|
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 States43203 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
|
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...
|
On August 16 2010 05:26 angelicfolly wrote: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.
1: And you didn't know how well your technology would do in that geography or that they would attack your supply routes? That's a lack of intel.
2: I'm not a troll, and it's not an ignorant statement. I don't think you know how many hospitals and schools the US alone has blown up in wars thinking they were different things. And stop acting like the people who were BORN in Afghanistan/Iraq chose to live in those war zones. They're as much responsible for the terrors going on around them as the people in those 2 towers were, so stop whining and get over it.
3: Terrorism, in this world we live in, will never perish. It can, but it won't. As for the Taliban and Al Qaeda, the US cannot "beat" these groups and there are many reasons for that. The second you label them as terrorists you've lost the battle.
4: You don't want to be informed, that seems surprisingly American to me. Keep watching Fox News and you'll be fine.
|
Why don't we just let our soldiers be walking targets and just have them only fire when fired upon. Sure it would dehumanize the brave men and women who are risking their lives for some vague cause in the name of patriotism... but it would make the game very simple in the long run.
Unless the taliban/al-qaeda can continue to convert insurgents, their numbers will continue to fall. And it's really hard to rile murderous sentiment about guys who don't shoot unless shot at first. So our troops keep dying for a while. Then a few years down the road, the taliban/al-qaeda runs out of shit to throw at us, given our superior weapons, numbers, and economy. Just think Mech vs. goon/lots.
|
On August 16 2010 01:49 exeexe wrote:
Stability should not come for a price.
If stability can come at a price, it might be the economic route to take.
|
Actually, after looking into this a little more, it's clear the only situation is to fucking nuke afghanistan. That place is a shithole that treats its women like animals and makes all its money from growing opium.
We should just protect the oil routes and quite literally let the whole country turn into the flaming pile of rubble it's eventually going to end up as anyway.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Bosnia-Herzegovina114 Posts
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.
Exactly!
I'm reading a book called "The Afghan Campaign" by Stephen Pressfield.
It contains some embellishments, but the crux is not even Alexander the Great could conquer it. Rather, after years of war, the Afghan people surrender the head of the rebel leader, and Alexander 'graciously accepted peace'.
And, if my memory serves me well, not even the all-mighty Xerxes (compared to Alexander's treasury and troop count as having 'infinite wealth and infinite reinforcements' ) was able to invade it successfully.
He also graciously accepted that they pay taxes, in exchange for certain autonomy :-D
|
On August 16 2010 06:03 love1another wrote:
Actually, after looking into this a little more, it's clear the only situation is to fucking nuke afghanistan. That place is a shithole that treats its women like animals and makes all its money from growing opium.
We should just protect the oil routes and quite literally let the whole country turn into the flaming pile of rubble it's eventually going to end up as anyway.
Ironic user name. Methinks you haven't 'looked into it' quite enough.
|
On August 16 2010 06:03 love1another wrote:
Actually, after looking into this a little more, it's clear the only situation is to fucking nuke afghanistan. That place is a shithole that treats its women like animals and makes all its money from growing opium.
We should just protect the oil routes and quite literally let the whole country turn into the flaming pile of rubble it's eventually going to end up as anyway.
I think we should nuke anyone who shares your opinion. You're nice and happy in your nice little home where you have no worries because your parents do everything for you. You're so ignorant and stupid I had to post. Completely oblivious to anything but himself is what you are.
|
On August 16 2010 05:54 Jayve wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2010 05:26 angelicfolly wrote: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.
1: And you didn't know how well your technology would do in that geography or that they would attack your supply routes? That's a lack of intel. 2: I'm not a troll, and it's not an ignorant statement. I don't think you know how many hospitals and schools the US alone has blown up in wars thinking they were different things. And stop acting like the people who were BORN in Afghanistan/Iraq chose to live in those war zones. They're as much responsible for the terrors going on around them as the people in those 2 towers were, so stop whining and get over it. 3: Terrorism, in this world we live in, will never perish. It can, but it won't. As for the Taliban and Al Qaeda, the US cannot "beat" these groups and there are many reasons for that. The second you label them as terrorists you've lost the battle. 4: You don't want to be informed, that seems surprisingly American to me. Keep watching Fox News and you'll be fine.
1. I'm NOT going to debate this point with you. NOT the purpose of this thread, and it was never one of my points I was trying to make.
2.If your not a troll your trying to start a flame war. It is an ignorant statement. Dude go look at my posts I have made on subjects that involve civilian deaths in War, I will not go any further with you on this.
Here's the difference the US doesn't go after civilians, Al Qaeda and the Taliban DO. 9/11 was not an byproduct of a war, it was a intentional attack on a civilian target. It was NOT a byproduct of war, you cannot label it the same as people getting killed in war.
As far as Afghan/Iraq is concerned, unless you can find the quote that says I'm putting more stock into being American over middle Eastern don't you make that accusation again. There also as much responsible as there living conditions and mindset that brought up the situation we have now, i.e. none....
3. Wait, you just contradicted yourself. Ok, I get it roll over and let more attacks on the US, I mean at the time of 9/11 it wasn't like Al Qaeda hadn't attacked us before....
4. Get out. Seriously make more blanket statements, or just label every single American on this site, good job! Anyone up for labeling this guy a flamer/troll?
EDIT,
I really cannot believe you honestly told me to stop "whining" about 9/11, that really leaves me speechless.
|
On August 16 2010 02:49 KwarK wrote:
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.
I agree with this and we can only hope that governments become smart enough to understand that they will be better off bribing America with their oil so we don't have to go in their and take it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
