Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Yeager on September 16, 2008, 09:33:34 PM
-
Apparently there was a US special forces operation in the tribal lands of Pakistan recently and the Pakistanis are understandably upset. I guess their military has ordered their troops to fire on any US forces operating within Pakistan territory.
That would be a hell of a thing :O
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hkiMxbHNH0BqgpWA2ZG6VD6wVTmAD937RO2G0
As far as Im concerned the Pakis are harboring terrorists, but what do I know......
-
I look at it as Pakistan not doing the job they agreeded to do while taking or money for military aid. If they aren't going to do it, then we have too. With that said it's just another example of how Bush & co has mis-managed both of these wars. Had Bush not pulled the troops out of Afghanistan before the job was done, to go play nation building in Iraq, we likely wouldn't be having these problems on both fronts.
-
As far as Im concerned the Pakis are harboring terrorists, but what do I know......
I can understand the Pakis not being happy about foreign (USA) troops possibly operating on their land, but until they stand up and eliminate terrorists living and operating in Pakistan, they have no rights in my mind to oppose anyone else from hunting and eliminating the terrorists in Pakistan. It's one of those "if you don't do that job yourself, someone else will and you won't like how it happens".
If they won't step up, we will have to.
-
I look at it as Pakistan not doing the job they agreeded to do while taking or money for military aid. If they aren't going to do it, then we have too. With that said it's just another example of how Bush & co has mis-managed both of these wars. Had Bush not pulled the troops out of Afghanistan before the job was done, to go play nation building in Iraq, we likely wouldn't be having these problems on both fronts.
Now you are just acting like an uninformed moron. Bush didn't pull any troops out of Afghanistan, the numbers didn't drop.
Come on, you are really Rosie O'Donnell, aren't you? She says really stupid watermelon too.
-
Come on, you are really Rosie O'Donnell, aren't you?
That was cold, stone cold! Nevertheless, it was still funny! :rofl :rock
-
What's the problem? The Obamessiah will take the war into Pakistan. He said so. He'll kick the turban right off those lil' Pakis.
Obama: If We Have Actionable Intelligence Against Bin Laden Or Other Key Al Qaeda Officials And Pakistan Won’t Strike Them, We Should. Obama said, “With respect to Pakistan, I never said I would bomb Pakistan. What I said was that if we have actionable intelligence against bin Laden or other key al Qaeda officials, and we -- and Pakistan is unwilling or unable to strike against them, we should. And just several days ago, in fact, this administration did exactly that and took out the third-ranking al Qaeda official.” [Cleveland Presidential Debate, 2/26/08]
So, cross border operations into Pakistan have the blessing of The Obamessiah. Relax; he's ready to lead. In fact, he's ready to lead us into an invasion of the sovereign of Pakistan. Guess we know what The Obamessiah's understanding of Charlie Gibson's understanding of version #3 of the Bush doctrine is. :rofl
-
I think one of our biggest mistakes in Vietnam was allowing the Viet Cong and NVA regulars sanctuary in Cambodia and Laos, we should have followed them across the border and kicked the crap out of them in their bases.
I believe we should do the same thing in Pakistan, allowing Al-Qaeada to regroup, rest etc in Pakistan is pretty foolish.
-
Didn't all of you condem Russia going into Georgia?????????? :O
How can crossing another contries borders be OK????????
Remember that Pakistan is a nuclear county :t
There is no other treaty like we have in North America that allows soldiers to cross borders in case of national security.
-
Now you are just acting like an uninformed moron. Bush didn't pull any troops out of Afghanistan, the numbers didn't drop.
Come on, you are really Rosie O'Donnell, aren't you? She says really stupid watermelon too.
We damn sure did when we went to war in Iraq.
-
Didn't all of you condem Russia going into Georgia?????????? :O
How can crossing another contries borders be OK????????
Remember that Pakistan is a nuclear county :t
There is no other treaty like we have in North America that allows soldiers to cross borders in case of national security.
There is a difference there.. Russia was acting in the same manor as the Taliban. Georgia wasn't sending troops or supporting a insurgency inside Russia. Russia on the other hand was doing that to Georgia by supporting and inciting the break away regions. Then invading when Georgia tried to regain control of their own country.
-
lol imagine if US decides to go in Pakistan.... get ready for comparisons like the Russian sideshow last month.
-
lol imagine if US decides to go in Pakistan.... get ready for comparisons like the Russian sideshow last month.
News flash. We've been there, we're going back. Search, destroy, withdraw. Stuff we're good at... unlike occupations.
-
Funny, the people that cry with outrage when Mexican Police cross the border by mistake think that it is OK to send search and destroy teams into a sovereign country.
Bet your hat has two peaks also. :rofl
-
Sorry buddy.
We must, as Americans in our official capacity as Planetary Oppressors; at times, usurp indigenous authority to conduct vermin control that we, as private citizens; regret in a distant, fleeting abstract sort of way.
Kinda like squishing a pretty bug.
-
Funny, the people that cry with outrage when Mexican Police cross the border by mistake think that it is OK to send search and destroy teams into a sovereign country.
Right, because the Mexican Police must pursue those dangerous terrorists who are plotting to blow up every donkey show between TJ and Rosario... :huh
As for Pakistan, they're stuck between a rock and a hard place. The govt agrees with our position and wants to help, but a significant portion of the population is fully willing to rise to armed revolt at the drop of a hat if they think the govt is disrespecting Islam by cooperating with the U.S. Turkey has the same problem, except in Turkey the military has been the secular stabilizing force that steps in and smooths things out when radical religious groups get too powerful in the government. The Pakistani military is probably quite willing to step in and quell internal problems either in the populace or in the govt, but they are probably not willing to be a causal factor in any new internal fighting by cooperating with US attacks on Pakistani soil against either Pakistanis, or people who have been given safe harbor by Pakistanis. The Army can intervene during internal People vs. Govt. problems, but they sure as heck don't want to be forced to kill Pakistanis in order to save or foster cooperation with the US.
They have a tough problem, and if we push too hard we could potentially cause their govt to fall and be replaced by a radical islamist regime. That would undermine everything we've done in the region.
-
Sorry buddy.
We must, as Americans in our official capacity as Planetary Oppressors; at times, usurp indigenous authority to conduct vermin control that we, as private citizens; regret in a distant, fleeting abstract sort of way.
Kinda like squishing a pretty bug.
I like how you put that :aok agreed
Right, because the Mexican Police must pursue those dangerous terrorists who are plotting to blow up every donkey show between TJ and Rosario... :huh
But if they were would it make it all right, and you let them (fat chance in Hell I would guess)
They have a tough problem, and if we push too hard we could potentially cause their govt to fall and be replaced by a radical islamist regime. That would undermine everything we've done in the region.
Exactly :aok and they have NUKES.
-
I think one of our biggest mistakes in Vietnam was allowing the Viet Cong and NVA regulars sanctuary in Cambodia and Laos, we should have followed them across the border and kicked the crap out of them in their bases.
I believe we should do the same thing in Pakistan, allowing Al-Qaeada to regroup, rest etc in Pakistan is pretty foolish.
Amen!
It's really sad, in my opinion, that so many folks at home are still influenced by the press's need to garner attention via wild headlines and less by actual fact. The press wishes to make a parallel between the Viet Nam War and the war in Iraq, but fails in it's efforts because the press was a major cause of failure in Viet Nam. The American Press became a puppet of the opposition in the Viet Nam War, and it is in line to become, if it hasn't already, the same puppet press in the Iraq War.
-
Pakistan's secular government is failing. From what do they derive their sovereignty? From it's origin, Pakistan has been a population of radical Muslims. If their government allows Al Qaeda and the Taliban to operate within their borders then certainly, their sovereignty is in question.
Let them send their Islamic Fascists to the border to fire on our troops, so we can kill them along with the Taliban and Al Qaeda we're there to get. Our war is against Islamic Fascists anywhere, regardless of borders. I like the first Bush doctrine. You're either for us or against us. There's no neutrality in hourboring terrorists.
Furthermore, the secular governments in Europe and the UK should wake up. They're losing western civilization to the invaders. We're overdue for a crusade. Western culture has become so "enlightened" that we're on the road to giving it all away to Islamic Fascist barbarians. Now is not a time to be squeamish. It's time for western man to get savage someplace besides football games.
Kill the bastards, and give Pakistan back to the Indians. They'll help us flush out that diaper headed killer.
-
I think one of our biggest mistakes in Vietnam was allowing the Viet Cong and NVA regulars sanctuary in Cambodia and Laos, we should have followed them across the border and kicked the crap out of them in their bases.
I believe we should do the same thing in Pakistan, allowing Al-Qaeada to regroup, rest etc in Pakistan is pretty foolish.
You did, you also dropped bombs on cambodia and caused many civilian casualties. These actions helped the Khmer Rouge gain support in eastern parts of Cambodia.
Its a fine line between chasing terrorists into someone elses sovereign land and becoming a terrorist yourself. Start doing this and you'll see even less support from pakistan and create sympathy for those terrorists you're trying to destroy.
And don't have a big cry if some foreign goverment sanctions similar acts on US terroritory because it doesn't like the US training some 'freedom fighters'. If you can't respect other peoples borders don't expect them to respect yours.
-
Didn't all of you condem Russia going into Georgia?????????? :O
How can crossing another contries borders be OK????????
Remember that Pakistan is a nuclear county :t
There is no other treaty like we have in North America that allows soldiers to cross borders in case of national security.
Everything is OK if its done by Americans. Get with the program Baitman.
-
That's why our military must always have the ability, and our political leaders the will, to destroy the other guy's will to fight. So they won't even try, and when they do (as Al Qeada indeed did ) we shred them with great prejudice.
Had the US not been asleep while the war raged these last thirty years, we might not have given those guys the idea they could get away with what they've done. Now we're climbing through the mountains of Afghanistan and apparently Pakistan too, to reestablish an appropriate respect.
-
That's why our military must always have the ability, and our political leaders the will, to destroy the other guy's will to fight. So they won't even try, and when they do (as Al Qeada indeed did ) we shred them with great prejudice.
Had the US not been asleep while the war raged these last thirty years, we might not have given those guys the idea they could get away with what they've done. Now we're climbing through the mountains of Afghanistan and apparently Pakistan too, to reestablish an appropriate respect.
Respect or Fear? Sound like something the mafia would say :O
-
Didn't all of you condem Russia going into Georgia?????????? :O
How can crossing another contries borders be OK????????
Remember that Pakistan is a nuclear county :t
There is no other treaty like we have in North America that allows soldiers to cross borders in case of national security.
We observe the sovereignty of Georgia, and so did the Russians for a time. Russia is not on a crusade against people who attacked them, they're on a land grab, and more importantly an energy resource grab.
Borders are crossed all the time. How were borders established in the first place? How often have borders changed throughout history? When did we develop an expectation that they would stop changing?
IMO, It's more than OK, it's well and good to invade a country that can't do anything about the Taliban or Al Qaeda operating in their land.
Consider this: Would it be OK for you to invade your neighbor's home, if your neighbor had a sniper in a bedroom window firing at your house, but your neighbor wouldn't do anything to flush him out. While you consider this, take the police out of the equation. While your neighborhood most likely has an effective police force, the world does not.
We have nukes too. More and bigger ones that we can deliver through a variety of convenient methods. They don't want to go there. They might intimidate India, but they don't intimidate the US.
-
Respect or Fear? Sound like something the mafia would say :O
True, it does. Perhaps western civilization should take a lesson [from] the Sicilians on how to deal with the current threat to it's existence.
Did you know that "destroying the enemy's will to fight" is the mission of an army. This is US Army doctrine. Don't take my word. Check it out.
-
I guess we should just sit back and let the muslims do whatever they want..so as not to offend Canada or
Norway. I'm sure they will stop hating America and blaming the US for all their problems if we do.
Maybe if Pakistan could control their own territory, that would be possible. Since the tribes control the border
lands next to Afghanistan and can apparently kick the Pak Army's butt at will...that is going to be problematical.
I personally feel that Pakistan is headed into radical islam no matter what we do. Who knows, maybe the talking
shop nations of NATO will be able to use their uncanny ability to negotiate and come up with the miracle solution to
unfriendly allies. They seem to have alot of experience with that sort of thing.
-
Respect or Fear? Sound like something the mafia would say :O
The mafia thing is an unfortunate hollywood trivialization of just how much it sucks to be the guys we want dead.
-
Respect or Fear? Sound like something the mafia would say :O
Oh, by the way, I think you would find the origin of the word "mafia" very interesting and pertinent to this conversation. Check it out. It will at least be interesting reading.
-
If the muslims (by that i gather you mean terrorists) operates within the borders of another sovreing country its thier problem and their _responsobility_. Unless that country asks for help you have no business going there.
-
If the muslims (by that i gather you mean terrorists) operates within the borders of another sovreing country its thier problem and their _responsobility_. Unless that country asks for help you have no business going there.
Only until they (terrorists) reach out and touch you!~ No, even before then. At this point, I think preemptive war is an appropriate policy. If you see the sniper setting up shop in your neighbor's house, and his stated intent is to kill you and your family, well then, it's your business going in there.
Nilsen, Imagine you're looking at your dead wife, child, mother in your own house, and still the rifle shots are coming from your neighbor's window. But you're going to do nothing, because you're neighbor is disinclined to invite you over to help rid the assailant? That's absurd. I don't think you mean it.
The Taliban controlled significant areas of Afghanistan, but they didn't invite our help getting rid of Al Qaeda. Can I assume you also opposed the US invasion of Afghanistan?
"If the muslims (by that i gather you mean terrorists)" I don't think you were speaking directly to me, but to be clear, the enemy is Radical Islam, or Muslim Fascists. I respect everyone's freedom to worship as they please, but I don't respect a religious justification for the stated intent to kill me, my family, my culture, and my country.
-
If the muslims (by that i gather you mean terrorists) operates within the borders of another sovreing country its thier problem and their _responsobility_. Unless that country asks for help you have no business going there.
Nils, if a band or group of AQ launched attacks on NATO troops from and returned to an ungoverned portion of Norway for 7 years without hindrance from your government we'd no doubt have something to talk about.
-
Oh, by the way, I think you would find the origin of the word "mafia" very interesting and pertinent to this conversation. Check it out. It will at least be interesting reading.
Well, I re-researched the word Mafia, and as it turns out the origin is disputed. I was alluding to the argument that the origin derived from the resistance of Sicilians to their oppressive invaders.
-
Nils, if a band or group of AQ launched attacks on NATO troops from and returned to an ungoverned portion of Norway for 7 years without hindrance from your government we'd no doubt have something to talk about.
Very eloquently put, Hangtime.
-
I look at it as Pakistan not doing the job they agreeded to do while taking or money for military aid. If they aren't going to do it, then we have too. With that said it's just another example of how Bush & co has mis-managed both of these wars. Had Bush not pulled the troops out of Afghanistan before the job was done, to go play nation building in Iraq, we likely wouldn't be having these problems on both fronts.
We arent having that problem in Iraq anymore. US troops pulled out of the most dangerous part of Iraq, and 8000 are gonna go home by the end of October IIRC.
-
Didn't all of you condem Russia going into Georgia?????????? :O
How can crossing another contries borders be OK????????
Remember that Pakistan is a nuclear county :t
There is no other treaty like we have in North America that allows soldiers to cross borders in case of national security.
They'd be out of their minds if they tried anything along those lines.
-
"According to Cesareo, the word is of Arabic origin, but Pitré does not agree. He simply does not know. He only knows that the word was common in the Borgo section of Palermo and that it meant beauty, charm, perfection, excellence. Thus in Palermo, street vendors, or peddlers would advertise their brooms as scupi d''a mafia! Haju chiddi mafiusi veruu (Brooms that can't be beat! I have the real stuff).
"Capuana, the novelist, found that the word had the same meaning in Catania, where there has never been any Mafia. 'Mafia and its derivatives,' he wrote, 'always meant and do mean 'beauty, charm, perfection, excellence' in their field. Una ragazza mafiosa (a smart-looking girl); mafiusedda (rather charming, neat); casa mafiusedda (a fine looking house). The word mafia adds to the idea of beauty the idea of superiority, of bravery, the feeling of being a man, boldness, but never in the sense of arrogance or braggadocio. After 1860, however, it acquired a new meaning."
Henner Hess, in Mafia & Mafiosi: Origin, Power and Myth. Trans. Ewald Osers.
New York: NYUP, 1998, cites the same sources as Schiavo, and expands on his definitions. For him the word also has connotations of "boldness, ambition, arrogance" (1, Sciascia 1964). And, "A mafioso is simply a courageous, brave fellow who won't stand any nonsense from anyone" (1, Pitré 1889). He says that some believe that the word derives from the Arabic, "either from mahias, meaning a bold man or a braggart, or from Ma afir, the name of the Saracen tribe that ruled Palermo. A third theory of Arab origin relates mafia to maha, a quarry or a cave in a rock. The mafie, the tuff caves in the Marsala region, served the persecuted Saracens as hiding places and later provided hide-outs for other fugitives" (2, Lestingi 1884). Hess states that Giuseppe Loschiavo (not to be confused with Giovanni Schiavo) writes that before Garibaldi's landing, "the rebellious Sicilians had hidden out in the mafie near Marsala and had therefore subsequently, during their successful advance on Palermo, been called mafiosi, the people from the mafie" (2, Loschiavo 1964).
Hess goes on to write that the "term gained currency and first appeared in official language in 1865. In a letter of 10 August, 1865, the delegato di Pubblica Sicurezza, the police agent, in Carini justifies an arrest by the charge that the arrested man had committed the delitto di mafia" (3). " Gradually the delitto di mafia came to mean more the offence of manutengolo, of being a fence or planner of crimes, and not so much the offence of malandrino, of banditry, of being an executant criminal.
Eventually the word mafia was used, above all, for organized crime, until sensation-hungry journalists, confused northern Italian jurists and foreign authors interpreted it as the name of an organization. The emergence of the word was, then, linked with the emergence of a secret society and thus gave rise to fantastic speculations."(3).
He then goes on to add that the "theory which assigns the greatest antiquity to this society suggests that mafia is a corruption of the Arabic word mu afah, in which mu means something like 'inviolability, strength, vigour,' and afah something like "to secure, to protect.' Mu afah had therefore been an association which provided security for its members" (3). Among other possibilities, Hess also cites the Sicilian vespers (1282) and the slogan "Morte alla Francia Italia anela!" which he mistranslates as "Death to France, Italy groans" as opposed to desires. (3).
Yet another improbable source is seen "as an acronym for the slogan 'Mazzini autorizza furti, incendi, avvelenamenti" (Mazzini authorizes theft, arson, poisoning).
"And finally, the mafia was seen as a secret masonic society, said to have been founded by five men in Mazara del Vallo in 1799" (4). "About 1875 the concept off mafia penetrated also into German, French, and English" (4). He cites no sources.
Sourced from http://www.sicilianculture.com/mafia/mafiawords.htm
-
Funny, the people that cry with outrage when Mexican Police cross the border by mistake think that it is OK to send search and destroy teams into a sovereign country.
Bet your hat has two peaks also. :rofl
Boy your analogies are really brilliant. :rofl Russia basically created the separatist issue in Georgia and then invaded to crush hopes of Georgian freedom and bring them back into the control of Russia. I dont see the comparisons between that and chasing Terrorists across a mountain region border. But, then again, Im not Canadian.
I predicted all this would happen. I called Pakistan a quasi terrorist supporting state, the fact is elements of Pakistani Intelligance and Military have always had close relations with the Taliban.
If the muslims (by that i gather you mean terrorists) operates within the borders of another sovreing country its thier problem and their _responsobility_. Unless that country asks for help you have no business going there.
Gee you think it complicates things when they cross the border and kill NATO troops? :huh
-
respecting the sovereignty of pakistan is not an issue. pakistan is through incompetence or complicity(doesn't matter which) harbouring enemies of the the united states and the rest of the western world in general.
special forces ops and surgical strikes with uav's is fine and dandy for bumping off the odd aq big wig but all that's going to amount to imo is years of prolonged torture and ultimately a loss that even the euros will regret in hindsight.
this sensitive new age of warfare is bs and just keeps the opposition in the game. i have said it here before..screw popularity, carpet bomb the crap out of aq and the taleban's pakistan safe havens. beats me why it hasn't been done yet. paki nukes? chit happens... most of em are probably duds anyway.
-
hmm... they seem to have the military to fire on our troops, but not to arrest terrorists... Kinda odd isn't it? :rolleyes:
-
Huh. Pakistan can't flush out terrorists that have hunkered down in their country but they are going to find and fire on special forces operations that cross the border? I don't think so.
The most probable explanation of this announcement is that Paki gubment is attempting to appease its Muslim populace shaking its finger and giving the US a hollow threat.
-
We damn sure did when we went to war in Iraq.
Unit names?
Seriously name one unit pulled from Afghanistan and sent to invade Iraq.
-
You did, you also dropped bombs on cambodia and caused many civilian casualties. These actions helped the Khmer Rouge gain support in eastern parts of Cambodia.
Its a fine line between chasing terrorists into someone elses sovereign land and becoming a terrorist yourself. Start doing this and you'll see even less support from pakistan and create sympathy for those terrorists you're trying to destroy.
And don't have a big cry if some foreign goverment sanctions similar acts on US terroritory because it doesn't like the US training some 'freedom fighters'. If you can't respect other peoples borders don't expect them to respect yours.
The attacks into Cambodia and Laos were very limited in number and caused such a huge international uproar that they were discontinued. For the most part, the Viet Cong and NVA forces were left alone in their sanctuaries in Cambodia and Laos.
As far as the part in bold.....umm....riiiiiight.
-
Apparently there was a US special forces operation in the tribal lands of Pakistan recently and the Pakistanis are understandably upset. I guess their military has ordered their troops to fire on any US forces operating within Pakistan territory.
That would be a hell of a thing :O
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hkiMxbHNH0BqgpWA2ZG6VD6wVTmAD937RO2G0
As far as Im concerned the Pakis are harboring terrorists, but what do I know......
i think those firing on our troops may find that to be a fatal mistake.
-
I had friends serve in '06 and I have one that is due to rotate out of Afghanistan next week. Things are not much better there in terms of Talliban than in '06. The turds are still setting up IED's and lobbing shells at camps and bugging out. They are like a crow messing with a Pitbull on a chain. They know just how far the Pitbull can go and they stand outside his reach and tease him.
I think the biggest mistake in Afghanistan is NATO takin over. Is is a war or isn't it? I say chase them into every crack and crevice and destroy them in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Canada, USA, Britain, Australia or whereever you need to. No more fighting with one hand tied behind your back, if Pakistan doesn't like it a few fly overs from B2's outta tell them to shut the F*ck up.
-
Careful Skernsk; Torque will come along and brand you as a Canadian neocon member of the evil empire!
For all the rest of yas... we can go into Pakistan anytime we want. The Obamessiah said so and he is a beloved world leader recently back from a victory tour of Europe. :P
-
Careful Skernsk; Torque will come along and brand you as a Canadian neocon member of the evil empire!
LOL! I've been branded worse than that. Having seen and heard first hand accounts I am of the belief that if we are commited to being there and having men and women in harms way - those men and women should do whatever it takes to get the job done. War is ugly, it should not have conditions and rules. One side (ours) follows certain rules and guidelines while the other (Taliban) does not. That is a no way to win a war and Vietman taught us that.
As for Obama or McCain, I would support the president that wants to win at all costs so the conflict will be over much faster. Let's face it, whichever one wins is adopting 'the Iraq' and Afghanistan from the previous president. Pulling out is not a good option - so go with the one who has the balls to do what needs to be done.
-
Its a fine line between chasing terrorists into someone elses sovereign land and becoming a terrorist yourself. Start doing this and you'll see even less support from pakistan and create sympathy for those terrorists you're trying to destroy.
And don't have a big cry if some foreign goverment sanctions similar acts on US terroritory because it doesn't like the US training some 'freedom fighters'. If you can't respect other peoples borders don't expect them to respect yours.
:aok
How about sending Intel and pictures to Pakistan and they can use it to capture the Taliban and it will help them win respect in the world comunity. What a blow to the terrorists if Pakistan caught Bin Laden.
-
:aok
How about sending Intel and pictures to Pakistan and they can use it to capture the Taliban and it will help them win respect in the world comunity. What a blow to the terrorists if Pakistan caught Bin Laden.
That would be all fine and dandy....if the Pakistani Army was willing to go into those tribal areas and actually capable of winning a fight. They tried before and took to many casualties so they pulled out.
-
Obvious to me that the American general populous have no idea about how hard it is to govern Pakistan. If you sent 10,000 troops into north Pakistan they will find squat in there even after a year. No matter who was in charge it would take years to even get a third of the Taliban that are hiding out there. Afghanistan fighters and Pakistan's government are not "friends" at all . In fact Pakistan has come under heavy terrorist attacks my a subsidiary of the Taliban several times this year.
If you American arm chair generals want to get them raise a private army (goodness knows your well armed enough) YOU go flush them out. YOU go in there and face them . YOU go and run around in a few thousand square miles looking in thousand of miles of canyons. YOU try and find bands of 12 highly mobile men in that much land.
The British found out the hard way with India , Pakistan and Afghanistan how hard it is to find people. Same goes for Russia too in the 80's . Modern technology wont help you and just flooding over into another state wont help you either.
IN fact America should give back Montana, Virginia and most of Pennsylvania back to lord Mountbatten in the UK as they were seized in an illegal manner during the American war of independence . :salute
-
IN fact America should give back Montana, Virginia and most of Pennsylvania back to lord Mountbatten in the UK as they were seized in an illegal manner during the American war of independence . :salute
It pays to be the winner.
-
I believe that crossing the border is only occurring if we are directly in pursuit of Taliban or Al-Qaeada personnel.
From what I read we are not conducting cross border search and destroy missions.
-
IN fact America should give back Montana, Virginia and most of Pennsylvania back to lord Mountbatten in the UK as they were seized in an illegal manner during the American war of independence . :salute
You were doing real good until that bit of horse squeeze made you sound like a moonbat. :eek:
-
It pays to be the winner.
I was just having a joke with that line. and i should have said AFTER.
now you see it was only AFTER hostilities had ended with Britain did the land get taken from the earl of Sussex. ergo the US actually broke the peace treaty that had been agreed . The government at that time thought it would be best to be a good loser and let it lie .
Mind you when the US government asked the newest earl if they could have the land he owned next to the US embassy he said : "Yes on one condition ; that you hand back the land that is rightfully mine."
The US state department were going to agree until they saw the full extent of the land involved (he had the original deeds) . Needless to say they decided that the land they already had at the embassy would be just fine.
Bear in mind please that my previous posts were not aimed at US service men.
-
Jebus. How many muslim countries do we need to control to win the war on terror? You can't destroy their will to fight. They will always fight.
They derive their will to fight from being beaten down. Look, look. We're being oppressed! Go blow yourself up and get into a higher level of heaven!
How about we just keep all the little squealing turds out of our country? Call it discrimination or whatever. Easier to figure out where the turds are in your own yard than finding turds in your neighbor's yard.
-
I was just having a joke with that line. and i should have said AFTER.
now you see it was only AFTER hostilities had ended with Britain did the land get taken from the earl of Sussex. ergo the US actually broke the peace treaty that had been agreed . The government at that time thought it would be best to be a good loser and let it lie .
Mind you when the US government asked the newest earl if they could have the land he owned next to the US embassy he said : "Yes on one condition ; that you hand back the land that is rightfully mine."
The US state department were going to agree until they saw the full extent of the land involved (he had the original deeds) . Needless to say they decided that the land they already had at the embassy would be just fine.
Bear in mind please that my previous posts were not aimed at US service men.
It was intended as humor bud. ;)
<S>
-
when I read the story in the news paper I laughed for a whole 2 hours after.
-
Jebus. How many muslim countries do we need to control to win the war on terror?
How many muslim countries are there again? :eek:
-
And the rabid islamo-phobia raises it's head yet again.
And Skernsk - the US didn't hand Afghanistan over to NATO. British troops were in from day 1.
-
The attacks into Cambodia and Laos were very limited in number and caused such a huge international uproar that they were discontinued. For the most part, the Viet Cong and NVA forces were left alone in their sanctuaries in Cambodia and Laos.
As far as the part in bold.....umm....riiiiiight.
Are you saying you believetheres never been foreign government sponsored attacks against the US?0
-
respecting the sovereignty of pakistan is not an issue. pakistan is through incompetence or complicity(doesn't matter which) harbouring enemies of the the united states and the rest of the western world in general.
And what did the US do about AQ cells operating WITHIN the USA pre-911?
I wouldn't be throwing stones in glasshouses if I were the US.
-
:aok
How about sending Intel and pictures to Pakistan and they can use it to capture the Taliban and it will help them win respect in the world community. What a blow to the terrorists if Pakistan caught Bin Laden.
Gee another military expert that thinks you can find individual people, in huge, wild, mountainous regions, using satellite photos.
And even if we had this magical technology what makes you think the Pakistanis would use it? Even more so, what makes you think they would mount a large military campaign to find the guy? They really dont want to find him. They really dont want to mess with the tribes in these regions. And plenty in the Paki Intel community side with them anyway. Dont forget, Pakistani Intelligence created the Taliban.
Pakistan's army isn't exactly NATO standard anyways. They simply aren't capable of mounting, and sustaining, offensive operations in these regions. Even if they wanted to, which they dont. They have tried before and gotten their butts kicked.
Catching Bin Laden is almost irrelevant at this point anyways. He has always been nothing more then a figurehead , and fainancier, for a militant religious movement intent on destroying the non-Muslim world. None of thats going to change even if we do catch him. The fact is this movement has a large presence in that TO either thru active participation, financing, or just plain sympathy/support in both the ME and EA TO. Most of all in Pakistan itself, all the way from common citizens, up to their higher levels of its Intel/military community.
-
Dont forget, Pakistani Intelligence created the Taliban.
*cough* and trained/armed by the CIA.
-
Just out of interest, how would the US have reacted had the British Government decided to have the SAS carry out operations against IRA operatives being harboured in New York and Boston during the 70's and 80's when clearly the US government was incapable or unwilling to do anything about them?
Just asking...
-
How do yo know they didn't? eh? hehe.
But I like your question, it's the best rebuttal I've seen so far.
-
Just out of interest, how would the US have reacted had the British Government decided to have the SAS carry out operations against IRA operatives being harboured in New York and Boston during the 70's and 80's when clearly the US government was incapable or unwilling to do anything about them?
Just asking...
IRA :O But the US is the good guys...... They couldn't of harboured the IRA :rofl
(the stupidest war ever is the war between the orange and the green)
-
(the stupidest war ever is the war between the orange and the green)
At last - something on which I think we can all agree :aok
-
Just out of interest, how would the US have reacted had the British Government decided to have the SAS carry out operations against IRA operatives being harboured in New York and Boston during the 70's and 80's when clearly the US government was incapable or unwilling to do anything about them?
Just asking...
We pay them (2 billion+ annually) for results, they yeild nothing butt sad stories and excuses, now we just get the results ourselves. I think they've passed the limits of our patients. The Osama is bought and paid for, whether they like it or not, we'll come get him ourselves. If they want to fire back,... then best I can say is I wish them well on their aiming, because we'd gun smoke them in seconds. All IMO of course. "Your time is UP!!"
I don't mind if we go in after Osama, because if he's there they were probably protecting him anyway. And I don't mind if they fire back, refer to the statement above. I would suggest it's a hint to them to stop sitting on their hands and produce results. We wouldn't go there if we didn't know for sure he was there anyway. If he's there within their reach and they've done nothing for the approx 10 billion we've sent them,.. well then they have some questions to answer.
That money has been tracked BTW by intelligence (not just CIA), part of it goes through payoffs to the taliban of Afgan with Pak whom then ship some to the underground afgan taliban, they take some and with Al Queada pre pay Afgan farmers there to grow poppies, they then sell the poppies ont he market for arms. Now we spend even more money in Afgan to fight to poppy growth because we know it's used to buy arms for Al Queada. The people who farm this and are pre paid for it are the losers, on many levels.
This is how stupid we've been. This is why I have NO objections to crossing that boarded and bringing back 2 heads on sticks.
And this is what I mean about people educating themselves instead of always picking off the top layer of a pile.
There was one show on PBS with an intelligence agent (woman) who layed out exactly where and who the money is going that we ship to Pak. You MAY find it on YouTube, but there has been other such reports since that don't seem to make it to main stream media. Check it out, I would love for someone to prove me wrong on this,...in a serious way,...I really want to believe that this isn't true. It was layed out too perfect for me to deny it.
-
Just out of interest, how would the US have reacted had the British Government decided to have the SAS carry out operations against IRA operatives being harboured in New York and Boston during the 70's and 80's when clearly the US government was incapable or unwilling to do anything about them?
Just asking...
Which operatives were these? We have an extradition treaty did you know that?
We have large Irish populations in both citys and they pretty much figured the Brits in Ireland were illegal occupation troops.
But name the names of those terrorists the US Govt. colluded with and hid?
-
*cough* and trained/armed by the CIA.
"cough"! The CIA had nothing to do with the creation of the Taliban. Its true we armed certain factions and provided training for Mujahadeen forces in their war against the Soviets. And its true "some" of these fighters ended up being Taliban. The real truth is the majority of the Taliban were religious students coming out of Pakistan's religious schools, or "madrassas".
But still the illusion exists in the world that "America created the Taliban" like we created everything else. And people stupidly repeat these falsehoods like Dodos enroute to extinction without even making an effort to research the truth.
The ISI, Pakistani Intelligence, weren't about to trust the various Afghan warlords to run the place after the Soviet withdrawal created a power vacuum. They figured they would have influence with the students coming out of their fundamentalist madrassas, including BTW the entire Taliban leadership, which are funded by the Saudis, and have always been hotbeds of anti-Western ideals. Even Osamas recruits were made up of non-Afghan Arabs who stayed on after the war eventually becoming Al Qaeda. Osama himself created "Maktab al Khidamar", or MAK, an organization that funneled non Afghan recruits into the war and collected vast sums of money for it from the Arab world.
The CIA never had direct dealings with him or MAK. BinLaden hated and distrusted Americans and we didn't trust him.
Pakistan's reason for creating the Taliban, and helping them take power, was because they wanted to secure Afghan trade routes and they wanted stability on their western border. Eventually the Taliban bit the hand that created it. Their alliances with Pashtun tribal factions and fundamentalist terror groups began to cause great concern in Pakistan's leadership. They were also worried about their own ISI, "remember Musharraf was set up in a attempted assassination". He was saved by a Yank explosives protection device installed in his Limo. Eventually the Taliban became a Frankenstein monster the Pakistanis had no control or influence over.
Boy, instead of reciting actual history I could have just typed a one liner, "The CIA armed and trained the Taliban". I bet 99% of the worlds population would have said, "Oh yeah, thats right".
99% of the worlds population is an awful lot of Dodo birds. I'm glad I'm part of the 1% that knows how to read, research, and use a search engine.
-
Are you saying you believetheres never been foreign government sponsored attacks against the US?0
From foreign militaries? Japan had a couple lamer attempts....Mexico tried years and years ago....The War of Independence, War of 1812.....
9/11 and the World Trade Center bombings weren't sponsored by foreign governments.....various other terrorist attacks on embassies and the USS Cole, none sponsored by foreign governments.
What am I missing? Remember, it has to be on US territory as you originally specified.
-
And what did the US do about AQ cells operating WITHIN the USA pre-911?
I wouldn't be throwing stones in glasshouses if I were the US.
9/11 changed everything concerning terrorists and terrorism for the US.
-
While there is nothing directly linking the CIA to the rise of the Taliban as we know it today, there is a lot of evidence supporting American influence on the tribal resistance movements against the Russians in Afghanistan that became the Taliban we all know and love today.
Arming the Afghan resistance
The decision to arm the Afghan resistance came within two weeks of the Soviet invasion, and quickly gained momentum.(21) In 1980, the Carter administration allocated only $30 million for the Afghan resistance, though under the Reagan administration this amount grew steadily. In 1985, Congress earmarked $250 million for Afghanistan, while Saudi Arabia contributed an equal amount. Two years later, with Saudi Arabia still reportedly matching contributions, annual American aid to the mujahidin reportedly reached $630 million.(22) This does not include contributions made by other Islamic countries, Israel, the People’s Republic of China, and Europe. Many commentators cite the huge flow of American aid to Afghanistan as if it occurred in a vacuum; it did not. According to Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid, the Soviet Union contributed approximately $5 billion per year into Afghanistan in an effort to support their counterinsurgency efforts and prop up the puppet government in Kabul.(23) Milton Bearden, Central Intelligence Agency station chief in Pakistan between 1986 and 1989, commented that by 1985, the occupying Soviet 40th army had swollen to almost 120,000 troops and with some other elements crossing into the Afghan theater on a temporary duty basis.(24)
Initially, the CIA refused to provide American arms to the resistance, seeking to maintain plausible deniability.(25) (The State Department, too, also opposed providing American-made weapons for fear of antagonizing the Soviet Union.(26) The 1983 suggestion of American Ambassador to Pakistan Ronald Spiers, that the U.S. provide Stingers to the mujahidin accordingly went nowhere for several years.(27) Much of the resistance to the supply of Stinger missiles was generated internally from the CIA station chief’s desire (prior to the accession of Bearden to the post) to keep the covert assistance program small and inconspicuous. Instead, the millions appropriated went to purchase Chinese, Warsaw Pact, and Israeli weaponry. Only in March 1985, did Reagan’s national security team formally decide to switch their strategy from mere harassment of Soviet forces in Afghanistan to driving the Red Army completely out of the country.(28) After vigorous internal debate, Reagan’s military and national security advisors agreed to provide the mujahidin with the Stinger anti-aircraft missile. At the time, the United States possessed only limited numbers of the weapon. Some of the Joint Chiefs of Staff also feared accountability problems and proliferation of the technology to Third World countries.(29) It was not until September 1986, that the Reagan administration decided to supply Stinger anti-aircraft missiles to the mujahidin, thereby breaking the embargo on "Made-in-America" arms.
[While there was significant fear of Stinger missiles falling into the wrong hands in the 1990s, very little attention was paid to the threat from the anti-aircraft missiles in the 2001 U.S. campaign against the Taliban. This may have been due to an early 1990s covert campaign to purchase or otherwise recover surplus Stinger missiles still in the hands of the mujahidin factions .](30)
The CIA may have coordinated purchase of weapons and the initial training, but Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) controlled their distribution and their transport to the war zone. John McMahon, deputy director of the CIA, attempted to limit CIA interaction with the mujahidin. Even at the height of American involvement in Afghanistan, very few CIA operatives were allowed into the field.(31) Upon the weapons’ arrival at the port of Karachi or the Islamabad airport, the ISI would transport the weapons to depots near Rawalpindi or Quetta, and hence on to the Afghan border.(32)
The ISI used its coordinating position to promote Pakistani interests as it saw them (within Pakistan, the ISI is often described as "a state within a state").(33) The ISI refused to recognize any Afghan resistance group that was not religiously based. Neither the Pushtun nationalist Afghan Millat party, nor members of the Afghan royal family were able to operate legally in Pakistani territory. The ISI did recognize seven groups, but insisted on contracting directly with each individual group in order to maintain maximum leverage. Pakistani intelligence was therefore able to reward compliant factions among the fiercely competitive resistance figures.(34) Indeed, the ISI tended to favor Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, perhaps the most militant Islamist of the mujahidin commanders, largely because Hekmatyar was also a strong proponent of the Pakistani-sponsored Islamist insurgency in Kashmir.(35) Masud, the most effective Mujahid commander, but a Tajik, received only eight Stingers from the ISI during the war.
Outside observers were not unaware that Pakistan had gained disproportionate influence through aid distribution. However, India, the greatest possible diplomatic check to Washington’s escalating relationship with Islamabad, removed herself from any position of influence because its unabashed pro-Soviet policy eviscerated any American fear of antagonizing India. The U.S. State Department considered India a lost cause.(36)
While beneficial to Pakistani national interests at least in the short-term, the ISI’s strategy had long-term consequences in promoting the Islamism and fractiousness of the mujahidin. However, the degree to which disunity would plague the mujahidin did not become fully apparent until after the withdrawal of the Soviet army from Afghanistan.
Afghanistan was a bleeding wound for the Soviet Union. Each year, the Red Army suffered thousands of casualties. Numerous Soviets died of disease and drug addiction. The quick occupation had bogged down into a huge economic drain at a time of tightening Soviet resources. In 1988, Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev announced his intention to withdraw Soviet troops. Despite Gorbachev’s continued military and economic assistance to Najibullah, Afghanistan’s communist president, most analysts believed the Najibullah would quickly collapse. The CIA expected that, at most, Najibullah would remain in power for one year following the Soviet withdrawal.
However, Najibullah proved the skeptics wrong. Mujahidin offensives in the wake of the Soviet withdrawal failed. Washington had only budgeted money to support the mujahdin for one year following the Soviet withdrawal, but Saudi and Kuwaiti donors provided emergency aid, much of which went to Hikmaytar and other Wahabi commanders.(37) While the United States budgeted $250 million for the mujahidin in 1991, the following year the Bush administration allocated no money for military assistance. Money is influence, and individuals in the Persian Gulf continued to provide almost $400 million annually to the Afghan mujahidin.(38)
Many Afghan specialists criticized the United States for merely walking away from Afghanistan after the fall of the Soviet Union. Ed Girardet, a journalist and Afghanistan expert, observed, "The United States really blew it. They dropped Afghanistan like a hot potato."(39) Indeed, Washington’s lack of engagement created a policy void in which radical elements in the ISI eagerly filled. However, to consider Afghanistan in a vacuum ignores the crisis that developed when, on August 2, 1990, Iraqi troops invaded Kuwait. Washington’s attention and her resources shifted from the last battle of the Cold War to a different type of conflict.
Islamist commanders like Hikmaytar, upset with the U.S.-led coalition in the Persian Gulf, broke with their Saudi and Kuwait patrons and found new backers in Iran, Libya, and Iraq. [Granted, while the break was sudden, the relationship with Tehran was not. Hikmaytar had started much earlier to collaborate with Iran]. It was only in this second phase of the Afghan war, a phase that developed beyond much of the Western world’s notice, that Afghan Arabs first became a significant political, if not military, force in Afghanistan.
Quoted from http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2002/issue1/jv6n1a1.html
It's an interesting article for those with the patience to actually read it.
It's not a smoking gun and the blame is multifaceted. The two biggest contributors were both Russia and America, one being the the catalyst for involvement of the other. We will be feeling the effects of the "cold" war for a long time to come.
-
From foreign militaries? Japan had a couple lamer attempts....Mexico tried years and years ago....The War of Independence, War of 1812.....
9/11 and the World Trade Center bombings weren't sponsored by foreign governments.....various other terrorist attacks on embassies and the USS Cole, none sponsored by foreign governments.
What am I missing? Remember, it has to be on US territory as you originally specified.
Libya.
-
Libya.
Libya attacked US soil? When?
-
A PanAm 747... US Flagged air carrier = attack on 'American Soil'
-
This article pretty much describes the problem with Pakistan spot on.. Too bad the powers that be only realise this once it's a bit too late.
http://www.slate.com/id/2200134
-
A PanAm 747... US Flagged air carrier = attack on 'American Soil'
Exactly right. And Condoleeza Rice just got back from meetings with Mr. Qaddafi... he was the SPONSOR of that bombing.
Talk about hypocrites.
-
A PanAm 747... US Flagged air carrier = attack on 'American Soil'
Unless it happened in American airspace I don't consider that an attack on American territory.
-
Exactly right. And Condoleeza Rice just got back from meetings with Mr. Qaddafi... he was the SPONSOR of that bombing.
Talk about hypocrites.
Mr Qaddafi has been changing his ways since 9/11. What exactly is hypocritical about dealing with the repentant?
-
While there is nothing directly linking the CIA to the rise of the Taliban as we know it today, there is a lot of evidence supporting American influence on the tribal resistance movements against the Russians in Afghanistan that became the Taliban we all know and love today.
I want everyone to read that three times. The first time just gloss over it. The 2nd time really read it and try to understand it. And the 3rd time read it just for the purpose of clapping afterwards. :aok
-
Which operatives were these? We have an extradition treaty did you know that?
We have large Irish populations in both citys and they pretty much figured the Brits in Ireland were illegal occupation troops.
But name the names of those terrorists the US Govt. colluded with and hid?
Really?
1. Who said anything about the US Government colluding with Irish terrorists? American citizens yes, but the government no. The government just didn't do much about it - at least until Clinton came to power. NORAID anyone? Not a dissimilar situation to the claims being made about the Pakistani Government and the Taliban in fact.
2. "We have large Irish populations in both citys and they pretty much figured the Brits in Ireland were illegal occupation troops." - Again, not dissimilar to much of the Pakistani population's view of the collation forces in Afghanistan.
And don't get me started on US extradition treaties. Those pretty much only operate in one direction...
-
Really?
1. Who said anything about the US Government colluding with Irish terrorists? American citizens yes, but the government no. The government just didn't do much about it - at least until Clinton came to power. NORAID anyone? Not a dissimilar situation to the claims being made about the Pakistani Government and the Taliban in fact.
2. "We have large Irish populations in both citys and they pretty much figured the Brits in Ireland were illegal occupation troops." - Again, not dissimilar to much of the Pakistani population's view of the collation forces in Afghanistan.
And don't get me started on US extradition treaties. Those pretty much only operate in one direction...
I notice you didnt answer my question and name any names our Govt. hid from English prosecution. You didnt even name any names our Irish drunks hid from ya.
Only a moron would compare any of that with Al Qaeda, whom BTW hates the sinfull English too. Remember when they turned your tubes into hamburger patties? Or was that the fault of the Yanks too?
But do get started anyways. Because "a day with taking a bash at the Yanks is like a day without sunshine".
-
Moron? Eight Died in Irac with ties to the IRA but some how you don't think the IRA is bad? Only difference is the Irish don't blow themselves up (if they can help it).
"We are seeing technology in Iraq today that it took the IRA 20 years to develop," said a military intelligence officer with experience in Northern Ireland.
He revealed that one trigger used in a recent Iraqi bombing was a three-way device, combining a command wire, a radio signal and an infra-red beam - a technique perfected by the IRA.
Britain claims that the bomb-making expertise now being used in southern Iraq was passed on by Iran's Revolutionary Guard through Hizbollah, the revolutionary Islamist group it sponsors in Lebanon.
But a former agent who infiltrated the IRA told The Independent on Sunday that the technology reached the Middle East through the IRA's co-operation with Palestinian groups. In turn, some of these groups used to be sponsored by Saddam Hussein and his Baath party.
The former agent added: "The photographic flashgun unit was replaced with infra-red and then coded infra-red, but basically they were variations of the same device. The technology came from the security forces, but the IRA always shared its equipment and expertise with Farc guerrillas in Colombia, the Basque separatists, ETA and Palestinian groups. There is no doubt in my mind that the technology used to kill our troops in Basra is the same British technology from a decade ago."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/revealed-ira-bombs-killed-eight-british-soldiers-in-iraq-511177.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/revealed-ira-bombs-killed-eight-british-soldiers-in-iraq-511177.html)
-
I notice you didnt answer my question and name any names our Govt. hid from English prosecution. You didnt even name any names our Irish drunks hid from ya.
Only a moron would compare any of that with Al Qaeda, whom BTW hates the sinfull English too. Remember when they turned your tubes into hamburger patties? Or was that the fault of the Yanks too?
But do get started anyways. Because "a day with taking a bash at the Yanks is like a day without sunshine".
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE3D6173EF930A25752C0A964958260 (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE3D6173EF930A25752C0A964958260)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/northern_ireland/latest_news/190578.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/northern_ireland/latest_news/190578.stm)
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE3D9103CF93BA25750C0A960948260 (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE3D9103CF93BA25750C0A960948260)
-
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE3D6173EF930A25752C0A964958260 (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE3D6173EF930A25752C0A964958260)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/northern_ireland/latest_news/190578.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/northern_ireland/latest_news/190578.stm)
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE3D9103CF93BA25750C0A960948260 (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE3D9103CF93BA25750C0A960948260)
McMullen was eventually extradited to Britian. http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/law/docs/mcelrath00.htm
. Proceedings against McMullen commenced again and the extradition request was granted. McMullen was extradited to Britain after spending nine years incarcerated in the United States awaiting either deportation or extradition hearings. His case, however, generated little support from Irish America (O’Hanlon 1996), largely because of his status as an IRA informant.
As to the other links I dont have time right new. Got to go to work.
-
florida is a great place for a terrorist to retire... just ask orlando bosch.
bin laden helped build the khost tunnel complex in 1986... the christians in action.... or cia was funding it as a major arms storage depot and training facility for the mujaheddin... it is where he first setup camp.
afganistan is pretty much a lost mission... it's where empires go off to die.
-
lol imagine if US decides to go in Pakistan.... get ready for comparisons like the Russian sideshow last month.
One slight difference between us and Russia.
Once we go into a country.
We typically tend to give it back.
And do so in better shape then it was when we got there.
-
One slight difference between us and Russia.
Once we go into a country.
We typically tend to give it back.
And do so in better shape then it was when we got there.
WELL that makes you SO much better then :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
WELL that makes you SO much better then :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
I don't see what's so funny? Yes, it would make it better that the standard of living is better when we left than when we came...instead of burned down apartment blocks as in the case of Russia.
-
Moron? Eight Died in Irac with ties to the IRA but some how you don't think the IRA is bad? Only difference is the Irish don't blow themselves up (if they can help it).
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/revealed-ira-bombs-killed-eight-british-soldiers-in-iraq-511177.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/revealed-ira-bombs-killed-eight-british-soldiers-in-iraq-511177.html)
::edit::
Nevermind
-
WELL that makes you SO much better then :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
It does