|
wonderful...if this is true...I'm gonna rage pretty hard. =\
but this is what really makes me skeptical to the article:
Some of the trucking companies believe the gunmen they hired for protection may have been paying to Taliban not to attack them.
It's one thing if if they are really paying the Taliban, but it's another thing if the Taliban doesn't attack because of the security and the losses won't be worth it.
I agree with exeexe on this. If we are under the threat of an attack, then we shouldn't be so spread out like this and we should fall back and secure our position before advancing.
edit:oh so this was my 800th post <_<
|
On August 16 2010 02:49 KwarK wrote:
Obviously bribing is by far the simplest solutions 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.
There's a reason that we don't actually give in when people take hostages - if word got out that they could profit from it, a ton of people would start doing it. If you don't put your foot down, you're just going to encourage more people to do it.
edit: Historically speaking, though, we funded both sides in Vietnam.
|
This isn't surprising at all. I was a machine gunner for a civil affair group in Iraq and it was kinda the same deal. We would issue grants to the local leaders for civil service projects, but in all reality it was basically a bribe to keep them from attacking, and it didn't always work.
|
On August 16 2010 02:50 Glaven wrote:
No O_o that was a swipe at the guy I quoted
cool, didn't really understand what that guy before you was going at.
|
It's hard to be outraged about the U.S. government paying people who pay other people who might be bribing an antagonistic fourth party not to attack them. I mean, it barely made the news when the U.S. lifted its ban on funding Indonesian special forces. Hell, it barely made the news while the U.S. was funding them in the first place while they were conducting a campaign of genocide. In the big picture, indirectly funding the Taliban (whom the U.S. has already funded much more directly than this in the past anyway) doesn't seem like a huge deal.
|
Afghanistan is just a disaster :-(
|
On August 16 2010 02:11 angelicfolly wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Neither of those two groups have been destroyed. It might be more accurate to say you cannot beat any entrenched group in Afghanistan/Pakistan regardless of if they are allied with each other.
|
I remember hearing about this like six months ago, and I make virtually no attempts to keep myself informed. thought it was common knowledge by now
|
On August 16 2010 04:09 Zealotdriver wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2010 02:11 angelicfolly wrote: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. Neither of those two groups have been destroyed. It might be more accurate to say you cannot beat any entrenched group in Afghanistan/Pakistan regardless of if they are allied with each other.
Where did I say they where destroyed?
The question was posed that the Taliban cannot be beaten without beating Al Qaeda (vice versa). That's not true, as I said look at current events. (hint, they don't like each other right now to put it bluntly). That part of my post has nothing to do with actually beating them, or how.
|
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.
That's why we went there but we stayed because of private corporations and now that we found they have resources worth 2 trillion dollars it looks like we will be staying over there even longer to obtain those.
|
You cant beat terrorism. The more we fight them the stronger they are with all the civilians we are killing. Thats all people have to know.
Thats why Im always confused when I see people supporting wars like in afghanistan or iraq.
It seems like we never learn from these failures and politics are always deceiving people for their personal interests. It seems like if you dont go berserk and say that you're going to invade and rape these mthrfckrs you're like a pussy :/
|
On August 16 2010 01:58 angelicfolly wrote: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.
What amuses me is the fact that you (and other people from the US) seem surprised that Afghanistan turned out to be a logistical nightmare as you put it. As if the US had no maps or intel on the country and the layout of everything before they went in. Can you give me a list of countries that have succesfully invaded Afghanistan? That's because no one has done it.
On August 16 2010 02:06 angelicfolly wrote: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.
It is "just" 3000 civilians. You act as if you have no clue how many civilians die in wars or accidents every year.
On August 16 2010 02:11 angelicfolly wrote: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.
I urge you to see the documentary called Children of the Taliban.
(http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2700586/pakistan_children_of_the_taliban_part_1_of_4/)
You are not beating them, this is a losing war.
|
On August 16 2010 04:33 dafunk wrote:
You cant beat terrorism. The more we fight them the stronger they are with all the civilians we are killing. Thats all people have to know.
Thats why Im always confused when I see people supporting wars like in afghanistan or iraq.
It seems like we never learn from these failures and politics are always deceiving people for their personal interests. It seems like if you dont go berserk and say that you're going to invade and rape these mthrfckrs you're like a pussy :/
But we arent fighting them. We are giving them money. If we fought them in the way we should do, we could beat them.
|
|
|
On August 16 2010 05:06 Jayve wrote:
Can you give me a list of countries that have succesfully invaded Afghanistan? That's because no one has done it.
You are not beating them, this is a losing war.
in 1370ish the mongols invaded Afgahnistan, but meeeeeeh....
|
I believe that most people dont understand that these luciferian groups have complete influence in our lives, mind, and preception of this world since age of man and the power they have is nothing u can ever imagine as they believe Lucifer as the Prince of this world. people must realize theres more to it then greed/power by these major cooperations, bankers, investors, politicians, beuracrats, black nobility. as they persue to bring about the E Pluribus Unum, as they act like there persuing for world peace. when in the end , your children will be living in complete Totalitarian rule as people thought these "terrorrist, dictators, facist, communist, capitalist , nazis, jews, muslims, secret societies" were the evil of this world as they blindly follow there leader into there own enslavement and ur faith will decide.
|
was there any time in the last 25 years when the US did not give money to them/other regimes? i mean sure, since 10 years they atleast not openly give them millions and millions but im not exactly surprised by this in any way.
|
On August 16 2010 05:18 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:
was there any time in the last 25 years when the US did not give money to them/other regimes? i mean sure, since 10 years they atleast not openly give them millions and millions but im not exactly surprised by this in any way.
This is pointless. The war began with them in year 2001. What happened before that is out of context.
|
On August 16 2010 05:06 Jayve wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2010 01:58 angelicfolly wrote: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. What amuses me is the fact that you (and other people from the US) seem surprised that Afghanistan turned out to be a logistical nightmare as you put it. As if the US had no maps or intel on the country and the layout of everything before they went in. Can you give me a list of countries that have succesfully invaded Afghanistan? That's because no one has done it. Show nested quote +On August 16 2010 02:06 angelicfolly wrote: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. It is "just" 3000 civilians. You act as if you have no clue how many civilians die in wars or accidents every year. Show nested quote +On August 16 2010 02:11 angelicfolly wrote: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. I urge you to see the documentary called Children of the Taliban. (http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2700586/pakistan_children_of_the_taliban_part_1_of_4/) You are not beating them, this is a losing war.
Hey dude, did I ever say I was surprised? Was I the one who made that statement? No? Didn't think so. With that said, I don't even think you know what that was quoted. Having maps and such do as much good as planning. Meaning we cannot magically get supplies where we need it. Actually to put it bluntly, our technology means as much as a rock and sling in that country geography.
Bloody ignorant statement. Go look at my post history troll, if you really want to know my views on civilian deaths in war. But sadly 3000 people lost there lives not because of a accident or war. But because fanatics wanted to kill (I'm putting this bluntly because right now that statement flared me up). So don't even set there and suggest that it was an accident or somehow those people where in a war.
You know, was I debated wither we are winning or not? I was at that time dealing with a specific point nothing more. And I do well know how to really kill terrorism, and that deals with the actual demographic.
I'm not going to watch a 4 part series split up into 9-10min intervals. Actually to put it bluntly I'm not going to watch a so called "documentary", for that very reason.
|
The same people that cry that we cant win this war are the same ones who cried that the 2007 Iraq surge would only add fuel to the fire. The Iraq conflict is all but over, although when we leave its going to be a shit storm.
As for Afghanistan, thanks to our fearless civilian leadership, ya it will probably end in disaster. Its a shame too because its a totally winnable conflict, but the incompetence of American leadership wont let that happen...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
