Cpl Steiner Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 Off topic but of interest to the forum: I'm hearing several reports on the TV and on the web of a major operation commencing in Afghanistan today. British, US and Afghan government forces are moving on the Taleban stronghold of Musa Qala. Thousands of Taleban in the town have vowed to fight to the last man to defend it. Latest reports suggest US forces with night-vision equipment have been deployed for the main assault over night (presumably tonight). So, whilst you're thinking about your Christmas decorations etc., spare a thought for the brave lads out in Afghanistan tonight. Good luck lads! Battle to retake key Taleban town Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steiner14 Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 Good luck for the Taleban from me. The good news is, they have liberated 54% of their country again and the Empire of Evil, USrael, is going to be beaten there soon, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Steiner Posted December 7, 2007 Author Share Posted December 7, 2007 Originally posted by Steiner14: Good luck for the Taleban from me. The good news is, they have liberated 54% of their country again and the Empire of Evil, USrael, is going to be beaten there soon, too. Please tell me this is a joke, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skelley Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 What were the Brits thinking in trying to negotiate with the Taliban in the first place. Now the US has to go and retake it. If ya ask me the Brits should have to do it, they gave it away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Steiner Posted December 7, 2007 Author Share Posted December 7, 2007 Originally posted by skelley: What were the Brits thinking in trying to negotiate with the Taliban in the first place. Now the US has to go and retake it. If ya ask me the Brits should have to do it, they gave it away. I don't know the full details. Obviously at the time it seemed like a good idea to save some lives. As is often the case though, not everyone is true to their word. Maybe sometimes it's worth testing how far you can negotiate with your enemy so you don't make future mistakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 It can be seen that way: yes, the US and other foreign countries have invaded Afghanistan. Yes, they have removed the former Islamic fundamentalist Taleban goverment. I would believe that (mainly) the US has done this to liberate the Afghan people, if one of the most important allies in this region (Saudi-Arabia) wouldn't have the same fundamentalist regime, too. Mom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 Originally posted by skelley: What were the Brits thinking in trying to negotiate with the Taliban in the first place. Now the US has to go and retake it. If ya ask me the Brits should have to do it, they gave it away. The reason is, that the Taliban is the offspring of the group that has been trained, supported and payed by the USA during the 1980's in their fight against the Soviet troops. The problem is "Made in the USA". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveDash Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 Originally posted by Steiner14: Good luck for the Taleban from me. The good news is, they have liberated 54% of their country again and the Empire of Evil, USrael, is going to be beaten there soon, too. Im assuming this is some sort of not-so-funny joke. If not - by 'Beaten there soon, too' I assume you're also refering to Iraq. Well you're a bit behind the times buddy, because the "Evil Empire" is far from beaten there, and you can expect a massive influx of troops into Afganistan from Iraq in the next couple of years as things calm down more there. The reason is, that the Taliban was the group that has been trained, supported and trained by the USA during the 1980's in their fight against the Soviet troops. The problem is "Made in the USA".Well if the Soviets didn't invade... chicken, egg, chicken, egg. Different times different measures. I can understand the Brits letting the locals deal with things themselves in the first place. Lets not be too harsh on them, Fallujah anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Steiner Posted December 7, 2007 Author Share Posted December 7, 2007 DaveDash, You are quite right re Iraq. Nobody believed the so-called "Surge" would make any difference, me included, and yet reports from Baghdad are very positive at the moment. One commentator I saw on TV last night said he thought the US were now better than the British at counter-insurgency operations - something that would have been laughed off the stage a few years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 Dave, this sounds a little bit like "In different times it is okay to support even Hitler...or Stalin"! Ooops... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skelley Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 "The reason is, that the Taliban was the group that has been trained, supported and payed by the USA during the 1980's in their fight against the Soviet troops. The problem is "Made in the USA"." That is only slightly true because there were many northern alliance fighters that were in the resistance against Russia. The northern alliance fought against the Taliban. The Taliban didn't even exist then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 Skelley, yes this is right, that's why I have corrected my post to 'Taliban is the offspring of the group'. Sorry, I wasn't fast enough... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skelley Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 I also strongly doubt that European nations were not also supplying the resistance to Russia. It is not like we supplied them with the planes to fly into the WTC anyway so that whole statement is nonsense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveDash Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 Originally posted by Cpl Steiner: DaveDash, You are quite right re Iraq. Nobody believed the so-called "Surge" would make any difference, me included, and yet reports from Baghdad are very positive at the moment. One commentator I saw on TV last night said he thought the US were now better than the British at counter-insurgency operations - something that would have been laughed off the stage a few years ago. The surge hasn't been the sole reason though, it's part of numerous reasons that have helped provide an overall security increase to the Iraq people. Getting the Sunni's AND Iranians onboard helped a lot. Dave, this sounds a little bit like "In different times it is okay to support even Hitler...or Stalin"! Ooops... Well actually in different times - about 66 years ago the Allies did suppot Stalin. By your logic, Stalin is also "Made in the USA". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skelley Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 If you want Europe to pull out of Nato then do it, because this is a Nato action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Steiner Posted December 7, 2007 Author Share Posted December 7, 2007 It is strange the way loyalties change, like shifting sands, over the years. I can remember Christmas 1979/80 when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. At that time, everyone was right behind the Islamic fighters trying to throw off the yoke of Soviet rule. Even the James Bond movie of that time had romantic Islamic horsemen attacking evil Russians etc. Now, people on this forum are making scenarios set in the same period in which the "good guys" are the Soviets. This is not surprising considering the rise of anti-western Islamic extremism. Same war, different generations. Interesting times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 Skelley, on the long term some of worst political hotspots such as India/Pakistan, Afghanistan or Israel/Palastine are risen from the way how the Brits have left there colonial ruins behind... If you ask me, we should send all politics as first wave into the wars they have started!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 Originally posted by DaveDash: Well actually in different times - about 66 years ago the Allies did suppot Stalin. By your logic, Stalin is also "Made in the USA". Yes, of course. No lend-lease program etc for the UK and USSR, and it is likely that Third Reich would have won the war. Well, I guess that wouldn't be better, since a black uniform doesn't suits me well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveDash Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 The Brits left far more succcessful colonies than most European powers (Aust, NZ, Canada, USA, Hong Kong, SA, etc). And as for your second point, ironically, didnt Prince William - a Brit Royal no doubt - want to be sent to Iraq? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 Originally posted by skelley: If you want Europe to pull out of Nato then do it, because this is a Nato action. OK I will tell them. Please expect it in the news tomorrow... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skelley Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 Again, I know of no politician that suppled anybody with planes to drive into WTC. So I don't know which politician you would want to send because they attacked us. Hell we supplied russia with shermans and other equipment during WWII does that mean we have no right to oppose Russians and what they did in Eastern Russia? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 Originally posted by DaveDash: The Brits left far more succcessful colonies than most European powers (Aust, NZ, Canada, USA, Hong Kong, SA, etc). And as for your second point, ironically, didnt Prince William - a Brit Royal no doubt - want to be sent to Iraq? Please add the USA to the list of the biggest hotspots! No other nation has started more wars in the last 50 years . Skelley, do a search about it on your own Okay, it's late here. Have a nice weekend! :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skelley Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 Not really a big conspiracy theorist...I'll leave that to nutbags Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzermartin Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 I say good luck to the cavemen too. I dont know, since that Rambo movie I have a soft spot for them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveDash Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 The U.S. hasn't actually started a single war in the last 50 years. Not even in 2003, that was just termination of a cease-fire. But they have been involved with many - yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts