Meanwhile back in Afghanistan, You do remember Afghanistan?

GAMETHEORY

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
PH2008062702720.jpg


U.S. defense officials said incremental progress in Afghanistan contrasts with significant challenges ahead. The 72-page report, which reviews the war from 2001 through April 10, 2008, offers a bleak assessment of a conflict that commanders think requires more resources and attention.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/27/AR2008062702202.html?hpid=topnews
 
Almost 6 - 7 Years And They Are Still Anticipating More Violence, They Should Understand That Talibans Arent To Be Fukked With. Good Post FAM
 
(1) We were supposed to Afghanistan. Still don't understand why Congress let us go to Iraq and why we're still there. No intelligence reports provided any evidence of Talib (not Al-Queda) or Osama being in Iraq

(2) Bush and Company requested to read RAW DATA. The reports were not filtered or scrubbed by the NSA or CIA, and thus they were reading and acting on a tremendous amount of misinformation and junk data which they automatically interepreted to be true.

(3) Now it looks like Bush and Co. are trying to send us in the direction of Iran next.


(4) I think everyone forgets that the Talib do not see this as war. They see it as a religious crusade and are will to continue this campaign for several generations.

(5) Has America not learned from Russia, Persia, France, etc. etc. ... all the way back to bibilical ages, YOU CANNOT BEAT AN AFGHANI on AFGHANI SOIL!
 
Last edited:
(1) We were supposed to Afghanistan. Still don't understand why Congress let us go to Iraq and why we're still there. No intelligence reports provided any evidence of Talib (not Al-Queda) or Osama being in Iraq

(2) Bush and Company requested to read RAW DATA. The reports were not filtered or scrubbed by the NSA or CIA, and thus they were reading and acting on a tremendous amount of misinformation and junk data which they automatically interepreted to be true.

(3) Now it looks like Bush and Co. are trying to send us in the direction of Iran next.


(4) I think everyone forgets that the Talib do not see this as war. They see it as a religious crusade and are will to continue this campaign for several generations.

(5) Has America not learned from Russia, Persia, France, etc. etc. ... all the way back to bibilical ages, YOU CANNOT BEAT AN AFGHANI on AFGHANI SOIL!

Its Gurillea warfare. That is something an organized military cannot win.
 
The only man to successfully conquer Afghanistan was Alexander the Great and even then, he didnt hold onto control over the land for too long.
 
He speaks the truth, neither of these wars would be dragging ass if the military wasn't playing Mr. Nice guy.

Surely not. Rumsfeld insisted that it would be easy to fight two wars at once.

Worse still, the Taliban is quite aware of these issues, and can live quite easily with the local defeats. In its own terms, it is winning: it picks the fights that Nato forces then respond to, and these are more often than not located within civilian populations. Nato's firepower against the Taliban defeats it, but also causes disproportionate damage to civilian infrastructure, and in some cases also kills innocent civilians. The end result is awful: a military engagement won, a population lost.



2007 deaths in Afghanistan (estimates and claims)

117 US troops
115 NATO troops
925+ Afghan police
4,500 Taliban militants (160 suicide attacks)
1,500 Afghan civilians

http://icasualties.org/oef/
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/12/ap_afghanistan_casualties_071231/
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hZPqcuvhykxJnphxSWql2fr3hcrw

For detailed examples, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_the_War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)#2007
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan#2007
 
americans and history. lol @ the bomb em more strategy.

It's not a bomb em more strategy man, no one is smart enough to keep going back to a fight thats getting there ass handing to them countless times. Over here in Iraq you got small time insurgents and them crazy foreign extremist, you keep handing them there ass and they gon stop its proven. Them foreign mugs be gettin ratted out by locals, but i guess you would have to be over here to know how aggresive one should be.
 
(1) We were supposed to Afghanistan. Still don't understand why Congress let us go to Iraq and why we're still there. No intelligence reports provided any evidence of Talib (not Al-Queda) or Osama being in Iraq



Please remember that although Bush, Powell and company promised to provided "incontrovertible evidence" that in fact Bin Laden and some group they keep calling "Al Qaeda" was responsible for 9/11 no such evidence has EVER been provided. To this day the only thing that can be pointed to is some suspect video of someone claiming to be Bin Laden supposedly taking credit for 9/11.:smh: The other "evidence" of primarily Saudi hijackers....who were in strip clubs with Korans the night before the alleged hijackings, who took passports (later to be discovered in perfect condition among the rubble within days after the wtc collapse) and other absurd items onto suicide flights, who allegedly left copies of plans, Korans and other perfectly ridiculous items in cars left parked at airports... is all shit a child might believe...but then many americans have the intellect of children. :smh:

So no other then an interest in securing and controlling the gateway to the Caspian and perhaps an interest in drug money and profits there was absolutely no reason for the U.S. to be in Afghanistan.
 
Surely not. Rumsfeld insisted that it would be easy to fight two wars at once.

Worse still, the Taliban is quite aware of these issues, and can live quite easily with the local defeats. In its own terms, it is winning: it picks the fights that Nato forces then respond to, and these are more often than not located within civilian populations. Nato's firepower against the Taliban defeats it, but also causes disproportionate damage to civilian infrastructure, and in some cases also kills innocent civilians. The end result is awful: a military engagement won, a population lost.



2007 deaths in Afghanistan (estimates and claims)

117 US troops
115 NATO troops
925+ Afghan police
4,500 Taliban militants (160 suicide attacks)
1,500 Afghan civilians

http://icasualties.org/oef/
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/12/ap_afghanistan_casualties_071231/
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hZPqcuvhykxJnphxSWql2fr3hcrw

For detailed examples, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_the_War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)#2007
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan#2007

With that being said I didn't think neither of these wars would have been won from the jump start, no matter how much military might you have. As much as the U.S is hated anybody can pick up arms and join the Jihad or whatever you want to call it against the west.
 
With the end of the Cold War, NATO has no purpose other than satisfying militarist urges. Any reasonable person would be glad to see the end of it. The United States has no business keeping troops in Europe.

I have to laugh about Afghanistan though. Everyone fell right into Bin Laden's trap. What do you think 9/11 was about, if not to provoke an attack on Afghanistan so that Bin Laden could tie down the West the same way the Afghans tied down the Soviet Union (hell, Al Qaeda knew that the West would try to enlist the Northern Alliance, so they took the trouble to assassinate its leader a couple of days before).

Our leaders are incompetent cretins. Osama must wake up every morning and thank Allah for the stupidity of our leaders.
 
With that being said I didn't think neither of these wars would have been won from the jump start, no matter how much military might you have. As much as the U.S is hated anybody can pick up arms and join the Jihad or whatever you want to call it against the west.

That is a problem, I agree. I would also say that when we engage these people, it's chalked up as civilian deaths when UN Law clearly states that anyone who picks up a weapon to engage is armed conflict is a COMBATANT.

We just get the short end of the stick when it comes to that because everyone hates the US, though I say a lot of their hate is justified.

It's time to do like China did and close our doors for about 30 years and handle our own business.
 
With the end of the Cold War, NATO has no purpose other than satisfying militarist urges. Any reasonable person would be glad to see the end of it. The United States has no business keeping troops in Europe.

I have to laugh about Afghanistan though. Everyone fell right into Bin Laden's trap. What do you think 9/11 was about, if not to provoke an attack on Afghanistan so that Bin Laden could tie down the West the same way the Afghans tied down the Soviet Union (hell, Al Qaeda knew that the West would try to enlist the Northern Alliance, so they took the trouble to assassinate its leader a couple of days before).

Our leaders are incompetent cretins. Osama must wake up every morning and thank Allah for the stupidity of our leaders.

:lol:

I somewhat agree, but your wordplay is fucking classic.
 
With that being said I didn't think neither of these wars would have been won from the jump start, no matter how much military might you have. As much as the U.S is hated anybody can pick up arms and join the Jihad or whatever you want to call it against the west.



"Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events."

-- Winston Churchill
 
WE COULD WIN OF WE STOP PLAYING NICE THIS IS WAR WE NEED TO BE MORE
AGGRESSIVE

He speaks the truth, neither of these wars would be dragging ass if the military wasn't playing Mr. Nice guy.

First what makes you think they aren't being agressive? and that they are playing "mr nice guy" :confused: Do you have any idea how many people have been killed? chemical weapons? Depleted uranium?

Second guerrilla warfare is like Aikido the harder your enemy fights the more he looses. With every house destroyed, with every woman, and child maimed and killed the U.S. has created 100 more implacable enemies where perhaps none existed before.

Finally you all speak of winning as if "winning" as you would define it is even part of the U.S. strategy. "Winning" to them could mean something other then ending the conflict decisively or saving american lives. remember who the fuck you are dealing with here. :hmm:
 
It's time to do like China did and close our doors for about 30 years and handle our own business.


Man you just don't know how much America would benefit from this, shit the world at that, let everything run its course.

America=World Police :smh:
 
With the end of the Cold War, NATO has no purpose other than satisfying militarist urges. Any reasonable person would be glad to see the end of it. The United States has no business keeping troops in Europe.

I have to laugh about Afghanistan though. Everyone fell right into Bin Laden's trap. What do you think 9/11 was about, if not to provoke an attack on Afghanistan so that Bin Laden could tie down the West the same way the Afghans tied down the Soviet Union (hell, Al Qaeda knew that the West would try to enlist the Northern Alliance, so they took the trouble to assassinate its leader a couple of days before).

Our leaders are incompetent cretins. Osama must wake up every morning and thank Allah for the stupidity of our leaders.

NATO was created in mind for the future..The combination of North American and European forces that would be the ultimate military arm for the combined states of North America and Europe. This is essentially what the Lisbon Treaty was for..to finally put a nail in the coffin in creating a Unified Europe to go hand in hand with a hobbled but unified USA/Mexico/Canada alliance (North American Union). Of course the economies of the sovereign nations of N. America must be simultaneously destroyed to accomplish this and for the most part it is looking on to be on track. I'm positive that Ireland will be forced into accepting the treaty once the economic situation deteriorates even further..then, we can have our great war.
 
no he's lucky his number 2 wants him alive. lol @ bin laden growing sunflower seeds.

I am generally dubious of the neocon assertion that protection of American security can and should be achieved by turning "problem states" into a garden of western democracy. It plays into American faith about the inherent superiority of American traditions and is thus especially seductive.

I think that the position needs to be openly and repeatedly questioned.
 
First what makes you think they aren't being agressive? and that they are playing "mr nice guy" :confused: Do you have any idea how many people have been killed? chemical weapons? Depleted uranium?

Second guerrilla warfare is like Aikido the harder your enemy fights the more he looses. With every house destroyed, with every woman, and child maimed and killed the U.S. has created 100 more implacable enemies where perhaps none existed before.

Finally you all speak of winning as if "winning" as you would define it is even part of the U.S. strategy. "Winning" to them could mean something other then ending the conflict decisively or saving american lives. remember who the fuck you are dealing with here. :hmm:

Calm down man I didn't say anything bout who's winning the war, dont put words in my mouth. I agree with most, these wars were lost a long time ago. The reason I can speak on how aggressive the military are is because I can witness this shit first hand.
 
NATO was created in mind for the future..The combination of North American and European forces that would be the ultimate military arm for the combined states of North America and Europe. This is essentially what the Lisbon Treaty was for..to finally put a nail in the coffin in creating a Unified Europe to go hand in hand with a hobbled but unified USA/Mexico/Canada alliance (North American Union). Of course the economies of the sovereign nations of N. America must be simultaneously destroyed to accomplish this and for the most part it is looking on to be on track. I'm positive that Ireland will be forced into accepting the treaty once the economic situation deteriorates even further..then, we can have our great war.

Taliban or what ever, they are Afghani people, it is their country, which for the last three decades has been reduced to rubble. No thanks to the likes of Reagan, that other great conservative republican, senile, I cannot remember that acted through two terms as President. The likes of Bin Laden and his radical are were his freedom fighters, and after he and his cohorts reneged the promises, they took up the cause against the US. It is not a justification but this is not the first time in the the US history this has happened.

Now at the 11th hour when the instigator Bush and Blair with their fraud war in Iraq and the BS of war on terror in Afghanistan are untenable, it is NATO that is to blame. When in fact British Military Leaders have said once too often that the bloody mess is much too much.

Now that Pakistani Musarraf, the other dictator is going to be chased out by his own kind, Islamic radicals in the N.W. Frontier will consolidate with all the others. The other facts are pure simple that in those mountains these, who ever they are, never have been beaten.

This is all a Bush instigated war and his cohorts want to expand it further into Iran all for oil of the Persian Gulf. Reality is much simpler then the US conservative republican hot air that we cannot be losers. Vietnam was the same hoot and cry when the likes of McCain and his heroes were bombing the poor merciless Vietnam to hell and over uncountable millions were killed because communism over half the world away were the bad sons of bitches.

This propaganda of terror hype, fomentation of hate fear and conservative patriotic feeding feeding frenzy to control the hearts and minds of the misled and gullible has its day.

The war is no longer about military defeat, but rather economical and both US and UK are on the losing end. Stay the course means destruction from within and Continental Europeans are not buying the US and UK argument, and rightly so.
 
so who do you have winning the chip?

I'll go in a list of the countries that will fall HARD(in my opinion, in order)

The United States (attacked by China and Russia primarily on the West Coast and attacked by Russia as a NATO entity in Europe, China also has submarines that scout the East Coast of the U.S. as well)

Japan (destroyed by China or N. Korea; China and especially the Koreans have a long standing hatred for the Japanese since the failed Imperialistic march by the Japanese in the early 20th Century)

The Middle East many nations...nevermind, look at this map.

harita_b.jpeg



The thing to remember is that there is one hand controlling both sides..I believe the European Union will be the controlling supranational power in the world. Russia and China being superpowers.
 
Calm down man I didn't say anything bout who's winning the war, dont put words in my mouth. I agree with most, these wars were lost a long time ago. The reason I can speak on how aggressive the military are is because I can witness this shit first hand.

Always calm Ahk ;).
 
WE COULD WIN OF WE STOP PLAYING NICE THIS IS WAR WE NEED TO BE MORE
AGGRESSIVE


So you think by killing more muslims and destroying more of the country's already poor infrastructure is going to help the USA and coalition forces win this so called 'war against terror'!!! Wake and and get real dawg!!! Firstly the USA and coalition forces don't even know who all the enemies are ... Taliban?? Insurgents?? Where are they based? How are they organised and funded? Where are their supplies and recruitment coming from? The forces haven't got a fucking clue, it's all been guess work from day one ... also aggression only breeds more aggression, the more muslims that are killed and oppressed in their own country which as a result creates more orphans, widows and greiving families will without a doubt create more intense hatred against the coalition forces. These muslims are not some weak submissive people who are going to bow down and surrender to a rise in more aggresion against them, especially in their own country by an unwelcomed enemy, they are going to constantly come hitting back and in the most vicious and brutal way that they can.

The best thing that the USA and all the other occupying forces can do is to get the fuck out. Absolutely nothing good for the country is being achieved by the occupation and believe me nothing good ever will regardless of all the propaganda that you may see and hear in the western media and press.
 
I'll go in a list of the countries that will fall HARD(in my opinion, in order)

The United States (attacked by China and Russia primarily on the West Coast and attacked by Russia as a NATO entity in Europe, China also has submarines that scout the East Coast of the U.S. as well)

Japan (destroyed by China or N. Korea; China and especially the Koreans have a long standing hatred for the Japanese since the failed Imperialistic march by the Japanese in the early 20th Century)

The Middle East many nations...nevermind, look at this map.

harita_b.jpeg



The thing to remember is that there is one hand controlling both sides..I believe the European Union will be the controlling supranational power in the world. Russia and China being superpowers.


I'm still baffled by that map....
 
Back
Top