It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by mahajohn
Look, impeachment morons
And thats why we have agencies compartmentalized to handle this stuff without us knowing.
If the taliban really where getting paid they would not put it out in the air like this
Originally posted by AlienChaser
reply to post by henriquefd
The issue is, what happens when we stop paying these elements to be on "our side"? Will they simply stay on the side they are used too, or will they go where the money is?
Insurgents have families, and they love them just as anyone. I believe they will follow the path that offers the most money and protection for their families, and that whatever "ideals" they hold will be second to that.
Originally posted by Libertygal
Congress Probes Alleged U.S. Bribes to Afghan Warlords
So, if true, the president is now accused of giving aid and comfort to the enemy, the one element needed to meet the definition of treason. Unintentional? I don't *think* so.
The Times (UK) broke a story charging that the Italian secret service had been systematically paying off the Taliban in exchange for protection in the Italian army’s area of operation
“One cannot be too doctrinaire about these things,” a senior Nato officer in Kabul said. “It might well make sense to buy off local groups and use non-violence to keep violence down. But it is madness to do so and not inform your allies.”
One Western military source told of payments made by Canadian soldiers stationed in the violent southern province of Kandahar, while another officer spoke of similar practices by the German army in northern Kunduz.
"I can tell you that lots of countries under the NATO umbrella operating out in rural parts of Afghanistan do pay the militants for not attacking them," the senior Afghan official said.
Originally posted by henriquefd
I'm not republican nor democrat. Actually, I'm brazilian and couldn't care less for Obama or whoever is the next US president.
But I think the post is self explanatory. If bribing the road bandits, be them taliban or not, is the most cost-effective strategy, that means it'd good for the US. Otherwise they would have to spend a LOT more money deploying soldiers to secure the roads.
It's war and it's a dirty game. Do what you have to do to win. If that means feeding the pigs before slaughtering them, so be it. That looks more like politics than anything else. The opposition poking the government in the ribs.
I don't like our president, lula. But sometimes the opposition gets too blind in their political schemes and lose sight that some attacks on the president are not very intelligent because the consequences are costly for the country.
Lets suppose Obama gets impeached and the next president decides not to pay the road bandits anymore. In the middle of this economical crysis the new president would have to spend A LOT MORE MONEY to deploy soldiers to secure all the roads to safely send the supplies to the camps stationed in those regions. Now, we could just say its cheaper to call back all the troops and not get involved anymore in the middle east, but we have to be realistic. Not gonna happen.