Afghanistan: a war that can't be won

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
ITN

Perhaps you could enlighten us with your definition of a "Banana Republic" and provide us with an overview of the calibre of dictators and "governments" the United States of America has graduated from the SOA...they changed there name by the way...
 

Claudius

Electoral Member
May 23, 2006
195
0
16
Mike

Thanks for the kudos but believe me you’re one of the few (perhaps) that doesn’t whine about the length and syntax (too tough..I need a dictionary etc..).

Accusations of circumlocution are always a danger when an individual tries desperately to find words besides the usual ones that so quickly become cliché or meaningless in popular discussions.

Where consideration is demanded with generous application of reasoned debate and careful introspection (insofar as identifying the motive underlying our decision to participate) is when we opt to bomb shoot and incinerate men women and children for some “good” reason!

We ought not to simply follow the lead of our neighbours to the south!

Well are we following their lead, or their methods? I’m not trying to throw stones here because the Canadian army is made a different way than the US forces are, I think the record pretty clearly shows that to characterize us as “incinerating men, women and children” is a pretty bombastic exaggeration.

Our thirst for gasoline and the product of sweatshops scooped up at bargain prices in WalMart and Zellers etc. is behind what drives that American industrial complex. There’s no nice way to say it.

It is true that business is always right there to make a buck off of conflict. This is obvious. Suggesting that big business or the American Industrial complex (which is not a homogeneous being but rather a nebulous galaxy of competing companies) is manufacturing wars to make money off oil is a little harder to accept, especially considering the true face of ‘oil producing nations’ today.

Top Suppliers of U.S. Crude Oil and Petrolium2004
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/rankings/crudebycountry.htm

Total imports of crude and petroleum. Top 15 countries.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/...ons/company_level_imports/current/import.html

Greatest oil reserves by nation
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html

If you look at those sites, see not only the countries where big oil is making a profit, but also the trend of investment and production in the last 10, or even especially the last 5 years, then I think you’ll agree that our perception of ‘oil producing nations’ should probably be re-visited. Further to the point, if the goal is to war with a nation and collect on their oil production then why not invade Canada or Mexico? Wouldn’t it be easier? For that matter what would the other NATO country’s impetus then be?


.
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Re: RE: Afghanistan: a war that can't be won

MikeyDB said:
Only because ITN Asked....

SOA and the record of its graduates…

http://www.geocities.com/~virtualtruth/soaclose.htm

Let's see the list of 57,000 graduates that are terrorists. Not a few dozen. If someone graduates from the University from Toronto and commits crimes against humanity, what are you going to do? Shut down the University?

Frantically attempting to connect dots that don't exist, is quite frankly, ridiculous.
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
So you're suggesting that Pol Pot (yes I know he wasn't a graduate) or Idi Amin or any number of single madmen responsible for the murder of thousands reflects that its perfectly OK for the United States to practice training terrorists if only a few kill a few hundred thousands....

Some moral compass you have there.
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
ITN

Ridiculous you say?

How about I really go to work on the US and provide links to domestic terrorism and poverty abetted by and in the name of American corporations.

Why is it do you suppose that it's you who comes running to the defense of the U.S. when criticism is leveled and there is no denying the truth of what's been reported in jounals books and magazines for decades everywhere in the world?
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
Claudius…. Why would the U.S. even entertain the idea of invading Canada? They’d risk burning down those lovely forests that they’re in the process of stealing from us…

They’d be much happier to keep their rather dumb country cousins in Canada (Canfor, Stephen Harper, and numerous others) harvesting what they’ll steal anyway, mining what they’ll take when they need it and so on without risking all that wonderful clean water (well what’s left after they’ve realized how easy it is to dump their shit into watersheds that flow into Canada…Garison dam for instance)

Besides Raytheon and several U.S. weapons and “systems” manufacturers like to have Canada as someplace their employees can work without having to live in wonderful third-world-nation-states like Louisiana where the government in DC could care less about how life is for people who live there.

We all watched as Union Carbide killed thousands in India and let’s not forget that while Chernobyll was …over there….Three Mile Island was right next door….

Oil is important Claudius but it makes much more sense militarily to screw over Afghanistan and Iraq. After an eleven year trade embargo and an estimated 500,000 people died as a result of this embargo and other wonderful strategic maneuvers, what quality of an army or air force could they bring to the fight?

Canada would on the other hand pummel them into the ground under a deluge of Tim Horton donuts.

Asymmetrical warfare occurs when the largest military on earth ever, in the history of mankind decides “shock and awe” is a fitting method of prosecuting UN resolutions even if they were predicated on lies and misdirection.

Guess who’s been practicing asymmetrical warfare all over the planet overtly and covertly for decades?
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Re: RE: Afghanistan: a war that can't be won

MikeyDB said:
ITN

Ridiculous you say?

How about I really go to work on the US and provide links to domestic terrorism and poverty abetted by and in the name of American corporations.

Why is it do you suppose that it's you who comes running to the defense of the U.S. when criticism is leveled and there is no denying the truth of what's been reported in jounals books and magazines for decades everywhere in the world?

Yes MikeyDB, R I D I C U L O U S, see, I can spell. Out of over 50,000 graduates you pick out a few dozen and you refer to the School of Americas as a terrorist training facility? You are out of your mind.

Connecting dots that don't exist make you look foolish. Try something more concrete, watch how I support you. But that won't be good enough, it has to be ALL about the evil empire.
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Re: RE: Afghanistan: a war that can't be won

MikeyDB said:
Great company you're in eh!

Yes, I thought you might like that. BTW, almost every country I have ever read about has had their hands in on something, overtly or covertly.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Re: RE: Afghanistan: a war that can't be won

I think not said:
MikeyDB said:
Colpy

And no doubt you're pleased that America has operated the School of the Americas to train terrorists and graduates have spread to the four corners of the planet?

How about we send troops into Washington DC???

And then you wonder why nobody takes the fringe left seriously other than the meek. The School of the Americas is a military training facility in Georgia. They train MILITARY personnel from Latin American countries. Why would Latin American countries send their military to be trained as terrorists. This includes Chavez's Venezuela btw. Have an answer? Or do you need to look it up first?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITN, nobody takes you seriously, please find a new line you have used the"fringe left and the meek" line several thousand times. The school of the Americas is funded by pricks run by pricks to keep fat American pricks safe for Wal-Mart.
:lol:
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
ITN and a few terrorists don’t count.


It’s curious that our friend ITN seems to believe that despite there being a school that teaches terrorism (because it teaches terrorism in America one must conclude) doesn’t count the United States among nations guilty of harboring terrorists….

I suppose technically, if they’re just taking lessons and not actually practicing terrorism until they graduate…that’s perfectly OK!

Too bad the Saudi Terrorists responsible for 9/11 didn’t have that “get out of jail free” card that ITN thinks appropriate for America’s SOA educated terrorists.

OH yeah…. they were Saudis not Afghanis at all now that I think about it.
But hey Dubbya’s tight with his Saudi oil buddies so it’s unlikely that we’ll see an invasion of Saudi Arabia unlike them more deserving “evil-doers” in Afghanistan. Besides if the metric isn’t who was responsible but rather the nation that “harbored” them… then its clear sailing….

Oh darn…if a nation harbouring terrorists (its perfectly OK to teach terrorism at a “military facility”) is guilty of contributing to the current climate of yellow alerts and destruction of the American fourth amendment… Oh never mind, ITN is sure to point out that no American terrorist trained at a military school has committed a crime of the proportions those of Afghanistan are guilty of having committed….

It’s the number of terrorists that ITN takes exception with, while the bulk of men women and children being executed in Afghanistan for their part in “supporting” terrorist camps translates as carte-blanche to kill them kidnap them and send them to be tortured in Cuba or as we’re familiar with here in Canada, ship them to Syria or some other “enemies” nation so they can be tortured without ole Uncle Sam looking bad…

Well it’s working ITN I think I’m beginning to understand why as George H. Bush said… “America… Gooooood” everyone else Baaaaad…..
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
ITN doesn't take exception to the number of terrorists, ITN takes exception to the fact you cherrypick those who became terrorists out of a military academy. Pay no mind to the fact Chavez sends future terrorists to the SOA so they can overthrow him pronto!

It's a military academy buddy, just like Shilo in Canada, if you want to refer to them as terrorists, who am I to stop you? You're the one looking like a fool, not me.
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Re: RE: Afghanistan: a war that can't be won

darkbeaver said:
ITN, nobody takes you seriously, please find a new line you have used the"fringe left and the meek" line several thousand times. The school of the Americas is funded by pricks run by pricks to keep fat American pricks safe for Wal-Mart.
:lol:

Welcome back DB, I missed your communist drivel, pull up a chair and hang with the smart people, you may eventually learn a thing or two.
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
I think not said:
ITN doesn't take exception to the number of terrorists, ITN takes exception to the fact you cherrypick those who became terrorists out of a military academy. Pay no mind to the fact Chavez sends future terrorists to the SOA so they can overthrow him pronto!

It's a military academy buddy, just like Shilo in Canada, if you want to refer to them as terrorists, who am I to stop you? You're the one looking like a fool, not me.

Please refer to the link I posted earlier...

You can call it a military academy and that's supposed to fool everyone into ignoring their manuels referred to in that link I provided??

C'mon now ITN If it walks like a duck...
 

BitWhys

what green dots?
Apr 5, 2006
3,157
15
38
Britain plans extra troops to fight Taliban
Review of tactics as soldiers killed

Richard Norton-Taylor
Monday July 3, 2006
The Guardian

Hundreds of extra combat troops will be deployed to southern Afghanistan under plans being drawn up by the Ministry of Defence as part of a review of tactics by British and Nato commanders.

The contingency proposals have become necessary because of the unexpected strength of Taliban fighters who have drawn British troops into a series of clashes. Over the weekend, two more British soldiers were killed in fierce fighting in the province of Helmand, and yesterday British commanders made it clear they want better equipment for their troops, including helicopters and armoured vehicles.

Article continues
Defence officials said yesterday there were no plans to increase the total number of British combat troops from the 3,300 announced in the Commons earlier this year. However, defence sources said extra infantry could replace 800 engineers who have finished building Camp Bastion, the British base near Lashkar Gah.

Any increase of combat troops is likely to provoke renewed concern about the mission in Afghanistan, and how its terms of reference have changed from reconstruction to fighting. Yesterday Mike Gapes, Labour chairman of the Commons foreign affairs committee, demanded an urgent statement from the government about the objectives British troops were being asked to achieve.

"I certainly feel that our forces there need proper protection and equipment and we need to have a clear explanation of what we are likely to be in over the long term here. There are signs that the tactics that have brought such devastation to Iraq are being replicated in Afghanistan," the committee warned in a report published yesterday.

Two soldiers from the 3 Para battlegroup were killed, and four injured, on Saturday in a firefight at their forward base in the Sangin valley, northeast of Helmand proviince. An Afghan interpreter was also killed.

Military spokesman Captain Drew Gibson said the base was attacked with small arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades. Lieutenant General David Richards, commander of all Nato troops in Afghanistan, has expressed concern in the past week about the size and make-up of his forces there. Yesterday he said: "No general in history has ever had as many resources as he would like. Bottom line, I am content with what I have and I have the resources required to carry out the mission."

However, Brigadier Ed Butler, commander of British forces in southern Afghanistan, warned there would be further casualties in the battle against Taliban forces. He told the BBC that the British presence there was "a very cohesive force and mission."

There were signs yesterday that ministers are becoming increasingly concerned about growing doubts among the public over Britain's mission in Afghanistan. "We can only do things with more public support," a senior defence source said.

However, British commanders say the government's stated mission for British troops - to rebuild the country - cannot be achieved without adequate security and that means fighting insurgents and Taliban fighters, many of whom are being allowed freely to come over the border from Pakistan.

There is concern, too, that the US is dictating tactics. British troops are under US command until next month when they will be part of a separate Nato-led force. The latest British deaths came amid a big anti-Taliban campaign in southern Afghanistan, Operation Mountain Thrust, involving more than 10,000 Afghan and coalition soldiers in the largest military offensive since the Taliban regime fell in late 2001.

I would expect those who are satisfied to accept an evolving military solution as sufficient will take this news as a positive development.