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.

 

U.S. launches 'major operation' in Afghanistan

page: 6
17
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Golden Generic
see lets see if im right on this

we help taliban beat russians

we watch russians leave in defeat

now we go in hard in their place

what is the end result, another puppet government with mad muslims?


Nope, that's incorrect. The Taliban didn't exist when the Soviets were in Afghanistan.

Edit to add and clarify: The Taliban were a development of one of the competing factions left fighting amongst themselves in the power vacuum left in the wake of the Soviet pull out, and the resultant US abandonment of Afghanistan. We bailed out when the Russians left, without giving any civil assistance, or helping the Afghans put any sort of civil/ governmental structure into place. In the resulting chaos, several tribal factions were fighting each other under the various warlords for country-wide dominance. The Northern Alliance is another of those factions, an umbrella group containing an alliance of warlords under Masud, who was active in the Panjshir Valley against the Soviets.

The Taliban developed in this mileu, and provided a repressive "stability" of sorts, but they never "controlled" the entire country, any more than any other faction did. The Northern Alliance was their chief rival, and the next decade or so was a power struggle between the two, the Taliban "extremeists" and the NA "moderates". The Taliban controlled the capitol, Kabul, and so were given nominal credit for being the government for the entire country, but such was never entirely the case. The power struggle continued throughout the entire time, to a greater or smaller extent.

The entire situation was precipitated when we gave them military assistance for a military victory, then left them high and dry in the aftermath of that victory with no guidance or assistance in setting their country back in order. We didn't create and arm the Taliban any more then we did the NA or any other warlord factions opposed to them, but we abandoned them allowing the conditions to develop that DID create them. They developed themselves out of that.

That's why I say that we owe it to Afghanistan to set right what we helped scramble in the first place. Sorry to have been so long winded, but I didn't want to leave the impression of being one dimensional. It's a much more layered situation than is commonly perceived, but that does nothing to negate the fact that the Taliban is the enemy, and has to go.

That's the bottom line.



[edit on 2009/7/8 by nenothtu]




posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Afghanistan in a serious state, UK minister warns

By Luke Baker

LONDON, July 8 (Reuters) - Britain's defence secretary, making his first speech since being promoted to head the ministry last month, said on Wednesday the war in Afghanistan was a serious struggle that needed patience.

"Let us be under no illusion," Bob Ainsworth, the third person to head the Ministry of Defence in the past nine months, told the Royal Institute for International Affairs.

"The situation in Afghanistan is serious, and it is not yet decided. The way forward is hard and dangerous. More lives will be lost and our resolve is going to be tested."

Seven British soldiers have died in the past week in southern Afghanistan, where British forces have launched a large-scale operation against the Taliban alongside U.S. troops.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Is that crickets I hear in here? Where are the folks who were calling out the "keyboard warriors" to provide credentials? No more arguments against the "keyboard warriors'" opinions?

And no apologies either.

I thought not.

nenothtu out



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Oops. Doubled.

[edit on 2009/7/9 by nenothtu]



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


I hear what you are saying. I agree things need to be straightened out. Good post btw. very informative.

But, at what point do you say enough? Ever? Like in Iraq will we pull out of the cities and just maintain a base on the perimeter?

I don't have a link, but I read back in 07 the dollar amount the defense industry was given to build all those bases. In the hundreds of billions of dollars range. Think we are just gunna hand that kind of money over to the newly elected government of Afhganistan? That would be one hell of a birthday present...

My point here is ok. Our objective, supposedly, was to remove the pittly Taliban. We could have used temporary bases, the way we did in Nam, gotten the job done, and hightailed it out of their. But no, we decided to make a huge investment in the rebuilding of Afhganistan and its infrastructure, essentially owning them...OK... whatever, is what I say. Probably better than the way they were, I say its not our job, they are grown-ups and can handle it themselves, but our foreign policy lords always seem to see it differently. After all, we have become the Internationalist America.

But because it has never been stated, doesn't mean it is not true. Our hidden objectives have been plainly obvious in Iraq and Afhganistan. And it has been done behind a vail. A vail that the public has not been allowed to pierce. We will never leave Afhganistan, just as we will never leave Iraq. Americas pipelines will remain flowing for years to come. Those that installed those pipelines pockets will be overflowing with green. Their ancestors pockets will be full. That is why we will never leave.

This will never be a good thing.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by open_eyeballs
But because it has never been stated, doesn't mean it is not true. Our hidden objectives have been plainly obvious in Iraq and Afhganistan. And it has been done behind a vail. A vail that the public has not been allowed to pierce. We will never leave Afhganistan, just as we will never leave Iraq. Americas pipelines will remain flowing for years to come. Those that installed those pipelines pockets will be overflowing with green. Their ancestors pockets will be full. That is why we will never leave.

This will never be a good thing.


Sorry for just jumping in here but...

That's exactly the point IMO. Central Asia is the "GAME" Russia, China and the US all are positioning themselves to have influence in the region. Pipelines? Yes Russian, Chinese through the very same region where they are having all the major recent unrest and the US through Afghanistan etc.

Everybody has an interest in the stability of that region. Why do you think the Soviets invaded in the first place back in the 80s? Also why do you think now the Russians have ok'd the US of all countries the use of their airspace?



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by open_eyeballs
 


Well, see, there's the problem, in my opinion. We did just that in the '80's war, accomplished our "objective", then bailed right out and left them high and dry, in a power vacuum. After about 6 years of fraternal infighting, the Taliban nominally filled that vacuum, but the warfare raged on, as it always has in Afghanistan.

In that sense, I'd have to agree that the US "created" the Taliban. We didn't really arm, equip or organize them, but their existence was an outgrowth of our hands-off policy after the Soviets were run out of town. It was a sin of omission, rather than a sin of commission.

I personally think that this time it ought to be done right, the objective should be to create maximum stability for the Afghans. To that end, it should be composed of two approaches in tandem:

1) eradicate the Taliban. I don't mean minimize, I mean eradicate. I'm not big on half-measures that have to be revisited time after time.

2) assist Afghans in creating their own stability. Public works, infrastructure development, the whole nine yards. Normally I'm not big on having to tear up a country and then rebuild it for them, but in this case I believe it to be justified, to undo wrongs done years ago, as much as possible.

But not until the Taliban is erased.

It appears that several other nations are interested in having stability in the area as well. Maybe not so much France or Germany, nominal "allies", as Russia, a nominal opponent. Funny how time works things out, isn't it?

I wouldn't worry overmuch about the US overstaying their welcome. No one else has ever been able to, all throughout the history of Afghanistan.

America is no different in that respect.






[edit on 2009/7/9 by nenothtu]



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Stability in the region would assist greatly in "the Game", since it's no fun to play a game when folks come along at random and kick the checkerboard over. Stability benefits everyone, not the least of which is the Afghans themselves.

In the late 1970's , the Russians had set up one of their socialist "client states" as the government of Afghanistan. Now Islam and communism don't get along very well. It's the whole "there is no God" thing the communists had going on. Afghans were a bit offended at that, and more so that suddenly their government was one of THEM.

So some good 'ol boy Afghans got together, raided a Russian government facility in Kabul (something on the order of a consulate, I don't recall the exact variety of facility), and cut the heads off of several occupants. Sound familiar?

Any how, the Russians found that to be an excellent pretext to crack down on Afghan "counter-revolutionaries", and several months later the invasion was on, in December of 1979. The intervening time was filled with memos between the Kremlin and the military, getting the invasion set up. I've got copies of some of them that were intercepted somewhere. I'll see if I can find them, if anyone here reads Cyrillic. They're not classified any more, they're part of the historical record now.

Unfortunately, they just kicked over the checkerboard one more time.

That's what the US needs to avoid, and a permanent military presence in the area will only kick it over again.






[edit on 2009/7/9 by nenothtu]



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Stability yes.
The Russians always knew about the issues in the region. The Chinese had some inklings but nothing really mattered until recently when OIL was discovered in the region right under East Turkistan. Sorry I mean western China.

The Russians know that if anybody has a chance of helping the stability in the region it's the US. Whats funny if we set aside all the Conspiracy theories as to why they are helping us the simple fact is that they above all others actually have more faith in us than many of our own citizens and "Allies"


[edit on 9-7-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by rogue1
 

Well, dip, I volunteered three times for combat, and then volunteered for the Rangers so that I could serve in combat. The 5th Group returned to Bragg, and SF was out of the combat zone. Get it? Combat? It's real hard to fight in combat at Fort Bragg! The Rangers were the best LRP fighters in COMBAT, and naturally, I tended to gravitate there.


Buddy as I said, anyone can claim to have some sort of combat history and quite easily google the details on the internet and read some preosnal accounts of real soldiers.



Your self-proclaimed high opinion of yourself is unjustified, and overrated, and I'm just speaking as an interested observer. BUT, I DID love folks like you, as you were so easy to take down.


Of course, still with the bravado.


Google "Edicts of Ares, Thirteen Absolute Rules of Warfare," dip*.


This is your book ? The book the marines are following in Afghanistan ?

It has alot of negative reviews such as -


This book is an awful, rambling, opinionated tirade defending atrocities, torture, and barbarity, a "the-end-justifies-any-means" rant. The author, who cannot spell "Napoleon," grotesquely misrepresents Islam and misquotes scriptures out of context, fails to see contradiction between "establishing credibility" (which must include honoring one's word) and praising Scipio's deception and treachery in the burning of the enemy camps at Utica, and commits countless other errors and inconsistencies. He would be well advised to study Lao Tzu and not just Sun Tzu, and to gain a different perspective by reading Eduardo Galeano's "Mirrors" and similar works.
Would the rules of warfare championed in this book lead to victory? Perhaps, although they certainly would also result in the dishonor and disgrace of any country or army trying to implement them as urged by the bellicose author. I, for one, would rather be killed or destroyed than achieve victory by means that negate humanity and civilization. No, the end most definitely does not justify the means.



I doubt the Marines you know - know of the book. I sold a lot in Washington DC for some reason.


Of course not, just that you claimed they were following your doctrine from the book.


That body count? I didn't give a body count, but what's the big deal? Hell, you kill a lot more than are verified - so what's the difference? We got a three day R&R for every handful we bagged, and it was the Army keeping count. Not us.


Your claimed several score, you work it out.


I'm sorry if I offended you, but I wasn't in the Army to be politically correct, I was not a nation-builder, nor an ambassador of goodwill. I was there to do one thing, and that's exactly what I did.


Nation building ? The Army hasn't built any nations just destroyed them. not sure what history books you read from.


OOOOOOHHHH! I get it! You never made a kill! I'm sorry, claim some of mine! Got any shrapnel or bullet scars? See, I have those too. From my throat to my shin, front, sides, and even my back.


yes of course you do. I had a 105mm shell pass straight through me
You can claim all you want, but they are nothing more than claims and there have been plenty of those on ATS about supposed military backgrounds.


I think you're nothing but a smug pseudo-intelligentsia who has met a lot of disappointment in life, and it sounds like you sure as hell don't know anything about military capabilities.


I know enough, I also don't have to try and big note myslef. I have travelled and worked around the world, I have seen plenty including more than a few troublespots. Of course you know more than the commanders, they've never served in any war. You're the expert.


Getting your stuff out of a book is fine, but it really doesn't work that way in the field. Our generals have been reading the same books, and that's why we haven't won our first war since the creation of the Joint Chiefs. They generally don't have any kills either. Nor can they lead.


yes well I guess having a kill does increase your intelligence by a point.



Since you can't stand on your own merit, you attack those you disagree with.


You want me too make up a flase ilitary career like you ? I could it would be quite easy and very hard to disprove. But that's not my game.


Mighty brave thing to do.

From a distance.


you ought to know, I wonder if you go to the bars and tell this BS to real military people or would they find you out to quickly ?

[edit on 10-7-2009 by rogue1]



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

you ought to know, I wonder if you go to the bars and tell this BS to real military people or would they find you out to quickly ?



Well. Another personal attack, no evidence to counter anything dooper said, and no evidence to support your viewpoint, or give any indication that you have any idea what you're talking about.

I asked several times that you put up or shut up. Either display your credentials, or admit you have none.

You've done neither. Dooper has.

You've been owned.

Have a nice day.



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by rogue1
 


That's quite a claim, and oddly the claim that a 105 went right through you - I believe. It apparently went through one ear, out the other, and didn't hit a thing.

I really don't have time to go online to try to piece together some piece through connecting times and situations of various units. Maybe a retard would, and only a retard would even think of such thing, so based on your limited knowledge of how things work, maybe this is how you get the bulk of your information. Me? I have better things to do.

I can tell you something you won't find in any reference material about Company O, Arctic Rangers, 75th Infantry. We were the only unit in the entire US Army that was ISSUED a daily ration of rum. The medics would pass them out, and I had more non-drinking friends than anyone.

Another thing you won't find in your internet reference material. I spent an entire morning sifting through ashes trying to find the wedding ring of a Captain Lasater whose helicopter went down and burned right between us and the 33rd NVA Regiment - maybe twenty meters in front of me.

You'll not find in any written records that prior to him getting shot down, he was flying at treetop level, tossing grenades like he had a case for two, trying to buy US some time. It seems that all seven of us opened up on the 33rd NVA Regiment, and it was, very busy.

It might say his body was recovered, but all found was a chunk of charred meat and his charred face. Not his head. His face. Never found the ring.

You believe what you want. It's painfully obvious that you'll ignore all reality to do so.

Yeah, I got a bad review from an apparent Muslim. All Muslims would give it a bad review, which means I'm doing something right.

But you left out the best part of what he wrote!

He preferred to "be killed than achieve victory by means that negate humanity and civilization."

That man is a fool AND a pussy.

He criticized Scipio's deception, even though it worked! For shame! Winning!

War is deception. You fight dirty, you cheat, and you shoot him in the back or in his sleep if you get the chance.

That dumbass, as others, seem to think that war is somehow a fair fight. Nothing fair about it. It's about winning. When you win, you survive. When you lose, you're dead.

And that was the purpose of the book. Those that follow these edicts have never lost a single battle, campaign, or war since 1479 BC.

Since it's about winning, and isn't for pussies, I am stunned that he would even read it! And I KNOW you wouldn't like it!

You made another mistake on the nation building comment you made. Our efforts in Iraq Part 2 was in fact, nation building. You really don't get it do you? You don't keep up with what's going on, do you?

The point about our military commanders having never taken any scalps themselves, is reflected in their pisspoor strategic errors, and their tactical mistakes. You really don't understand that either, do you?

I don't want a surgeon, in command of a surgical team, who's never cut anything with a scapel, operating on me.

I don't want to be on a plane, and the chief pilot has never actually taken off, flown on instruments nor landed. This isn't that hard to understand.

I don't go to bars, but I am on occasion, the keynote speaker at Special Operations functions, and speak to full auditoriums.

These elite groups much prefer that their keynote speakers not have any military history, zero combat experience, and zero military knowledge.

That really impresses them.



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 10:53 PM
link   
Taliban pushed back, long way to go-Obama

LONDON (Reuters) - U.S. and allied troops have pushed back Taliban insurgents in a major offensive in Afghanistan but there is still a long way to go, U.S. President Barack Obama said on Saturday.

"We knew that this summer was going to be tough fighting ... They (the Taliban) have, I think, been pushed back but we still have a long way to go. We've got to get through elections," he said in an interview with Sky News during his visit to Ghana.



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 11:55 PM
link   
I dont usually comment when I post news updates but this was pretty intense.


Isolated US convoys in Afghanistan ambush targets

"We fired four rockets in all and several hundred grenade and machinegun rounds. It shows how thick the compound's walls must be as the building is still standing."

Marines took up positions on the ground around the vehicles as illumination flares were fired overhead from a nearby US base.

Shots from the compound triggered a barrage of return fire from gunners mounted on the trucks' roofs and from other soldiers on foot.

Huge explosions rocked the convoy and red tracer bullets flew through the air. One US rocket destroyed a wall of the compound, and Marines said they saw men pulling belongings out of the rubble.

The exchange of fire lasted about one hour, with the attackers then falling silent under the heavy US onslaught.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   
AP IMPACT: Crooked Afghan police challenge Marines

As about 150 Marines and Afghan soldiers approached the police headquarters in the Helmand River town of Aynak, the police fired four gunshots at the combined force. No larger fight broke out, but once inside the headquarters the Marines found a raggedy force in a decrepit mud-brick compound that the police used as an open-pit toilet.

The meeting was tense. Some police were smoking pot. Others loaded their guns in a threatening manner near the Marines.

The U.S. troops ousted the police two days later and installed a better trained force they had brought with them on their recently launched operation into southern Helmand. The original force was sent away for several weeks of training the U.S. is conducting across Afghanistan to professionalize the country's police.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by rogue1
 


That's quite a claim, and oddly the claim that a 105 went right through you - I believe. It apparently went through one ear, out the other, and didn't hit a thing.

I really don't have time to go online to try to piece together some piece through connecting times and situations of various units. Maybe a retard would, and only a retard would even think of such thing, so based on your limited knowledge of how things work, maybe this is how you get the bulk of your information. Me? I have better things to do.


But you don't. This is quite obvious, the fact that you defend yourself from someone who you think you shouldn't have to defend yourdself from, tells me that you are not what you claim to be. I know that any person who does calim to be SF wouldn't even waste the time and yes I do know one or two. You can say all you want, unitl I have met you face to face I don't believe anything. I have seen plenty of "soldiers" claim to be SF and have almost never answered any questions I have asked them truthfully and this has been face to face.




Another thing you won't find in your internet reference material. I spent an entire morning sifting through ashes trying to find the wedding ring of a Captain Lasater whose helicopter went down and burned right between us and the 33rd NVA Regiment - maybe twenty meters in front of me.


Well I would have to assume that you repelled the NVA and felt confident recovering the remains. What unit did you serve in again ?


You'll not find in any written records that prior to him getting shot down, he was flying at treetop level, tossing grenades like he had a case for two, trying to buy US some time. It seems that all seven of us opened up on the 33rd NVA Regiment, and it was, very busy.


And where was this? South Vietnam covers an entire country back then. Where were you when this happened ?


It might say his body was recovered, but all found was a chunk of charred meat and his charred face. Not his head. His face. Never found the ring.


And that is war, we foundvillages thrown down wells in East Timor, we knoew they were there because if the smell.


You believe what you want. It's painfully obvious that you'll ignore all reality to do so.


No, I just don't take kindly to BS.


Yeah, I got a bad review from an apparent Muslim. All Muslims would give it a bad review, which means I'm doing something right.


Ahem is this the redneck talking. I guess in your narrow minded views all Muslims are bad. In fact I am neither Muslim nor Christian I abhore both religions as a way to control the weak.



He preferred to "be killed than achieve victory by means that negate humanity and civilization."

That man is a fool AND a pussy.

He criticized Scipio's deception, even though it worked! For shame! Winning!


Ahem, so war should be won by any tactical means necessay except the strategic victory is lost. You can defeat an enemy by massacring civilians, exceot those left will rise again and wage war. And they will always seek more deadly means for revenge.


War is deception. You fight dirty, you cheat, and you shoot him in the back or in his sleep if you get the chance.


Maybe true to win sometimes, yet you defile all the ideals America stands for. Without thos ideals America becomes no better than any other coutry which uses torture, rape and genocide to exert their will.


That dumbass, as others, seem to think that war is somehow a fair fight. Nothing fair about it. It's about winning. When you win, you survive. When you lose, you're dead.


Hmm ok so dropping GDAMS from 20000 feet is fair. America isn't fighting a fair fight atm. Waging war the same way your jaded mind thinks will undoubtable destroy America's ideal of rightiousness adn any support America has from anybody including its own citizens.


And that was the purpose of the book. Those that follow these edicts have never lost a single battle, campaign, or war since 1479 BC.


And.....we live in times where everything is moving at a geometric pace. Doctrine thought up 50 years ago barely works today. This is the modern world, far removed from teh ancient battles you cite. Human psyche has also changes more in the last 50 years than in the last 3000. There is no place for dinosaurs with far outdarted views of the modern world.


Since it's about winning, and isn't for pussies, I am stunned that he would even read it! And I KNOW you wouldn't like it!


Well no one knows how truly bad that work is until you have read it in its entirety.


You made another mistake on the nation building comment you made. Our efforts in Iraq Part 2 was in fact, nation building. You really don't get it do you? You don't keep up with what's going on, do you?


You tried to make the point that the US Army has purpose has always been to nation build. Your supposed service in Vetnam would also lead me to believe that was nation buildin in your opinion. SO what has the US Army done to nation build in Iraq apart from wreck the country and beg for foreign assistance to actually build the nation. Of course every US multinational is amking a massive profit from providing services to Iraq they barely and in some instances don't provide



The point about our military commanders having never taken any scalps themselves, is reflected in their pisspoor strategic errors, and their tactical mistakes. You really don't understand that either, do you?


Which commanders are those, your brethren you claim to have served alongside in Vietnam?

I don't want a surgeon, in command of a surgical team, who's never cut anything with a scapel, operating on me.

I don't want to be on a plane, and the chief pilot has never actually taken off, flown on instruments nor landed. This isn't that hard to understand.


I don't go to bars, but I am on occasion, the keynote speaker at Special Operations functions, and speak to full auditoriums.


Of course you do and what is your name? I can confirm your legitimacy in 5 seconds from people who may have actually met you. Let me guess you are a former SF soldier who doesn't have the balls to put his name forward. If so then you are full of #E. Which deminars have you spoken at? Name 3 and your name. I guarantee I know someone who has been to one fo them.


I sense there is at leat one veteran in this thread who doesn't defend you, who doubts who you say you are.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
Well. Another personal attack, no evidence to counter anything dooper said, and no evidence to support your viewpoint, or give any indication that you have any idea what you're talking about.


Really, I will always speak up against people who pretend they are something they are not. I am not as gullible as you. Although I know why you are, you agree with anyone who parrots your same views. Let me guess Palis is your pinup girl



I asked several times that you put up or shut up. Either display your credentials, or admit you have none.


You want me to google my credentials? Eerything dooper has said comes up on the first hundred search result from google. Kind of the most basic research and the most obvious.


You've done neither. Dooper has.

You've been owned.


If you say so, no one else does. But look at your history of posting, hardly unbias. Do you have any credentials to back dooper up, or do you just blindly believe?

PS. You do know gullible has been taken out of the dictionary



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

Really, I will always speak up against people who pretend they are something they are not. I am not as gullible as you. Although I know why you are, you agree with anyone who parrots your same views. Let me guess Palis is your pinup girl




And your evidence that you are speaking up against "people who pretend they are something they are not" is...? I'm guessing here the only evidence you have is a strong personal belief, colored by rank ineptitude. Hardly sufficient. Dooper gave his credentials, and you rejected them out of hand because they conflict with your wannabe beliefs, and probably hurt your pride as well. Calling me "gullible" does nothing to strengthen your argument. It's just lashing out, as hurt children do. The mis-spelled comment about Palin only shows your politics, and nothing more. Just more lashing out, and unfounded at that.

Typical of petulant children.

Dooper gave everything you need to verify. Even his name, spelled out. I took what info he gave just in this thread, and found everything I would need to check his story. Even his current address and phone number. You might have to put a bit of independent thought in it, though, a skill in which I perceive you are lacking. It's hardly fair to blame him for your own lack of cognitive skill.



I asked several times that you put up or shut up. Either display your credentials, or admit you have none.


You want me to google my credentials? Eerything dooper has said comes up on the first hundred search result from google. Kind of the most basic research and the most obvious.


Well, now something we can work with. Since you can't seem to grasp what "providing your credentials" entails, yet you somehow believe they can be googled, gimme your name, and I'll google it myself to see your bona fides.

You've STILL provided no credentials, of any sort. Can't huh? I'll take that as an admission that you have none.

Your simplistic attacks belie a lack of knowledge, first-hand or otherwise, and a lack of experience and skills. Yet you would presume to explain to those who have already been there, done that, and collected the t-shirt "how it's done"?

Kids these days!



You've done neither. Dooper has.

You've been owned.


If you say so, no one else does. But look at your history of posting, hardly unbias. Do you have any credentials to back dooper up, or do you just blindly believe?

PS. You do know gullible has been taken out of the dictionary


No one else cares to attempt to straighten your young fanny out. Not the same as buying your BS. Yeah, I've got doopers credentials. You do too, as does anyone who has read this thread. Not my problem if they conflict with your wannabe beliefs to such an extent that you have to wilfully ignore them.

Yeah, that wilfull ignorance is a sure sign of being owned.

Did I claim somewhere to be unbiased? Only a fool knows not what he thinks. That in itself is a bias.

[edit on 2009/7/15 by nenothtu]



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   
Hamid Karzai says bring Taliban to table

The president of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, has urged the West to develop a new strategy for his country, warning that more troops will not necessarily improve security.

“Military operations are no longer enough,” he said as the deaths of British and coalition soldiers in Afghanistan reached their highest monthly total of the eight-year war. “We have to rethink the way we do things — without that there won’t be any improvement.”

Karzai called for negotiations with the Taliban. Even Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader, should be encouraged to attend talks, he said.



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 11:19 PM
link   
I've just quickly read through the thread and I've noticed some anti american/anti marine comments, You DO NOT insult us marines. Us people in the military have done much more for the world than you idiots who just sit on your ass and complain. Us "dumb americans" and military types have saved your countries asses MANY times before

It seems like some of you support the taliban and other terrorist organizations rather than support us soldiers. Its SICKENING.

Whether the taliban did 911 or not, they took credit for it and thats the point...

I dont really support these wars but show some f'ing respect.

I will comment on all these news stories after I read them (I havent really followed this stuff since I was honorably discharged 2 years ago).

Peace


[edit on 18-7-2009 by jeasahtheseer]



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join