|
Some of US taxpayers’ money leaks to Taliban – report
US taxpayer dollars are finding their way to the pockets of the Taliban, according to a new 75-page congressional report about the military's use of Afghan security firms.
Yahoo StumbleUpon Google Live Technorati del.icio.us Digg Reddit Mixx Propeller The firms are used to ensure the safe passage of supply convoys. If the US doesn’t pay up, almost without fail the convoy gets attacked.
The American military hires trucking companies to deliver supplies to their bases in Afghanistan and leaves it up to the companies to protect themselves. The truckers then pay local security companies or warlords to escort their trucks.
Read more
Some of the trucking companies believe the gunmen they hired for protection may have been paying to Taliban not to attack them.
James Denselow, a writer on Middle East politics, believes that the Americans are trapped in Afghanistan.
“Afghanistan is a logistical nightmare for the Americans, it's a landlocked country and 80 percent of American supplies have to go in by land in trucks. And the need for it is huge, they have about a 100,000 soldiers who consume a vast amount of fuel and ammunition each day,” Denselow told RT.
I think its outragous that the US are paying the taliban for stability. Stability should not come for a price. It should be the goal. I think the US took too much land and now they cant hold it. They should rather fall back, secure the land they have, secure their supply routes, then when thats secured move in and take some more land.
I put this in spoiler since its not serious:
+ Show Spoiler +
I wish i could pay the terran enemy to let me probe transfer across the map and then he wouldnt vult harash them while they are on the way :D I demand a function that will give probes imunity!
The only reason why the US wont fall back is because it would look bad in the news, but it would be the best thing to do strategically.
SOURCE:
http://rt.com/Top_News/2010-06-22/us-taxpayers-money-taliban.html?fullstory
|
Yeah. Your theory works in conventional war, not in this war. It's w bad situation, but just saying "hey guys, just make it stable piece by piece" is pretty naive.
|
I think you are forgetting that paying money to the enemy is the worst thing you can do.
|
On August 16 2010 01:49 exeexe wrote:Some of US taxpayers’ money leaks to Taliban – reportShow nested quote +US taxpayer dollars are finding their way to the pockets of the Taliban, according to a new 75-page congressional report about the military's use of Afghan security firms.
Yahoo StumbleUpon Google Live Technorati del.icio.us Digg Reddit Mixx Propeller The firms are used to ensure the safe passage of supply convoys. If the US doesn’t pay up, almost without fail the convoy gets attacked.
The American military hires trucking companies to deliver supplies to their bases in Afghanistan and leaves it up to the companies to protect themselves. The truckers then pay local security companies or warlords to escort their trucks.
Read more
Some of the trucking companies believe the gunmen they hired for protection may have been paying to Taliban not to attack them.
James Denselow, a writer on Middle East politics, believes that the Americans are trapped in Afghanistan.
“Afghanistan is a logistical nightmare for the Americans, it's a landlocked country and 80 percent of American supplies have to go in by land in trucks. And the need for it is huge, they have about a 100,000 soldiers who consume a vast amount of fuel and ammunition each day,” Denselow told RT.
I think its outragous that the US are paying the taliban for stability. Stability should not come for a price. It should be the goal. I think the US took too much land and now they cant hold it. They should rather fall back, secure the land they have, secure their supply routes, then when thats secured move in and take some more land. I wish i could pay the terran enemy to let me probe transfer across the map and then he wouldnt vult harash them while they are on the way :D I demand a function that will give probes imunity! The only reason why the US wont fall back is because it would look bad in the news, but it would be the best thing to do strategically. SOURCE: http://rt.com/Top_News/2010-06-22/us-taxpayers-money-taliban.html?fullstory
In honesty I do not think you really understand the situation in Afghan right now (it's not a good position overall and is in the process of getting more attention).
Taken from that "article" you posted.
Afghanistan is a logistical nightmare for the Americans, it's a landlocked country and 80 percent of American supplies have to go in by land in trucks. And the need for it is huge, they have about a 100,000 soldiers who consume a vast amount of fuel and ammunition each day,
Anyway no the US government is Not paying Taliban, It's like your paying your security guard and he goes and pays the robber to not mess up his position. Hence the report. Also corruption is a huge issue in Afghan.
|
I don't really find this surprising. There are decades old relationships between the Taliban and some Afgan warlords. Why wouldn't they pay them off? Its beneficial to both parties.
With the amount of money we give to prop up the Afgan government I would bet a lot more of our tax dollars find their way into Taliban pockets than we want to imagine.
|
Remind me again why the Americans are in Afghanistan? O_o
|
On August 16 2010 02:00 Glaven wrote:
Remind me again why the Americans are in Afghanistan? O_o
Because there is an oil field on the "other" side of afgahnistan and if it has to be shipped to the US that oil must go through Iran. So in order to make the oil go around Iran they need a stabil controlled afgahnistan
Ups thats information you are not supposed to hear about yet.
Because The Taliban who had bases in Afgahnistan attacked some buildings in New York and other places.
|
On August 16 2010 02:03 exeexe wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2010 02:00 Glaven wrote:
Remind me again why the Americans are in Afghanistan? O_o Because there is an oil field on the "other" side of afgahnistan and if it has to be shipped to the US that oil must go through Iran. So in order to make the oil go around Iran they need a stabil controlled afgahnistanUps thats information you are not supposed to hear about yet. Because The Taliban who had bases in Afgahnistan attacked some buildings in New York and other places.
Wow, that's not offensive at all. I mean those buildings didn't have 3000 people in them did they? OR did you forget it was Al Qaeda who did that, not Taliban?
don't talk about events unless you know what your saying.
|
ok ok Al Queda attacked (and i knew that i just rushed too much), but you cant beat al queda without beating taliban.
|
On August 16 2010 02:08 exeexe wrote:
ok ok Al Queda attacked (and i knew that i just hazzled too much), but you cant beat al queda without beating taliban.
Look if your going to talk about world events at least keep things clear. Al Qaeda and Taliban are two separate entities that AT the time of 9/11 where somewhat working together. But no you can beat Al Qaeda and Taliban separately, just look at current events.
|
Another attempt to drill up patriotism for the inevitable "pile-on" in Afghanistan.
America has been filtering money to insurgents in countries for years. The Taliban is just in a country with oil and exploitable resources, and is hence a terrorist organisation.
For this arbitrary reason America giving them money is an ethical crisis.
|
Which events? The fact that Osama Bin Laden is still alive?
|
On August 16 2010 02:12 Piy wrote:
Another attempt to drill up patriotism for the inevitable "pile-on" in Afghanistan.
America has been filtering money to insurgents in countries for years. The Taliban is just in a country with oil and exploitable resources, and is hence a terrorist organisation.
For this arbitrary reason America giving them money is an ethical crisis.
Do you not read the article? quote where in that article it says the US GOVERNMENT is giving them money.
|
On August 16 2010 02:14 angelicfolly wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2010 02:12 Piy wrote:
Another attempt to drill up patriotism for the inevitable "pile-on" in Afghanistan.
America has been filtering money to insurgents in countries for years. The Taliban is just in a country with oil and exploitable resources, and is hence a terrorist organisation.
For this arbitrary reason America giving them money is an ethical crisis. Do you not read the article? quote where in that article it says the US GOVERNMENT is giving them money.
Quote where in my quote I said the US GOVERNMENT was giving them money.
Besides, the military obviously knew about it and if you're insinuating that the military and the government are very different entities...well, I think that's kinda naive.
|
On August 16 2010 02:20 Piy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2010 02:14 angelicfolly wrote:On August 16 2010 02:12 Piy wrote:
Another attempt to drill up patriotism for the inevitable "pile-on" in Afghanistan.
America has been filtering money to insurgents in countries for years. The Taliban is just in a country with oil and exploitable resources, and is hence a terrorist organisation.
For this arbitrary reason America giving them money is an ethical crisis. Do you not read the article? quote where in that article it says the US GOVERNMENT is giving them money. Quote where in my quote I said the US GOVERNMENT was giving them money. Besides, the military obviously knew about it and if you're insinuating that the military and the government are very different entities...well, I think that's kinda naive.
Don't play that game.
For this arbitrary reason America giving them money is an ethical crisis.
What does it mean when you say a nation name supports/gives/attacks?
With that settled, What does congressional report mean in regards to the military knowing?It's an oxy moron. The Military and the Government are somewhat separate, when it comes to such issues.
|
Ignorance has no bounds, clearly.
Nice source btw, Russia would know.
|
On August 16 2010 02:40 Djzapz wrote:
Ignorance has no bounds, clearly.
Nice source btw, Russia would know.
lol. Apparently Russia AND a congressional report would know.
|
On August 16 2010 02:45 Glaven wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2010 02:40 Djzapz wrote:
Ignorance has no bounds, clearly.
Nice source btw, Russia would know. lol. Apparently Russia AND a congressional report would know.
I'm taking this is a swipe at me? I mean you wouldn't need a report to get everything together if you knew before hand everything that was going on, now would you?
|
United States44336 Posts
Obviously bribing is by far the simplest solution to most the conflicts in the world. If instead of going to the enormous expense of fighting a war you simply spent half that money making the war unnecessary then there would be far less wastage. In fact, if you want to get round the employment created by the army issue as well then instead of bribing them in cash you could bribe them in American goods, thereby simulating the boost to the economy of military spending.
The only reason people don't take this pragmatic solution is because of the ideological problems in just backing down to avoid wasting money. However when you delegate security to someone who doesn't share your ideology, such as is happening in Afghanistan, then of course they'll just buy off the enemy. There's no reason not to.
|
No O_o that was a swipe at the guy I quoted
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
