Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities."
* Iraq must "unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material" or any research, development or manufacturing facilities.
* Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production facilities."
* Iraq must not "use, develop, construct or acquire" any weapons of mass destruction.
* Iraq must reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
* Creates the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs and mandated that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verify elimination of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.
* Iraq must declare fully its weapons of mass destruction programs.
* Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.
* Iraq must cooperate in accounting for the missing and dead Kuwaitis and others.
* Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.
UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991
* "Condemns" repression of Iraqi civilian population, "the consequences of which threaten international peace and security."
* Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian population.
* Iraq must allow immediate access to international humanitarian organizations to those in need of assistance.
UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991
* "Condemns" Iraq's "serious violation" of UNSCR 687.
* "Further condemns" Iraq's noncompliance with IAEA and its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
* Iraq must halt nuclear activities of all kinds until the Security Council deems Iraq in full compliance.
* Iraq must make a full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction and missile programs.
* Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
* Iraq must cease attempts to conceal or move weapons of mass destruction, and related materials and facilities.
* Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors to conduct inspection flights throughout Iraq.
* Iraq must provide transportation, medical and logistical support for UN and IAEA inspectors.
UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991
* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors.
UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994
* "Condemns" Iraq's recent military deployments toward Kuwait.
* Iraq must not utilize its military or other forces in a hostile manner to threaten its neighbors or UN operations in Iraq.
* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors.
* Iraq must not enhance its military capability in southern Iraq.
UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996
* Iraq must report shipments of dual-use items related to weapons of mass destruction to the UN and IAEA.
* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996
* "Deplores" Iraq's refusal to allow access to UN inspectors and Iraq's "clear violations" of previous UN resolutions.
* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997
* "Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "clear and flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
* Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.
UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997
* "Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
* Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.
UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997
* "Condemns the continued violations by Iraq" of previous UN resolutions, including its "implicit threat to the safety of" aircraft operated by UN inspectors and its tampering with UN inspector monitoring equipment.
* Reaffirms Iraq's responsibility to ensure the safety of UN inspectors.
* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998
* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have the "severest consequences for Iraq."
UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998
* "Condemns the decision by Iraq of 5 August 1998 to suspend cooperation with" UN and IAEA inspectors, which constitutes "a totally unacceptable contravention" of its obligations under UNSCR 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154.
* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors, and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998
* "Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation" with UN inspectors as "a flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions.
* Iraq must provide "immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspectors.
UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999
* Created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace previous weapon inspection team (UNSCOM).
* Iraq must allow UNMOVIC "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access" to Iraqi officials and facilities.
* Iraq must fulfill its commitment to return Gulf War prisoners.
* Calls on Iraq to distribute humanitarian goods and medical supplies to its people and address the needs of vulnerable Iraqis without discrimination.
Additional UN Security Council Statements
In addition to the legally binding UNSCRs, the UN Security Council has also issued at least 30 statements from the President of the UN Security Council regarding Saddam Hussein's continued violations of UNSCRs. The list of statements includes:
(see link for the list, post too long)
Link (http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2.html)
-
Terror detainees will be released
Iraq-al Qaeda link comes in focus
Seniors medical care poses bias question
Lincoln's words noted, misquoted
Blacks 'still claim' Jackson
Rescue dogs studied for site health risks
Malvo's lawyers seek Muhammad testimony
ID thefts stifle online buying
U.S.: Iraqi Insurgents Show Coordination
Protestant Leader: N. Ireland Deal Flawed
Mideast Activists Launch Peace 'Accord'
A-Bomb Survivors to Protest New Exhibit
Canadian Says He Trained at Afghan Camp
Musharraf: Pakistan Eyes Kashmir Withdraw
Poll: Iraqis Distrusting Coalition Troops
Weather Hampers Rescue in Quake-Hit China
Human Rights Group Faults Nigerian Record
Congo Ups Death Toll in Plane Crash to 33
Campaign to rename Senate structure builds
U.S. Sen. hopeful wants Ohio to ban guns
Pakistan offers to withdraw from Kashmir
Nursing is most trusted profession
Slobodan Milosevic to run for office
UPI NewsTrack TopNews
Obesity must be treated more aggressively
Unionists, nationalists face off over rule
Iraq-al Qaeda link comes in focus
By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
The fall of Baghdad has produced new evidence to buttress the Bush administration's prewar contention that Saddam Hussein's regime and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda had a long history of contacts.
The most conclusive evidence comes in a highly detailed list of intelligence reports revealed last month in the Weekly Standard. Senior Iraqis were said to have traveled to Sudan in the mid-1990s to teach bin Laden's operatives how to make sophisticated truck bombs.
Terrorists subsequently used such bombs to hit targets in Saudi Arabia and at two U.S. embassies in Africa.
The new intelligence reports are at odds with a June report by the United Nations' terrorism committee, which said it had found no links between Iraq and al Qaeda.
President Bush justified, in part, toppling Saddam on the grounds he aided terror groups. Mr. Bush argued that a nexus between terrorists and a country such as Iraq that has produced and used weapons of mass destruction (WMD) could one day result in a catastrophic attack on America.
"We do have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld declared in September 2002 when he and Gen. Tommy Franks were making war plans.
A month later, CIA Director George J. Tenet sent a letter to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence saying new evidence of the al Qaeda-Saddam relationship was "evolving."
He wrote: "We have solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda going back a decade. ... We have credible reporting that al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities."
Soon after the war, the picture began to become clearer. The U.S. collected considerable evidence that Abu Musaab Zarqawi, a top al Qaeda planner who fled Afghanistan as the Taliban regime was ousted, moved in and out of Iraq and met with officials in Baghdad.
Saddam never moved against a huge al Qaeda presence on his own territory — the headquarters of Ansar al-Islam in northern Iraq. This radical Kurdish group has ties to al Qaeda officials in Afghanistan. The U.S. smashed the camp in the early days of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Abu Abbas, the Palestinian terrorist wanted by the United States and Italy, lived a comfortable life in Baghdad under Saddam's regime. Members of his gang took over the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro and shot Leon Klinghoffer, a Jewish American, and pushed him and his wheelchair overboard. U.S. commandos captured Abu Abbas shortly after Baghdad fell.
But the most detailed picture of the Baghdad-al Qaeda nexus comes in a letter, held as top secret, that was leaked to the Weekly Standard. The letter was signed by Douglas Feith, undersecretary of defense for policy, and sent to the Senate Intelligence Committee in response to its questions.
Mr. Feith had testified before the Senate committee in closed session last July. The committee's chairman and vice chairman, Sens. Pat Roberts, Kansas Republican, and John D. Rockefeller IV, West Virginia Democrat, asked Mr. Feith to supply the intelligence reports on which his testimony was based.
Mr. Feith responded in September with the letter listing 50 intelligence reports from the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency.
The reports are from detained Iraqis and communications intercepts. According to the intelligence report, as revealed by the Weekly Standard, the letter states:
•Between 1992 and 1995, Sudanese strongman Hassan al-Turabi set up a number of meetings between former Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) Deputy Director Faruq Hijazi and Ayman al-Zawahri, bin Laden's closest adviser. Other IIS-al Qaeda meetings occurred in Pakistan. Sometimes, al Qaeda members would visit Baghdad.
•Brig. Salim al-Ahmed, an IIS bomb maker, traveled to bin Laden's farm in Sudan and gave instructions on how to build sophisticated explosives. He was observed at the farm in the fall of 1995 and again in July 1996, the year bin Laden left Sudan and established a new base in Afghanistan.
•Mani abd-al-Rashid, IIS director, went to the farm to meet bin Laden during the same time period.
"The Iraqi intelligence chief and two other IIS officers met at bin Laden's farm and discussed bin Laden's request for IIS technical assistance in: a) making letter and parcel bombs; b) making bombs which could be placed on aircraft and detonated by changes in barometric pressure; and c) making false passport."
Bin Laden asked that al-Ahmed, who is skilled in making car bombs, stay at the farm after al-Rashid departed.
•Al-Zawahri traveled to Baghdad in February 1998 and met with one of Iraq's vice presidents.
"The goal of the visit was to arrange for coordination between Iraq and bin Laden and establish camps in an-Nasiriyah and Iraqi Kurdistan under the leadership of Abdul Aziz," the intelligence report states.
•In late 1998, Iraq sent an intelligence official to Afghanistan to seek close ties with bin Laden and the ruling Taliban.
"The source reported that the Iraqi regime was trying to broaden its cooperation with al Qaeda." A senior Iraqi intelligence official met with the Taliban leader, Mullah Mohammed Omar. Thereafter, bin Laden hosted a series of meetings with Iraqi officials in Pakistan.
•After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, two al Qaeda operatives traveled to Iraq for training in chemical and biological weapons.
Much of the information in Mr. Feith's letter was compiled by a special team he assembled in 2002. Their job was to study a decade of raw and confirmed intelligence on any ties between al Qaeda and Iraq, and put it in one report.
The team was disbanded in the fall of 2002 after the report was filed. Mr. Rumsfeld was briefed, as were other administration officials, including Mr. Tenet.
It was at this point that Mr. Tenet, Mr. Rumsfeld and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice began making stronger, more authoritative statements on the al Qaeda-Baghdad connection. Some of their statements are reflected in the recent Feith letter to the Senate committee.
"This is a story that is unfolding, and it is getting clear, and we're learning more," Miss Rice was quoted as saying. "We know that several of the detainees, in particular some high-ranking detainees, have said that Iraq provided some training to al Qaeda in chemical-weapons development."
link (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031201-123723-4738r.htm)
-
U.N. officials had neither mandate nor capacity to police such smuggling. That was the task of the Multinational Interception Force created by the Security Council in 1990, and of national authorities in the countries through which the oil passed. When the Oil-for-Food program was set up, its agents were authorized only to check the quantities of oil exported legally by Iraq, through two specified export points.
That leaves $4.4 billion -- if GAO figures are correct -- which may have been "skimmed off" in two ways:
• First, there is evidence that Saddam deliberately underpriced his oil, so that, instead of the full price going into the U.N. escrow account, a secret premium could be demanded from purchasers, which was not declared to the U.N. but either paid into secret accounts or pocketed by middlemen to whom Saddam gave negotiable vouchers as political favors. The U.N.'s oil overseers got wind of this practice in 2000 and alerted the Security Council -- which agreed, some months later, that henceforth Iraq should be required to fix its prices retroactively, reducing the scope for illicit premiums.
• Secondly, Saddam encouraged companies from which he was buying food and other items authorized under the program to overprice their goods, and required them to pay back the difference -- not into the U.N. escrow account but into secret accounts of his own. This abuse was much harder for U.N. officials to detect. In some cases they did query the prices and, if no satisfactory answer was given, reported their concerns to the Security Council's sanctions committee, which gave final approval to the contracts. The whole program was designed and supervised by the Council, all of whose 15 members served on this committee. Any one of them could put a contract on hold for further investigation. The U.S. and Britain put thousands of contracts on hold, citing fears that the goods involved might have military uses. In no such case since 1998 did they cite concerns about the price or quality of the goods. Only after Saddam's fall was the full extent of these "kickbacks" revealed.
• Finally, whatever illicit gains Saddam may or may not have been able to skim off, the program did provide a basic food ration for all 27 million residents of Iraq. Between 1996-2001, the average Iraqi's daily food intake increased from 1200 to 2200 kilocalories per day. Malnutrition among Iraqi children dropped by 50% during the life of the program, as did deaths of children under five in the center and south of the country. During the same period, polio was eradicated from Iraq, thanks to vaccination campaigns funded by the program.
The combined pressures of sanctions and Saddam's oppressive regime undoubtedly made the '90s a dark decade for most Iraqis. The blame belongs mainly to Saddam, who not only imposed his brutal rule but also brought down the wrath of the world on his country -- first by invading Kuwait and then by refusing full cooperation with U.N. disarmament inspectors. The Oil-for-Food program was an effort to spare ordinary Iraqis some of the bitter hardships that their leaders had brought upon them. No doubt it could have been better designed, and better implemented. But in its basic mission, it succeeded.
link (http://www.un.org/News/dh/iraq/mortimer-30apr.htm)
-
Boroda,
Would you like me to do any more research that that you seem to be incapable of doing for yourself? Sad reflection on the Russian educational system, and a reiteration of the suspicion held regarding the Russian Propaganda Ministry.
I will admit your English is very good, and I dont speak Russian.
How about now, instead of me proving my points, now you prove my statements wrong?
dago
-
Re: the list of UN resolutions that Iraq violated
I don't need this flood-list, I only want you to show me when and where UN entitled US of A to use military force against Iraq. A decision to use military force against Iraq had to be made by UN SC or GA, not by some looney from White house just because he was "assinated" by Iraq. In your case it's an open and criminal agression against souverign state. So it goes.
I am talking about one things, and you reply me about absolutely different, just as if you didn't read my posts at all.
Let's see. You wrote: "Iraq was in direct violation of the peace accords signed that ended Desert Storm and as a result was subject to attack." I replied: "This could not be a subject to attack. Look at the UN resolutions - they don't mention any conditions to use force against Iraq without UN SC or General Assembly decision."
And now, instead of showing me when, who, and why entitled USA to use military force against Iraq, overthrow it's democratically elected government and occupy this souverign country - you try to drown me in some useless information that everyone knows. I still wait for you to show me the UN resolution to use force against Iraq after 1991.
Yor next flood is a quote from "Washington Times" that is well-known for distorting facts and using fake evidence. This is not a valid source. Even if it was - most of the facts are dated 1992-1998, when US openly supported Taliban and didn't think that Al Quaeda was a danger to the US. It's like demanding Rumsfeld to be arrested and sent to a dog's cage in Guantanamo because he shook hands with his friend Saddam Hussein in 1983. Was a link to Al Quaeda enough to start a war? Al Quaeda operates in Chechnya, and provides training and support to Chechen terrorists, but regardless to this facts admitted by US Department of State - you give political asylum to Chechen terrorists. And some vague rumourish connection between Saddam and Al Quaeda is a reason enough for you to start a war?! Looks like political schizophrenia to me.
Then, "oil for food" violations. If you think that such practice is uncommon for the US - you're mistaken. Every government does such things as intentional underpricing and overpricing, I think you use this tricks to avoid taxes to. I do it personally when I need to get extra money for contracts when I deal with government structures (shame on me). But you miss the main point in that article: "Finally, whatever illicit gains Saddam may or may not have been able to skim off, the program did provide a basic food ration for all 27 million residents of Iraq." Did you or any of your relatives ever suffer from hunger?
-
ahhh Boroda,
As expected, nothing significant in response, just useless crap.
I gave you what you asked for, you offer nothing. You have not proven me wrong.
It would be quicker to say you are mistaken than all that nonsense.
You offer nothing, post zero proof of anything, and try and make it someone elses failure. Sad.
But, again, I accept it as not really your fault, more an indictment of the Russian educational system and their failures.
dago
-
Originally posted by Dago
ahhh Boroda,
As expected, nothing significant in response, just useless crap.
I gave you what you asked for, you offer nothing. You have not proven me wrong.
It would be quicker to say you are mistaken than all that nonsense.
Again, and this time slowly:
You wrote: "Iraq was in direct violation of the peace accords signed that ended Desert Storm and as a result was subject to attack." I replied: "This could not be a subject to attack. Look at the UN resolutions - they don't mention any conditions to use force against Iraq without UN SC or General Assembly decision."
Did the UN approve a war against Iraq? I say - no. Show me any document that says that Iraq must (or can) be forced to follow UN resolutions by invasion? Looks like you misunderstand the basic principles of the UN charter.
Or is it You who avoids answering my direct questions? :rolleyes:
Originally posted by Dago
You offer nothing, post zero proof of anything, and try and make it someone elses failure. Sad.
But, again, I accept it as not really your fault, more an indictment of the Russian educational system and their failures.
dago
Well, at least they have taught me to speak English somehow ;) It only took 9 years :D
I finished my education in 1993, had to quit university after 4 years :( I hope you understand that I didn't study an American propaganda version of Gulf war and events that followed it, I took my last history exam in 1989.
Another question is the reasons enough for you and for me to start a war. Fortunately - your country was never under foreign occupation, you didn't wage wars on your own land for almost 150 years, while Russia was invaded from the West at least every 50-100 years, so, we know what War means t the people, and for Russians there is hardly any reason enough to start a war. War is the most horrible thing you can imagine :( I just try to point some cultural differences between our nations...
BTW, did you hear about apartment bombings in Russia in 1999? Did you hear about Chechen invasion in Dagestan? I hope you have heard about a "Nord-Ost" theatre attack in 2002 in Moscow... Even under such an obvious threat many Russians still think that we had to leave Chechens alone and not start an "anti-terrorist operation" (an official name for Chechen war).
-
Still no proof? Can't prove anything????
I accept your surrender.
respectfully,
dago
-
Originally posted by Dago
Still no proof? Can't prove anything????
I accept your surrender.
respectfully,
dago
No proof of what?!
I asked a direct question, you provided me with a useless flood instead of an answer.
I leave for home now, it's 23:30 here now, so I hope by tomorrow you'll give me some proof that US war against Iraq was defensive, not agressive.
-
In a gesture of goodwill, I will allow you to keep your personal sidearm and cerimonial sword in you surrender.
dago
(btw, i gave proof, challenged you to do same, you gave nothing. hence, I can but accept your surrender)
-
Oh yeah Boroda, as you have now prostrated yourself at my feet, I think it would be appropriate to call me "Sir" in the future.
:rofl
dago
-
Your brave armed forces started an unprovoked agressive war against Iraq and now occupy the country,
I guess shooting at UN jets patrolling is ."just Kidding"...and sending checks to terrorists organization was .."bread money"
Borada..somteimes you sound educated and have some common sense..
but then you say some truly moronic crap..it really just crushes your arguments
-
Your brave armed forces started an unprovoked agressive war against Iraq and now occupy the country,
Unprovoked? Have you seen the price of oil lately?
dago
-
Dago, pls, tell me of the great American victories in Afghanistan.
-
Originally posted by Count
Dago, pls, tell me of the great American victories in Afghanistan.
why does he need to tell you? plenty of accounts. atf and al qaeda killed to the man in heavily fortified position without inflicting any losses on coalition forces. atf and al qaeda assaulted at night in their own "backyard" and cut down before they knew what hit them. atf and al qaeda attempting to pin and overrun small coalition elements and being wiped out in attempt. do your own reading unless you paying dago to be a teacher.
-
This is *great victories*?
Links please...
-
Originally posted by Count
This is *great victories*?
Links please...
ill make it simple for you. where are the al qaeda and atf forces that were in afghanistan on 11SEP01? did they all hide in one big super secret cave and are there now waiting for the "big counterattack"? if you think im going to spend even two minutes of my free time to look up links for someone with your attitude my advice to you is to remove cranium from anus. i was there and saw the coalition hand veteran al qaeda and taliban fighters their bellybutton more than once. and considering the fact that the opposition was skilled and experienced id consider these to be great victories. tell me what experience do you base your judgemnt of "great victories" on? when a few hundred coalition special operators go into afghanistan and link up with the northern alliance a couple of weeks after their leader is assasinated by al qaeda and proceed to rout the atf and al qaeda out of most of afghanistan inflicting heavy losses on the enemy and taking very few casualties themselves especially considering how things have gone for foreign military in afghanistan before id consider it a great victory. you may not see it this way. explain to my why your opinion should matter at all?
-
Dago, passing strange that you have decided to totally ignore the most important SC resolution regarding Iraq, US sponsored resolution 1441. Actually no, it's not strange at all.
-
Thrawn,
No, it isn't strange at all since it wasn't relevant.
But since you choose not to actually pay attention you wouldn't understand that.
dago
-
Count,
First, while I never claimed the US and it's allies enjoyed "great victories" in Afghanistan, they in fact have been very victorious in both goals and in battle. I will point out the following:
When the USA and it's allies went into Afghanistan, the country was ruled by the Taliban. The Taliban oppressed the people, routinely raped the young women in the country and killed those who would speak against them. The Taliban supported terrorism and allowed Al Qaeda to build, operate and train within Afghanistans borders.
Now, as a result of the military actions of the USA and it's allies in Afghanistan, the Taliban is defeated and barely exists hiding in small pockets like mice in caves.
The people are now enjoying the rebirth of freedom, will be participating in elections for representation, the women no longer have to wear complete coverings, the children are returning to school, and medical care is becoming available again to the citizens. The soccer fields are no longer used as killing fields.
A national Army has been established, trained and equipped.
Warlords have agreed to disarm helping to bring peace to the people in the countryside.
Al Qaeda has been devestated and is living in hiding and on the run. Al Qaeda training camps have been eliminated.
In every military engagement with the Taliban or Al Qaeda, the US and it's allies won the battles. Too many to list, both large and small, but if your energy level matches your ignorance, you can do the research and read all about it.
dago
-
Originally posted by Dago
(btw, i gave proof, challenged you to do same, you gave nothing. hence, I can but accept your surrender)
What should I give? For what? For proof that your war against Iraq was agressive, not defencive? It's obvious. Noone should use force in international politics, and war with Iraq was an agression.
I love that white house site that justifies war by providing some UN resolutions that say nothing about forcing Iraq to follow them by starting hostilities.
Looks like a good American way of discussion. You switch topics arter I give you some information that you don't want to believe, but that is obviously true, that doesn't suit you. You argue with me about things I never said, avoiding the question I asked. You provide some documents that don't rely to the subject of discussion as arguments. You put words that I never said into my mouth. After a complete failure to proof whatever you thought was your point of view - you declare that your opponent surrenders.
Your education in American politics is exellent. Your participation in this discussion is a good example of how your government acts.
Now, please, give me a short answer: was a war against Iraq defencive or aggressive? If it wasn't aggressive, as you say, then - it must be defencive, is it clear? If it was defencive on your side, then it must be aggressive on Iraqi side, so, Iraq should be an agressor that attacked United States. Did they teach you logics where you got your education?
Asking you to provide any document that allows US to use military force against Iraq, invade it and overthrow it's government, issued after 1991, is useless, because such documents don't exist, and you know it.
I understand that this obvious facts and conclusions contradict your patriotic feelings, but being a patriot doesn't allow you to refrain from using common sence.
-
Originally posted by Dago
The Taliban oppressed the people, routinely raped the young women in the country and killed those who would speak against them.
Ignorance is strength!
Are you aquainted with Shariat laws?
Sorry, no time now for further comments on your hallucinations.
-
Are you aquainted with Shariat laws?
LOL, now you expose yourself as someone who really doesnt have a clue.
Someday maybe you will experience the real world, learn that those who preach are often the worst sinners.
I don't know if you have ever left Mother Russia to live elsewhere, but I have lived in an Islamic land, one that "adhered to Islamic law". I have never seen so many hypocritic people as I have there.
As I have suggested in previous posts, you need to both come into the light of reality, and find a way to buy a clue.
Unless you are ready to stop acting like a completely uninformed propaganda regurgitating fool, you no longer are worthy of my time. Do some research yourself and maybe you will find truth.
dago
-
So - you keep posting your hallucinations that have no connection to reality and proud of it.
Primitive Moslim countries like Chechnya or Taliban followed Shariat exactly. Taliban means "Islamic students", and they were supposed to follow their laws. You should know it better, your country installed them in Afghanistan to "restore order" in form of Shariat laws. :rolleyes:
Chechens lived on Shariat laws for 3 years, and this was one of the reasons to interfere.
Uncureable.
Look how fast you switched the topic to avoid my questions.
Asking again: was a war with Iraq aggressive or defencive?
With Taliban US looks like Uzbek Young Communists, who were famous for heroicaly overcoming problems they created themselves. :aok
Again: what you call a "reality" is just a sick world of your TV propaganda.
-
Originally posted by Dago
Thrawn,
No, it isn't strange at all since it wasn't relevant.
But since you choose not to actually pay attention you wouldn't understand that.
dago
Oh, it's totally relevant. You just chose to ignore it because it makes all your points regarding the previous resolutions invalid.
-
Thrawn, you obviously don't understand the word "relevant" as it applies to context. Let me supplement your lack of comprehension.
Subject discussion:
Dago Iraq was in violation of multiple UN resolutions
Boroda Name them and tell me when and what parts did it violate.
Dago Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated sixteen United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) designed to ensure that Iraq does not pose a threat to international peace and security. etc etc
Boroda Re: the list of UN resolutions that Iraq violated etc
Now Thrawn, this was the discussion regarding broken UN resolutions. If you still fail to understand relevance, let me know and I will paste in the dictionary definition. What you submitted wasn't relevant to this discussion.
I can't but help wondering about the state of education in Canada if you fail to grasp such a simple concept.
dago
-
@ dago:
Afair Boroda's question was more to do with 'where did it state in the resolutions that the US could invade Iraq without the go-ahead from the UN SC or General Assembly'.
I think he was aware of the resolutions they are claimed to have violated, it was what action the US was allowed to take in respect of those violations that he was questioning.
Hope that makes it clearer :)
Glas
JG13 Lokis Kinder
-
Glas
Afair Boroda's question was more to do with 'where did it state in the resolutions that the US could invade Iraq without the go-ahead from the UN SC or General Assembly'.
I think he was aware of the resolutions they are claimed to have violated, it was what action the US was allowed to take in respect of those violations that he was questioning.
Here is what I am referring to. For what it is worth, I think most of the citizens of the US, and probably our governemnt has now accepted the fact that the UN is irrelevant, and we certainly should not consider ourselves controlled by it. Doing so would prevent us from ever defending ourselves as long as nations who would sell souls for money such as France, Germany and Russia have a vote. I would be all for withdrawing from the UN today if I had a say in that matter.
Originally posted by Dago
Iraq was in violation of multiple UN resolutions.
Boroda:
Name them and tell me when and what parts did it violate. I ask because I want to educate myself, but I am afraid it's again "everyone knows" or "they told it on TV", and you just repeat it like a brainwashed parrot without bothering to develop an opinion of your own or merely check the facts.
I think this is pretty clear myself. He asked what UN resolutions were violated, I named them.
Why do you have trouble with that?
dago
-
Unfortunately, I have to state that I didn't change my opinioin regarding "parrot". Dago, you just gave me a link to a page on a white house site with the list of resolutions violated by Saddam in various years since 1990. It's exactly what a righteous Young Communist of the Soviet times was supposed to do: believe any "argument" published in Pravda or Party documents. Hint: Resolution 1441, that includes everything you provided and makes further conclusions. Your list of resolutions violated by Iraq is outdated. You simply contradict with common sence by bringing that list up as a reason for war.
BTW, thank you for that document, it was educating. I asked for it, you helped me, let's call it a sign of a good will ;)
By admitting that UN is irrelevant in questions regarding use of military force in international politics you openly state that US is an aggressor, and, therefore, should be isolated and punished by international community according to UN Charter.
You still didn't answer my question. Maybe because there is no answer that suits you? Logics is an interesting thing. The last resort for you is only shouting with foam at your mouth and calling me names. Violence is the last resort of incompetence. "The last move in a chess game is made with a board".
Let me try to turn back to the original topic. Here is a link to a discussion started in October 2001, where I tried to share my opinion on Soviet "adventure" in Afghanistan: http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18216 I have probably made some mistakes, but it can still be interesting for you...
-
Yawn, did someone say something?
-
Originally posted by Dago
Thrawn, you obviously don't understand the word "relevant" as it applies to context. Let me supplement your lack of comprehension.
I certainly do understand how relevantcy applies to context. For example, you are trying to change the context of the decussion regarding Iraq and UN resolutions. In you break down of the descussion, you totally ignore the post by Broda that precipitated it.
"UN resolutions didn't give any conditions that could allow any military action against Iraq. Any use of force had to be approved by Security Counsil or General Assembly."
There is your relevancy. :rolleyes:
-
Thrawn, it's always interesting to watch righteous people who have faith in something.
One of the slogans from Soviet times: "Doctrine of Marx is almighty because it's true" (V.I. Lenin). Beautiful, isn't it? ;)
Dago has been told that US invaded Iraq because it "violated UN resolutions", and it's the ultimate truth that can't be doubted. Look, the list is published on a White House web site! Logics and common sence are out of this conceptional space.
I already mentioned all the methods used in such a discussion above. They completely describes political methods used by some Western "democracies".
I want to thank Dago for not using a "you are a fool yourself" as the last argument. I expected him to start blaming Russians for a war in Chechnya. (Every civilized person knows that evil Russians opress gentle and noble Chechen freedom fighters) <- sarcasm here.
It scares me that a citizen of the "world's most democratic country" can be so blind and deliberately avoid common sence. If his opinion is so easily manipulated - then what decisions can he make at the elections?... :rolleyes:
-
do i understand this right?..
Borada..you beleive Saddma Hussien was a kind and Gentle man who means no harm to anyone?..And he was not a threat to the world?
-
Originally posted by GreenCloud
do i understand this right?..
Borada..you beleive Saddma Hussien was a kind and Gentle man who means no harm to anyone?..And he was not a threat to the world?
At no point anywhere did he say this. Are you dyslexic or something?
Edit: I believe he did mention that at the point of the invasion, Hussein was of no threat to the USA.
-
wtg Boroda :)
Only the uninformed try to discuss logic with someone from Russia ;)
And btw may your shrecked Minsk chicken rot or burn in hell :p
-
Only the uninformed try to discuss logic with someone from Russia
I agree with you Straffo, I am now informed that trying to discuss logic with a Russian is hopeless.
dago
-
Originally posted by Dago
I agree with you Straffo, I am now informed that trying to discuss logic with a Russian is hopeless.
dago
Cripes dago, you should be one of the last people to chastise someone for thier critical thought processes. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Dago
The people are now enjoying the rebirth of freedom, will be participating in elections for representation, the women no longer have to wear complete coverings, the children are returning to school, and medical care is becoming available again to the citizens. The soccer fields are no longer used as killing fields.
A national Army has been established, trained and equipped.
I dont know what country you are speaking about - but the situation in Afghanistan is not like you described.
1. Rebirth of Freedom ?
Even in Kabul - the capital city of the puppet Karsai, the women wear the Burkha. If Karsai dares to leave the city without his foreign body guards the people would hang him.
Afghanistan is devided in the lands of the warlords and clans and Karsai has no power in these regions.
In NE the usbekian war-criminal "General" Dostum has his terror-regime. Very much like Saddam during the time of Iran-Iraq-War he is supported by the USA.
In the SE the pashtuni tribes - formerly also called Taliban - are in full power, demanding the orthodox interpretation of the Sharia. No woman there can dare to go out without the Burkha and no girl is visiting a school in these regions.
In the West - especially in the province of Herat and the city itself an iranian puppet is ruling. There indeed the situation has changed - the people there have the more liberal iranian definition of Islam - so the women dont have to wear the burkha but "only" the chador and girls and women are allowed to visit schools/universities.
But islamic-liberal iranian definitions are far away from the definition of liberalism or freedom of western standard.
2. Elections ?
On the one hand no one cares who is prime minister of Afghanistan, because this person is not more than a major of Kabul and only so long as foreign troops protect him.
The people know that an election is coming, because all these political rivals are now fighting more bitterly against each other. Dostum for example is responsible for the assassination of tweo ministers of the Karsai regime.
3. Women no have to wear complete coverings ?
They have.
Even when western reports show pictures from Kabul there are women in the blue burkha when the "life in the city" is shown.
Iranian clerics have condemned the burkha which is a real torture to wear. It not only completely covers the body of the woman but also the face and the material it is made off makes it a hell to wear it in the hot climate.
So - what do you think why we still see these torture clothing when there are reports of Kabul - the city with the highest presence of foreign troops in Afghanistan.
What do you think is going on in all the small villages - especially in the Southeast where the Pashtuni tribes rule ?
4. Children in school ?
Maybe in Kabul, maybe in Herat and Dostums territory. But nothing essential has been changed in the old traditional territories of those tribes which formed the Talibans.
5. Medical Care ?
The major "medicine" of Afghanistan is heroine. 75% of the world production is coming now from this country. Iran is trying to stop the drug-smuggling by building walls to the afghan order - a senseless action whcih will not work because of the lenght and the form of the territory.
But it shows how the situation has got bad in Afghanistan where every rebel part, warlord and tribe is buying its weapons by producing drugs which finally also reach the western nations and kill the people who use them here.
6. National Army ?
This is the most ridiculous point.
There was along report in german TV about this new "national afghan army" which was trained by US-officers.
After a short training many of these so called "soldiers" are deserting and return to their tribes.
Many were sent by their warlord to the training because they hoped that their people would get a good military training and then they simply returned.
They ever have the uniforms and weapons which were given to them - only the rank and national insignias were removed.
There is no national feeling - no loyality for the ruler of Kabul.
The afghans - after decades of internal wars - are loyal to their tribes and clans.
No - I can not see any effective change in Afghanistan.
They still have large regions where the rules of the Taliban are performed, where women MUST wear the Burkha, are refused to go to school and where the most primitive forms of shariarules are used.
The central government would be wiped out if foreign troops leave the country.
And all these warlords refuse to give up their power. Even after many of them were made to ministers by Karsai they continued the fighting and many ministers of Karsai died in the last years by assassinations ordered by some of their minister-collegues.
-
I am curious Babek, when did you last travel the length and breadth of Afghanistan to speak expertly on it's current conditions?
dago
-
To know what Babek you just need to have more than one news source and make a compilation.
Nothing difficult ,some site make the job for you I'll post the links when I'll be back at home.
-
Ah Straffo, thanks for proving my point.
Kind of a "my news source knows more than your news source". Makes the basic assumption that someones choice of news sources is superior to somene elses. Ignores the fact that almost every news outlet is subject to bias in reporting.
Somehow, I wouldn't put any more faith in a German or French news source than I would an American source.
But don't let that stop you in your "holier than thou" quest.
dago
-
Originally posted by babek-
I dont know what country you are speaking about - but the situation in Afghanistan is not like you described.
1. Rebirth of Freedom ?
Even in Kabul - the capital city of the puppet Karsai, the women wear the Burkha. If Karsai dares to leave the city without his foreign body guards the people would hang him.
Afghanistan is devided in the lands of the warlords and clans and Karsai has no power in these regions.
In NE the usbekian war-criminal "General" Dostum has his terror-regime. Very much like Saddam during the time of Iran-Iraq-War he is supported by the USA.
In the SE the pashtuni tribes - formerly also called Taliban - are in full power, demanding the orthodox interpretation of the Sharia. No woman there can dare to go out without the Burkha and no girl is visiting a school in these regions.
In the West - especially in the province of Herat and the city itself an iranian puppet is ruling. There indeed the situation has changed - the people there have the more liberal iranian definition of Islam - so the women dont have to wear the burkha but "only" the chador and girls and women are allowed to visit schools/universities.
But islamic-liberal iranian definitions are far away from the definition of liberalism or freedom of western standard.
2. Elections ?
On the one hand no one cares who is prime minister of Afghanistan, because this person is not more than a major of Kabul and only so long as foreign troops protect him.
The people know that an election is coming, because all these political rivals are now fighting more bitterly against each other. Dostum for example is responsible for the assassination of tweo ministers of the Karsai regime.
3. Women no have to wear complete coverings ?
They have.
Even when western reports show pictures from Kabul there are women in the blue burkha when the "life in the city" is shown.
Iranian clerics have condemned the burkha which is a real torture to wear. It not only completely covers the body of the woman but also the face and the material it is made off makes it a hell to wear it in the hot climate.
So - what do you think why we still see these torture clothing when there are reports of Kabul - the city with the highest presence of foreign troops in Afghanistan.
What do you think is going on in all the small villages - especially in the Southeast where the Pashtuni tribes rule ?
4. Children in school ?
Maybe in Kabul, maybe in Herat and Dostums territory. But nothing essential has been changed in the old traditional territories of those tribes which formed the Talibans.
5. Medical Care ?
The major "medicine" of Afghanistan is heroine. 75% of the world production is coming now from this country. Iran is trying to stop the drug-smuggling by building walls to the afghan order - a senseless action whcih will not work because of the lenght and the form of the territory.
But it shows how the situation has got bad in Afghanistan where every rebel part, warlord and tribe is buying its weapons by producing drugs which finally also reach the western nations and kill the people who use them here.
6. National Army ?
This is the most ridiculous point.
There was along report in german TV about this new "national afghan army" which was trained by US-officers.
After a short training many of these so called "soldiers" are deserting and return to their tribes.
Many were sent by their warlord to the training because they hoped that their people would get a good military training and then they simply returned.
They ever have the uniforms and weapons which were given to them - only the rank and national insignias were removed.
There is no national feeling - no loyality for the ruler of Kabul.
The afghans - after decades of internal wars - are loyal to their tribes and clans.
No - I can not see any effective change in Afghanistan.
They still have large regions where the rules of the Taliban are performed, where women MUST wear the Burkha, are refused to go to school and where the most primitive forms of shariarules are used.
The central government would be wiped out if foreign troops leave the country.
And all these warlords refuse to give up their power. Even after many of them were made to ministers by Karsai they continued the fighting and many ministers of Karsai died in the last years by assassinations ordered by some of their minister-collegues.
babek last time i was there was a little less than two years ago. your description doesnt match up with what i saw or dealt with. who are your sources?
-
Originally posted by Dago
Ah Straffo, thanks for proving my point.
Kind of a "my news source knows more than your news source". Makes the basic assumption that someones choice of news sources is superior to somene elses. Ignores the fact that almost every news outlet is subject to bias in reporting.
Somehow, I wouldn't put any more faith in a German or French news source than I would an American source.
But don't let that stop you in your "holier than thou" quest.
dago
What would they possibly gain by presenting false information? They never opposed Afganistan operations, and infact were involved themself.
-
What would they possibly gain by presenting false information? They never opposed Afganistan operations, and infact were involved themself.
It all comes from babeks babble, and me asking where he gets his info. Straffo jumps in and says the guy reads news reports. I guess Straffo feels babek is incapable of replying for himself. My statement basically says that if babek is just regurgitating what he read in a news report, why would his info be any differant than mine? You offered nothing in your post to answer any questions or to prove anything.
dago
-
Originally posted by anonymous
babek last time i was there was a little less than two years ago. your description doesnt match up with what i saw or dealt with. who are your sources?
Anonymous, as far as I understood - you were there training some medical personell? I may be mistaken, because I didn't understand most of the abbrievations in your post on a first page :(
I think Babek explained his sources of information on Central-Asian events in another thread.
OTOH - what we see on TV looks sometimes exaclty as Babek described, and sometimes they just show us happy Afghani people who all speak Russian and tell the stories about the rebuilding etc., but they all are stationed in Kabul or Bagram. Just like in the 80s when all we saw about that war was Soviet soldiers helping to build schools and hospitals.
Estel called me this morning, said that he's sitting at the river bank at the campfire... It will be interesting what his coments on this thread will sound like. As I said - he was on Tajik-Afghan border around 1997.
This thread looks like a good collection of information and opinions from different sides.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Anonymous, as far as I understood - you were there training some medical personell? I may be mistaken, because I didn't understand most of the abbrievations in your post on a first page :(
I think Babek explained his sources of information on Central-Asian events in another thread.
OTOH - what we see on TV looks sometimes exaclty as Babek described, and sometimes they just show us happy Afghani people who all speak Russian and tell the stories about the rebuilding etc., but they all are stationed in Kabul or Bagram. Just like in the 80s when all we saw about that war was Soviet soldiers helping to build schools and hospitals.
Estel called me this morning, said that he's sitting at the river bank at the campfire... It will be interesting what his coments on this thread will sound like. As I said - he was on Tajik-Afghan border around 1997.
This thread looks like a good collection of information and opinions from different sides.
i was member of special operations unit. i have lots of friends that were there with me who are now working with govt of afghanistan in various capacities. i chat with the guys all the time. babek right about tribal problems but they not nearly as severe as he thinks. and many tribe and warlord friendly to west because they knew how much west help them against soviets. no matter what bs some spread they know where the guns bullets food and medicine came from. these warlord help us after 9/11 when no gurantee that things would turn out like they did. they had guys get tortured to death by al qaeda trying to find out where we were or where they hide comms gear we give them and they didnt say a peep. if you know afghan culture that means a great deal. babek has some right some wrong. president of afhganistan doesnt have foreign bodyguard. he has western special operations that aid in his protection but the "muscle" is afghani soldiers of new army who have bought into idea of afghanistan with real govt. this whole discussion kind of pointless tho. its going to be a couple of years before anyone can say for certain one way or other. i hope it works out for them and if it doesnt i hope it doesnt go bad again like it did before so some foreign soldier has to go in and slap some heads.
-
Originally posted by anonymous
babek last time i was there was a little less than two years ago. your description doesnt match up with what i saw or dealt with. who are your sources?
Have you been in west afghanistan - especially in Herat ?
One of my cousins is still now there, working for an iranian help organisiation.
And I believe him when he tells me that the ruler of Herat and Herat province, Ismail Khan, has build a system like in Iran shortly after the Khomeini revolution. At least the women dont have to wear the Burkha but they MUST wear the shador or they are put in jail.
If I am right the central afghan government allowed all afghan women to decide for themself if they wear a shador, a burkha or normal western clothing.
Just a small example how "much" have changed in Afghanistan and how much influence Karsai has in "his" provinces.
And the situation in Herat is - compared with the SE of Afghanistan - relativly good. They get much help from Iran, because this province has a long history with Iran. Iran was an ally of the western afghan warlords during the Taliban wars - long before 9/11. Herat was lost to the Taliban and hundredthousands afghans fled to east Iran where they lived in refugee camps for years. After the fall of the Taliban they returned - many of them in the iranian camps to the province and city of Herat.
And Iran continues to help them by providing humanitarian aid.
My cousin told me that there are soldiers from the central government of Kabul in Herat, but they have no authority or power, while Ismail Khan and his clan-troops rules the city and the province like a king some centuries ago.
If you have been in the NE-part of Afghanistan then you are in one point right: The so called General Dostum is ruling his part of the country like Saddam - the women have more rights than in rest Afghanistan but he has built a terrorregime and is trying to get more and more power from Kabul.
But if you have really such reliable sources then you wont be able to deny that especially in the pashtuni clan territory of SE-afghanistan the rights for the women have not been changed effectivly. They still have wear the burkha.
The examples of the treatment of the women show the dicrepance between the official liberal declarations of the central government and the reality in the provinces.
Not Karsai - the official president of Afghanistan - what is law and what not.
But the clanleaders and warlords.
The powerful of them like Khan or Dostum are ruling Afghanistan today and also all these minor clanleaders and warlords. And that brings all the problems for afghanistan: There is no real powerful central government.
Btw - my cousin is not a fanatic man who hates americans and wishes that Afghanistan remain a civil war country.
He had studied in London, became a M.D., didnt take the chance to work and become rich in Europe but returned to Iran and worked in refugee camps - first in one where iraqui kurds lived who escaped to Iran then he transferred to the east iranian border and he worked in one of the afghan refugee camps where many afghans fled to Iran from Taliban terror years before 9/11.
So I think he is a good source - especially when he tells me that he is always glad when he can leave Herat and come to Teheran in his holidays, because there are so many harsh islamic laws in Herat and he has to be very careful not to be make a mistake there.
He said that Herat is very much like Iran was during the first phase of islamic khomeini revolution.
Fanatics are patrolling and acting when they think that islamic law (by their definition) has been broken.
And the central government has no real power - although it has sent official troops to Herat.
So I think that this the reality - and not the dreams of Karsai in Kabul.
-
Originally posted by Dago
Ah Straffo, thanks for proving my point.
Kind of a "my news source knows more than your news source". Makes the basic assumption that someones choice of news sources is superior to somene elses. Ignores the fact that almost every news outlet is subject to bias in reporting.
Somehow, I wouldn't put any more faith in a German or French news source than I would an American source.
But don't let that stop you in your "holier than thou" quest.
dago
I don't think I'm the one "making the basic assumption".
You're right for one : I'm the one "making the basic assumption" that you have the cognitive ressources of an Oyster.
-
Call me any names you want, but don't call me a Frenchman. I bathe regularly.
dago