Foil hatter! Don't you know the US killed hundreds of thousands of innocent bystanders to get rid of a brutal dictator? They just could not have that man walking around while he horded weapons of mass destruction the US sold him, now could they? Give yer head a shake, dude! (sarcasm alert)
Is the US losing the Afghanistan war?
- Thread starter UShadItComing
- Start date
Death to all people who even think of disagreeing with me. :bigsmurf: :canada: :happy9: :tongue5:
They might but they are not interested in winning, their masters are only interested in making money on the suffering of others.
McChrystal Method Out: Sacked By The Truth
Thursday, 01 July 2010 06:43
'General Stanley McChrystal wasn’t fired for the name calling and sarcasm in the recent Rolling Stone article, or for a lack of military decorum and good discipline. He was fired for telling the truth about the mission in Afghanistan in a statement he made in March.
"We've shot an amazing number of people and killed a number and, to my knowledge, none has proven to have been a real threat to the force." This statement is the most embarrassing and potentially crippling to Obama’s AFPAK effort, for it brings attention to how badly the war is going with a focus on the killing of innocent people.'
Read more: McChrystal Method Out: Sacked By The Truth
Thursday, 01 July 2010 06:43
'General Stanley McChrystal wasn’t fired for the name calling and sarcasm in the recent Rolling Stone article, or for a lack of military decorum and good discipline. He was fired for telling the truth about the mission in Afghanistan in a statement he made in March.
"We've shot an amazing number of people and killed a number and, to my knowledge, none has proven to have been a real threat to the force." This statement is the most embarrassing and potentially crippling to Obama’s AFPAK effort, for it brings attention to how badly the war is going with a focus on the killing of innocent people.'
Read more: McChrystal Method Out: Sacked By The Truth
ironsides; said:
Commies, fascists, Republicans all extremists. This is why they support Baathists rather than promote peace.
If the US loses the war in Afghanistan, then many will lose. Canada has lost troops there, as have the UK and other countries, and even Sweden (not even a NATO member).
First off, let's define victory. Originally, it meant capturing Bin Laden, then it meant nation building. Well, if the definition of victory keeps changing, we won't even have any way of gauging success?
First off, let's define victory. Originally, it meant capturing Bin Laden, then it meant nation building. Well, if the definition of victory keeps changing, we won't even have any way of gauging success?
When was there ever peace there, once all foreign forces leave they will be back killing each other again. There can be no victory per say there, just the complete destruction of the terrorists networks...
ones ischial callosities must be itching.
The U.S. will not lose the war, maybe they lost their initial focus, but not the war. If all of us were to leave today, the war would just continue on somewhere else. No idealist goodbye ending.
ones ischial callosities must be itching.
The U.S. will not lose the war, maybe they lost their initial focus, but not the war. If all of us were to leave today, the war would just continue on somewhere else. No idealist goodbye ending.
If the United States cannot come up with one scenario in which it would return American troops to Afghanistan in large numbers, it should fold its tent and leave by the end of the year.
Put another way, what does the U.S. think it can achieve in Afghanistan with a meagre force of 3,000 soldiers when it accomplished next to nothing over more than a decade with 112,000 ISAF troops and another 60,000 American soldiers?
Karzai, even though he's on his way out, isn't playing ball with the Americans, refusing to conclude a new bilateral security agreement (BSA). Perhaps Karzai's successor will be more agreeable but that still doesn't leave the Americans much time if they're to keep the option of a complete departure by the end of 2014.
Maybe this is all a matter of optics.
Nobody in Washington, either on Capital Hill or the Pentagon, wants to be tagged with another "last chopper out of Saigon" moment.
Yet that's the very scenario they might be creating if they leave behind a face-saving, token contingent that could be run out of the country in the ensuing civil war.
Obama should bear in mind the warning of a British general a century ago:
“When planning a military expedition into Pashtun tribal areas, the first thing you must plan is your retreat. All expeditions into this area sooner or later end in retreat under fire.”
So wrote British general, Andrew Skeen, in the early 1900s in his guide to military operations in the Pashtun tribal belt.
Obama orders Pentagon to prepare for full troop withdrawal from Afghanistan
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/25/obama-pentagon-us-troops-withdrawal-Afghanistan
THE PHONY PULLOUT FROM AFGHANISTAN
Those wondering what lies in store for Afghanistan need only look at the way the British Empire ruled Iraq in the 1920’s. As Shakespeare wrote, “what is past is prologue.”
Imperial Britain created the state of Iraq after World War I to secure Mesopotamia’s vast oil deposits that had become vital for the Royal Navy. To control this artificial nation seething with unrest, Britain imposed a puppet king, Faisal, and created a native army commanded by British officers.
Britain’s colonial rule was formalized by the 1930 Anglo-Iraq Treaty, a deal between puppet and master.
But real power in Iraq was held by the Royal Air Force, which was “granted” two permanent bases at Habbaniyah and Basra. The RAF ruled supreme over the open wastes of Iraq.
Winston Churchill, patron saint of today’s war-lusting neoconservatives, authorized the RAF to use poison gas against “unruly” tribesmen in Iraq and Afghanistan. Britain created public institutions and sham political parties in Baghdad that had no links at all to Iraq’s population, which mostly hated their British rulers.
British Iraq was the prologue to today’s Afghanistan. The British Empire’s heir, the American Imperium, plans to duplicate the Iraqi Brittanica in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan’s US-installed current ruler, Hamid Karzai, a former CIA “asset,” may stay on after 2014 or be replaced by another US-designated president. Change the title of president to king, and, voila!, Iraq’s puppet king, Faisal.
Washington says it will withdraw all US combat troops from Afghanistan by 2014. But read the fine print. As of now, 14,000-16,000 US troops will remain on so-called “anti-terrorism” missions and for “training” – though Washington admits there are not more than 50 al-Qaida members in Afghanistan.
In other words, the old British system of white officers commanding native troops. A good $4-5 billion annually from the US and allies will go to hiring up to 400,000 pro-government troops (under US command).
These mercenaries will fight half-heartedly for the Yankee dollar, not ideology. CIA will maintain another mercenary force of about 2,000, and a fleet of killer drones. Add commandos from the shadowy US Special Ops Joint Command (JSOC), a copy of Her Majesty’s assassins, Britain’s famed SAS.
more
THE PHONY PULLOUT FROM AFGHANISTAN « Eric Margolis
Put another way, what does the U.S. think it can achieve in Afghanistan with a meagre force of 3,000 soldiers when it accomplished next to nothing over more than a decade with 112,000 ISAF troops and another 60,000 American soldiers?
Karzai, even though he's on his way out, isn't playing ball with the Americans, refusing to conclude a new bilateral security agreement (BSA). Perhaps Karzai's successor will be more agreeable but that still doesn't leave the Americans much time if they're to keep the option of a complete departure by the end of 2014.
Maybe this is all a matter of optics.
Nobody in Washington, either on Capital Hill or the Pentagon, wants to be tagged with another "last chopper out of Saigon" moment.
Yet that's the very scenario they might be creating if they leave behind a face-saving, token contingent that could be run out of the country in the ensuing civil war.
Obama should bear in mind the warning of a British general a century ago:
“When planning a military expedition into Pashtun tribal areas, the first thing you must plan is your retreat. All expeditions into this area sooner or later end in retreat under fire.”
So wrote British general, Andrew Skeen, in the early 1900s in his guide to military operations in the Pashtun tribal belt.
Obama orders Pentagon to prepare for full troop withdrawal from Afghanistan
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/25/obama-pentagon-us-troops-withdrawal-Afghanistan
THE PHONY PULLOUT FROM AFGHANISTAN
Those wondering what lies in store for Afghanistan need only look at the way the British Empire ruled Iraq in the 1920’s. As Shakespeare wrote, “what is past is prologue.”
Imperial Britain created the state of Iraq after World War I to secure Mesopotamia’s vast oil deposits that had become vital for the Royal Navy. To control this artificial nation seething with unrest, Britain imposed a puppet king, Faisal, and created a native army commanded by British officers.
Britain’s colonial rule was formalized by the 1930 Anglo-Iraq Treaty, a deal between puppet and master.
But real power in Iraq was held by the Royal Air Force, which was “granted” two permanent bases at Habbaniyah and Basra. The RAF ruled supreme over the open wastes of Iraq.
Winston Churchill, patron saint of today’s war-lusting neoconservatives, authorized the RAF to use poison gas against “unruly” tribesmen in Iraq and Afghanistan. Britain created public institutions and sham political parties in Baghdad that had no links at all to Iraq’s population, which mostly hated their British rulers.
British Iraq was the prologue to today’s Afghanistan. The British Empire’s heir, the American Imperium, plans to duplicate the Iraqi Brittanica in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan’s US-installed current ruler, Hamid Karzai, a former CIA “asset,” may stay on after 2014 or be replaced by another US-designated president. Change the title of president to king, and, voila!, Iraq’s puppet king, Faisal.
Washington says it will withdraw all US combat troops from Afghanistan by 2014. But read the fine print. As of now, 14,000-16,000 US troops will remain on so-called “anti-terrorism” missions and for “training” – though Washington admits there are not more than 50 al-Qaida members in Afghanistan.
In other words, the old British system of white officers commanding native troops. A good $4-5 billion annually from the US and allies will go to hiring up to 400,000 pro-government troops (under US command).
These mercenaries will fight half-heartedly for the Yankee dollar, not ideology. CIA will maintain another mercenary force of about 2,000, and a fleet of killer drones. Add commandos from the shadowy US Special Ops Joint Command (JSOC), a copy of Her Majesty’s assassins, Britain’s famed SAS.
more
THE PHONY PULLOUT FROM AFGHANISTAN « Eric Margolis
Gopher has it right in my book. Name any war after the finish of WWII that the US won. Korea is still unsettled, and other than the short Grenada war game exercise they have been soundly trounced in the after math. No one other than the weapons dealers have prospered. But in Iraq their were completed pallets of US currency that disappeared while in transit from the Baghdad Airport to the Green Zone. Over $100 million is still unaccounted for. Some one made a handsome profit off that escapade. The only losers in these hobby wars has been the US citizenry who gets stuck with the bills and unfortunately their families supply the cannon fodder in the form of troops. Oh, US industry has profited hugely. Our attempts to Democratize centuries old cultures is a failure too.
Panama... Desert Storm... Iraq Part II.
And Korea has been very settled... we're still there aren't as is S. Korea.
Afghanistan has been invaded by the Persians, Alexander's Greeks, Indians, British, Russians and Americans. Seen many kingdoms rise and fall.
They've all stayed a while and tried to tame the wild tribal cultures.. and all have retreated, nursing their wounds, and wondering what ever possessed them to enter this cold, rocky wilderness.
And Afghanistan goes on, in a more or less constant state of tribal conflict, as if they've never been there.
They've all stayed a while and tried to tame the wild tribal cultures.. and all have retreated, nursing their wounds, and wondering what ever possessed them to enter this cold, rocky wilderness.
And Afghanistan goes on, in a more or less constant state of tribal conflict, as if they've never been there.
Last edited:
The Mongols might have stayed as settlers and blood brothers rather than conquerers. The latter has never prevailed.
How dare they be angry about being invaded, ingrates, all of them, ...... or has the party line changed?
Only because the West is determined to keep them in that condition. Go back to the '70's and by the time the USSR came to the 'rescue' that damage had been done as the hard-liners had gotten funding from the CIA. The truth is stranger than fiction at times.
Is a new stooge slated to to replace the current one? He's acting talking more like a rebel than an Allie. Why are senseless drone strikes starting to get on his concious these days, they have always been part of any stooge contract.
The Islamic conquest of Afghanistan was permanent. Before the Muslims conquest Afghanistan was a Buddhist country for the most part.
The Mongols did stay. The Hasara are their descendants.