Marines Engage Al-Qaeda & Taliban Militants

This is more of the same. Wars for resources plain and simple. The British got their a##e# handed to them retreating from Afghanistan back in 1842.

Now we fight their wars for resources for them.

No different though as far as our own history here in the US. The same thing the Europeans did here in the Americas, defeating the indigenous peoples for the rich sources of Oil, Gold and Silver found in North and South America.

The same thing the Germans were after in Russia during WWII.
No different. The Japanese were after the oil in Indonesia, attacking the US after we cut off their oil, which in itself was for all practical purposes, an act of war.

You wanna talk about the Germans ? Look at the involvement by the PTB here in the United States.

If you research the Business Plot where Prescott Bush, a Fascist supporter of Hitler, yes GW's Grandaddy, was planning on overthrowing the US Govt with an alliance with the Nazis whom were being financed by American banks owned by the Harriman family. Wealthy Owners of the Union Pacific Railway AND Union Bank.

These people never went away, and simply control the war agenda for profits via high ranking positions in the CIA, the shadow government who REALLY controls things here in Amerika. Aka "The Company".

Connect the dots and Look at secretary of defense Gates and his past for example.
In case you didn't already know, he's career CIA as well as former CIA DIRECTOR. Just like someone else we all know....W's Dad , GH Bush.

Where is GH Bush now ? He sits on the board of the Carlyle group, a purveyor of weapons for the industrial military complex. Which profit on these wars for resources.

Obama is no different ( his Mom was CIA) and as with all Democrats/Republicans Presidents are merely being paid to TALK about ending these wars as part of the agenda as the wars for resources continuously marches on.

As they have throughout history.

WWII
Korea
Vietnam
Bay of Pigs
Grenada
Panama
Persian Gulf
Bosnia
Afghanistan
Iraq

There is no hope for peace, unless people realize the real face of war and stop promoting the false, heroic looking side. People, just as the op, who deliberately portray war as as a heroic adventure, promote a propagandistic view, either subconsciously or on purpose.

My nationality really has nothing to do with that matter. And no, only because your fathers or grandfathers destroyed the nazi-regime, you do not have a carte-blanche to invade other countries and kill over a million people.

And you can't legitimize the concept of war with the lame argument, that other people have weapons too. That's damn childish. You know very well that someone has to start with the disarmement. The weaker can't do it, because their weapons are the means of self-defense against the stronger.

As sad as it is, us is the strongest. So it's your turn to stop the war games. Well, feels like howling into the wind, you won't change your worldview i suppose, and i surely won't too.

The least you can do is to stop the propaganda, in case you're no war profiteer

Originally posted by DaddyBare
reply to post by fooffstarr

 

Well to answer your question let me first say there is a conflict of opinions between the Army and Marines over this weapon...

the army doesn't think a replacement is needed...

"The Marines tested and approved the Heckler & Koch G36 as a replacement. they even sent out a purchase contract but congress killed it Heckler & Koch G36

Not to be left out the army tested the XM29 OICW very Buck Rodgers Star Wars like... didn't work and the replacement program ended so nothing is in the pipe....

In either case the biggest crime is not to give our people the best equipment we can... no mothers son should die because his rifle jams "


They need Springfield M-14s for A-Stan. GET SOME!!! Any other rifle is ridiculous.

You don't outsource your main battle rifle, Ever.

Argee 100%

[edit on 18-10-2009 by Sky watcher]

[edit on 18-10-2009 by Sky watcher]

reply to post by DaddyBare


Just took a class at work that envolved a special operations instructor who had recently used the FN scar in battle. He stated that certain operators were issued the test rifle but still carried their M4's on their person. He said the rifle was not a giant leap over the current issue M4. There are pros and cons for both systems. The M4 has a shorter barrel conpaired to the M16 and that is were some of the problems stem from on gas exchange compounded with extraction and heat issues.

When stoner disigned the rifle he did it with the rifle performing best with the 5.56 round coming out of a 20inch barrel for maximum kill potental and reliability.

Great videos. Looks like a beautiful countryside. The mountains in the second video right above the village remind me of Southern Colorado, very ragged looking.

And to think, 20% of my earnings go to this $492 billion annual vacuum of death and destruction.

$19 Billion feeds and clothes everyONE in the world, reverses the spread of HIV/AIDS, and provides clean water for everyONE on this planet.

We are all ONE.

Those gestapo foul mouthed degenerates are killing themselves.

Disgusting.

reply to post by Wachstum


well put wachstum. I truly believe most people feel the same.

Pakistan Moves Farther Into Taliban Land

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — The Pakistani military moved deeper into South Waziristan on Sunday, hitting Taliban targets with F-16 fighter jets, as troops supported by helicopter gunships climbed higher into the mountainous terrain, according to military personnel and a spokesman for the militants.

Pakistani Air Force fighter jets struck the militant-held towns of Makeen, Ladha and Kotkai in the heart of Taliban territory, and ground forces have occupied territory on the edge of the militant enclave, Pakistani military personnel said.

Here's an update on what's been going on.

Pakistan presses on with assault on Taliban stronghold

Taliban fighters offered fierce resistance as ground troops backed by warplanes and artillery pushed into South Waziristan, the mountain headquarters of the notorious Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Pakistan said it killed more than 60 militants and lost 11 soldiers as a force of 30,000 pushed into Taliban's tribal stronghold.

Intelligence officials said at least eight more militants have died in a fierce battle in the Khaisur area, where they approached troop positions.

Originally posted by seataka
And SLAYER, what do you think about that post and it's link. Can anyone refute any of the allegations in that posted link?

I'm not refuting nor making any claims in this thread. I'm just posting what info is coming out.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Very cool new report and informative. I have been waiting to see video about this huge offensive. However, something caught my eye, it shows the Pakistan Army using the classic two-pronged attack, a frontal assault and one at the rear, thus hindering a retreat.

Now, it said they are basically intent on either capturing the Taliban in Waziristan or annihilating them altogether. However, I kept on looking at the Afghan border on that map, and what is to stop them from making a retreat across the border into Afghanistan to the mountains and exasperating things for the US and Nato force? The report never said if the US has ramped up defenses along the border to keep the retreating Taliban out. Do you know Slayer?

reply to post by Jakes51


Reread my OP.
I knew that was going to happen

This Fall, Winter and coming Spring will see a possible increase in US/West casualties IMO. Action will increase as the Taliban increase their activity after they infiltrate back into Afghanistan positions from Pakistan.

This is also why McCrystal has been asking for more troops. Obama has ok'd 13000 to be exact. Once the Pakistanis push them out of their safe haven they will flood back into Afghanistan.

[edit on 19-10-2009 by SLAYER69]

reply to post by SLAYER69


Yeah, I just re-read it, and it looks like the Taliban are playing a game of leap frog with the US and Pakistan.When one side gets to hairy, they go to another and back and forth. So apparently, if Nato doesn't cut off the retreat from Pakistan into Afghanistan from the west, it is going to be a long winter. Lets hope, they cut off that retreat and shut down the mountain passes. In addition to hindering the attempts to hide among the civilian populations and tribal strong holds. However, as many have said it is easier said than done.

Originally posted by Jakes51
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

Yeah, I just re-read it, and it looks like the Taliban are playing a game of leap frog with the US and Pakistan.When one side gets to hairy, they go to another and back and forth. So apparently, if Nato doesn't cut off the retreat from Pakistan into Afghanistan from the west, it is going to be a long winter. Lets hope, they cut off that retreat and shut down the mountain passes.

Oh I hope not. There's not much in the way of food up in them there hills in the winter. Also if they do come at us in numbers the advantage shifts in our favor. We know how to fight that type of war instead of this cat and mouse one.

Here is an interesting post.

Enjoy

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by SLAYER69


Well it looks like outside factors are shaping up to be in favor of Nato force. With the post you cited and potential food shortages during the winter months. It looks as though this could be the death blow to the Taliban? Time will tell, but these developments you have shared, seem to be beneficial to the forces in Afghanistan. Lets see how this winter turns out for the military in Afghanistan. The Taliban may find themselves backed into a corner this time.

reply to post by Jakes51


Death blow? I Wouldnt go that far.
But rough? Yes. Afghanistan winters in their mountains will be very rough. It will be interesting to see what affect this will have on them come this spring. This past spring the US/Allies blunted the Taliban 2009 spring offensive that's why the casualties went up earlier this year.

My Last Spring Threads
www.abovetopsecret.com...

AND

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 19-10-2009 by SLAYER69]

Thread Situational update.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9dafbef2c373.jpg[/atsimg]
U.S. forces step up attacks as Afghan runoff looms

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan | U.S.-led forces are intensifying operations against the Taliban in southern Afghanistan to counter an anticipated increase in attacks before a presidential runoff election next month.

At Kandahar airfield, U.S. and British pilots Wednesday monitored live streaming video from an unmanned aerial vehicle flying in a clear morning sky over southern Afghanistan, where improvised explosive device (IED) attacks have become increasingly deadly and frequent.

NATO chief demands greater efforts in Afghanistan

BRATISLAVA, Oct 22 (Reuters) - The head of NATO urged member states on Thursday to step up efforts to train and equip Afghan forces, warning that inaction would have serious consequences.

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen spoke before a meeting with alliance defence ministers in Bratislava on a new approach against the widening Taliban insurgency.

U.S. President Barack Obama is still considering a call from the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, for tens of thousands more soldiers.

"We all have to achieve more in training and equipping the Afghan security forces," Rasmussen told a security conference before the ministers' meeting in the Slovak capital, which is not expected to announce decisions on troop levels.

AND

With no US decision on Afghanistan, what will NATO discuss?

Aboard a military jet - NATO allies in Afghanistan are in strategic limbo as they await a decision from the Obama administration on its strategy and the troops needed to implement it.

That may make it difficult to discuss anything of any substance at a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Bratislava, Slovakia, Friday, where Topic A will be the mission in Afghanistan.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates touches down there Thursday evening on his way home from stops in Hawaii, Tokyo, and Seoul. Mr. Gates acknowledged that NATO allies have many questions about how the US will proceed, but says there is still plenty to discuss since the future of the Afghanistan mission isn't only about what the US does or doesn't do.

Thread Situational update.

NATO Backs Afghan Civilian Security, Possible Buildup

By Viola Gienger and James G. Neuger

Oct. 23 (Bloomberg) -- NATO backed calls by the top commander in Afghanistan to tilt allied war strategy toward protecting civilians, pointing the way to a buildup of the U.S.- led forces fighting the Taliban.

Defense ministers endorsed an assessment by U.S. General Stanley McChrystal that he says would require a strengthening of the 105,000-strong contingent charged with stabilizing the country.

NATO Ministers Endorse McChrystal Approach in Afghanistan

"The question is do we have the strategy right in light of the situation we face? Does it need refinement in some way?" Gates noted. "And if it does need some adjustment in light of the events that have taken place over the last number of months, including the election and so on, and then what are the implications of that in terms of General McChrystal's resource request?"

Nato 'backs new Afghan strategy'

Nato chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen says defence ministers broadly support the strategy for Afghanistan outlined by the international commander there.

Gen Stanley McChrystal is thought to want around 40,000 extra troops as part of a revised military strategy.

But at a meeting of Nato ministers in the Slovak capital, Bratislava, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates again publicly declined to endorse the plan.

Thread Situational update.

Monday was the deadliest day for American forces in Afghanistan in nearly over years. "Up to the Minute" Military Analyst Col. Mitch Mitchell (Ret.) discusses the situation overseas and whether or not to send more troops.

U.S.: 8 soldiers killed in Afghanistan bombings

KABUL -- A series of powerful bombs killed eight American soldiers and an interpreter in southern Afghanistan Tuesday morning, according to U.S. military officials. The attacks, a day after 14 Americans died in two helicopter crashes, made October the deadliest month for the U.S. military of the eight-year Afghanistan war.

The growing violence -- along with continued political turmoil in Afghanistan -- pose urgent challenges for the Obama administration as it deliberates over how best to fight insurgents here.

Thanks for the updates Slayer. I think I hear crickets chirping around the White House and not a peep other wise. One would call it a dead silence. Ten months has been quite a long time, as the retired Colonel said in that news segment, and still not a peep from President Obama about a course of action for our forces in the region.

I wish I knew what he was waiting for? Plus, the US Commander on the grand in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystral, is getting testy and practically demanding something out of the White House to work with. I wonder how Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, sits by idling, before protesting the perceived lack of interest by the Commander-in-Chief? As the analyst said, the situation is deteriorating over there every day the President waits to act. As I have said before, a combat force in a holding pattern can be quite dangerous, and poses the risk of making them sitting ducks to the enemy. Mr. President get on the ball, before it is too late!

[edit on 27-10-2009 by Jakes51]