US to send 12-15,000 troops to Afghanistan

[Clanrickard]

[Note the diplomacy of Northern Alliance strongman General Dostum. He elicits support from the population by telling tribal leaders how their daughters "will be raped" if they don't comply.
There are no goodguys in Afghanistan, only Imperialist's in coalition with drug barons and warlords for the sake of strategic gas pipelines and greater control of the international heroin trade.

All of what you say is true. But tell me, if the allies weren't there would things be better or worse? Isn't there an argueemnt for saying that a surge in Afghanistan might work and given stability the US/UK could impose some type of normalcy on the place?

[CelticAtheist]

Yes. Whatever their faults, they are Afhgans. Nato will give up and withdraw in 5 - 10 years anyway.

Whatever their faults. Typical rubbish from the spoilt rich in the West. The Taliban would be a nightmare for Afghans especially women. But I suppose hatred of the US is more important.

Yes, the west bombs people in Afghanistan to support women's rights. While in Saudi we arm the government there even though women have virtually no rights. Where's the logic?

There is none I agree. But just because NATO is wrong on supporting Saudi doesn't mean they are wrong to back Karzai. No right thinking person wants the Taliban to succeed. They are frankly vermin and I hope the new will be sued to hurry up their meeting with their 72 virgins.

The Taliban were and are religious fanatics and they have been replaced by an Anglo-American-backed coalition of druglords from the so-called 'Northern Alliance'. Some of whom are actually former Soviet allies. Here's a good insight into them and their practises, as well as some of the Anglo-American participation in prisoner liquidation:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 4184611493

Note the diplomacy of Northern Alliance strongman General Dostum. He elicits support from the population by telling tribal leaders how their daughters "will be raped" if they don't comply.
There are no goodguys in Afghanistan, only Imperialist's in coalition with drug barons and warlords for the sake of strategic gas pipelines and greater control of the international heroin trade.

This is quite close to the truth.

The problem is, war can no longer be about conquering, which means people like the drug barons and warlords remain alive, when in any other century, they would have been chucked in prison or killed by now.

[Van Damme]

[Note the diplomacy of Northern Alliance strongman General Dostum. He elicits support from the population by telling tribal leaders how their daughters "will be raped" if they don't comply.
There are no goodguys in Afghanistan, only Imperialist's in coalition with drug barons and warlords for the sake of strategic gas pipelines and greater control of the international heroin trade.

All of what you say is true. But tell me, if the allies weren't there would things be better or worse? Isn't there an argueemnt for saying that a surge in Afghanistan might work and given stability the US/UK could impose some type of normalcy on the place?

Do you ever consider a non-military solution to anything?

Things in Afghanistan are certainly no better for the majority than they were 10 years ago and alot worse than 30 years ago.

[múscailte]

[Note the diplomacy of Northern Alliance strongman General Dostum. He elicits support from the population by telling tribal leaders how their daughters "will be raped" if they don't comply.
There are no goodguys in Afghanistan, only Imperialist's in coalition with drug barons and warlords for the sake of strategic gas pipelines and greater control of the international heroin trade.

All of what you say is true. But tell me, if the allies weren't there would things be better or worse? Isn't there an argueemnt for saying that a surge in Afghanistan might work and given stability the US/UK could impose some type of normalcy on the place?

I love your choice of language here; "US/UK could impose some type of normalcy". The British empire spent centuries imposing their type of normalcy on foreign lands. This basically involved divide and conquer, impose a puppet regime and carry on with the normal business of getting the resources out while the natives are at each other's throats. Seems to be working so far, given the amount of heroin around the place in recent years. Just a matter of getting the pipeline in now, indeed the tensions in Georgia might expedite that development; hence the pending American troop build up.

[odie1kanobe]

Northern Alliance are Shia as distinct from the Sunnis of the South.

Unsurprisingly the NA are close to Iran - anybody who thinks NA would not join in against the US if Iran attacked is deluded

[Conor the Bold]

Maybe you can't compare causalty rates but you can compare everything else. The reasons the uSSR had for invading were pretty much the same the the ones given by the US.

And what was that? Did the Afghanistan government et a terrorist oganisation use its alnds a safe haven to launch terrorists attacks in Moscow?

And causalty rates are lower today for several reasons

1. There is no superpower training and arming the muslim extremists like there was in the 80s

And?

2. Technology, the US has greater military techologies such as infra red, satelittes and cluster bombs to locate and kill enemy forces (and civillians).

And?

3. Medine. Improvements in medicine has meant soldiers are far less likely to die from wounds. Just check the ratio of deaths to wounded.

And? Casualties rates are much, much lower. Fact. There's no getting around it.

[Kevin Doyle]

[quote=Conor the Bold]

Maybe you can't compare causalty rates but you can compare everything else. The reasons the uSSR had for invading were pretty much the same the the ones given by the US.

And what was that? Did the Afghanistan government et a terrorist oganisation use its alnds a safe haven to launch terrorists attacks in Moscow?

And causalty rates are lower today for several reasons

1. There is no superpower training and arming the muslim extremists like there was in the 80s

And?

2. Technology, the US has greater military techologies such as infra red, satelittes and cluster bombs to locate and kill enemy forces (and civillians).

And?

3. Medine. Improvements in medicine has meant soldiers are far less likely to die from wounds. Just check the ratio of deaths to wounded.

And? Casualties rates are much, much lower. Fact. There's no getting around it.[/quote:1iwexbtb]

Ah the simple answers for the simple mind.

Twat.

[múscailte]

Ah the simple answers for the simple mind.

Twat.

Clear, concise and directly to the point. Bravo I say.

[Conor the Bold]

Ah the simple answers for the simple mind.

Twat.

Couldn't agree more. You are indeed a Twat.

So how are those comparisons between 1980's Russian occupation of Afgahnistan going? Well?

[Clanrickard]

Northern Alliance are Shia as distinct from the Sunnis of the South.

Unsurprisingly the NA are close to Iran - anybody who thinks NA would not join in against the US if Iran attacked is deluded

Not true. The Hazara are Shia but the rest of the Northern Alliance are Sunni. The NA no longer exists as an entity, if it ever did. Only in the area around Herat where Persians live would there be support for Iran. Remember Afghanistan and Iran almost went to war in 2000.