It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Firefight erupts between Afghan and NATO forces in Afghanistan

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

Buddy i care about the troops on the ground also, and the future troops on the ground that will be our children in some other area of conflict. Seems like a pointless exercise to me considering the discontent and religious intolerance these occupations/police actions breed.

As to casualties, well one dead child never mind a soldier is enough for me. Low is a matter of opinion.
edit on 8-4-2015 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 02:57 PM
link   
I think that the russian if we had not interfered with them could had gained total control of arghanistan. they were ruthless enough to do it back then.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

Have you seen what we accomplish with drone strikes these days? Ruthless don't even begin to address such actions. Truth be told there rather synonymous with the terrorist acts perpetrated against our own nations. The Soviet occupation of Afghanistan does not even come close.
edit on 8-4-2015 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: daaskapital

Sorry... but your Quoting RT..
Are they any other " Reliable " Sources?



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

mongolia crushed afghanistan, so did every other invader except the russians and the british won both times they just didn't occupy afghanistan so please quit with the inaccurate anti-war nonsense, i see it so often by so many and wonder where they get these facts from.

what do people think winning a war means exactly? a clean, humane, easy victory that only lasts a short time with no casualities?

to win a war is simply to achieve an objective by force regardless how many losses you take, that's it. we did that already and installed a new government which allows trade with us and access to resources.

the taliban were just an obstacle not the goal, why else do you think they still exist? whats the point in wiping them out if we have what we came for?



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: namehere

Mongolia did not crush Afghanistan, they occupied the area and attempted to subvert the resources and populace to there own designs which failed abysmally due to the geographical make up of the area if nothing else, same with any other conquerors. Wars these days have far different agendas and implications than those of the past.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

that's factually wrong, mongolia only lost one battle to them and infact they became part of persia whom the mongols just conquered, that conquest was their first major conquest.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: namehere

You only need to lose one battle to lose a war especially so regarding the past and ancient history. The fact that they became part of what amounts to the Persian empire of the time has more to do with the adaptation of the Muslim religion. Since Alexander the Great no one has managed to subvert Afghanistan in any kind of significant fashion simply due to location. And lets face it he was considered to be a Demigod. The rest that came after, including our own nations attempts, well we are simply infidels. At least that's how the indigenous populace perceives our military forces just like the others that have come before.
edit on 8-4-2015 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: daaskapital

Wasn't NATO a DEFENCE organisation pact to counter the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact? Both of which are no longer in existence.

Why is NATO still here?

I think it is time for Russia to reform a Military Pact to counter NATO.


edit on 8-4-2015 by bullcat because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join