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.

 

Thousands march against war in Afghanistan

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


Yep Extremely poor comparison . Even though in your mind they are comparable. They are not. The coalition will outlast Russia. Not even close to compare the Russians to the the coalition - The greatest modern army the world has ever seen!




posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by phatpackage
reply to post by oozyism
 


Yep Extremely poor comparison . Even though in your mind they are comparable. They are not. The coalition will outlast Russia. Not even close to compare the Russians to the the coalition - The greatest modern army the world has ever seen!


It is not about how powerful your army is, it is about you being broke
if it was about how powerful your army is, then Taliban would have been defeated a long time ago, because they are extremely weak, hence they make bombs at home, using scrap, which equates to 7 - 10 $ which can destroy a vehicle worth over a hundred thousand dollars.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by phatpackage
 



The greatest modern army the world has ever seen!


Now that MUST be sarcasm..


Most expensive, best equiped army in the world can not beat a bunch of goat hearders with AK's and home made bombs...
Thats gotta hurt the ego but I guess the unbeatable US defence force is getting use to the idea of not winning wars...



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by phatpackage
 



The greatest modern army the world has ever seen!


Now that MUST be sarcasm..


Most expensive, best equiped army in the world can not beat a bunch of goat hearders with AK's and home made bombs...
Thats gotta hurt the ego but I guess the unbeatable US defence force is getting use to the idea of not winning wars...

Are you referring to Vietnam? You naughty boy/girl/man/woman/android/alien/nephilim/reptile (and absolutely no sarcasm intended at all)
edit on 20-11-2010 by sceptical me because: go away, I do not have to



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 



have you not worked this out yet. The Co-alition is dragging this out to achieve ALL their objectives. The Taliban is the least of their problems. No Taliban, no war its that simple, gotta keep them alive to achieve objectives. Your country could have been destroyed long ago if that was the only objective. Taliban are some of the most gutless fighters ever to grace the planet. They are only in the game because the co-alition still lets them! When the co-alition is done and hand over to the drug addict the war will be done!



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by phatpackage
reply to post by oozyism
 



have you not worked this out yet. The Co-alition is dragging this out to achieve ALL their objectives. The Taliban is the least of their problems. No Taliban, no war its that simple, gotta keep them alive to achieve objectives. Your country could have been destroyed long ago if that was the only objective. Taliban are some of the most gutless fighters ever to grace the planet. They are only in the game because the co-alition still lets them! When the co-alition is done and hand over to the drug addict the war will be done!


Are you for real? No Taliban, no war? Don't make me laugh, When has it been about the Taliban? Oh look, there's a spanking new oil pipline through Afgahnistan to the ocean. Now where did that come from? Damn those pesky Talibanese. Always sneaking up and doing things we don't expect.

On that note, how is the opium crop these days compared to under the Taliban? What??? Up 200% I don't believe it!
edit on 20-11-2010 by sceptical me because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by sceptical me
 


Not sure why you are argueing with phat, they basically agree that the war is staged for what the US and others can steal...



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by sceptical me
 


Have a look on my post on page 2. Have I missed any?



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Thanks for calming me down, I just saw a red flag. Ok, deep breaths, 1. 2. 3.
end of of argument! Cheers buddy!



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by phatpackage
reply to post by sceptical me
 


Have a look on my post on page 2. Have I missed any?


Sorry Phat, was hyperventilating. Thankfully BIB pulled me up. Peace!

oh, and don't forget, most importantly on here, 2nd line!



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by sceptical me
 





Sorry Phat, was hyperventilating. Thankfully BIB pulled me up. Peace! oh, and don't forget, most importantly on here, 2nd line!


Glad you can see what is going on here and not get caught up in it. Peace to you & BIB



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by phatpackage
 


I was confused by the BIB

Shows how dense I am



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


We can all be dense at times, don't worry, I have done some real no brainers (other ones, I might add), All these acronyms must be difficult to assimilate.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 12:03 AM
link   
If 700 troops are killed every year, by 2015 that would equate to another 3500 lives gone to waste.

If every year, for one soldier 1 million dollar is spent, and there is 150000 soldiers. That would equal to 150000000000/year just for troop spending.

In five years, that would equate to 750000000000. That number in English means seven hundred fifty billion USD.

What is the point of spending that much money again?

Westerners should be concerned.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
If 700 troops are killed every year, by 2015 that would equate to another 3500 lives gone to waste.

If every year, for one soldier 1 million dollar is spent, and there is 150000 soldiers. That would equal to 150000000000/year just for troop spending.

In five years, that would equate to 750000000000. That number in English means seven hundred fifty billion USD.

What is the point of spending that much money again?

Westerners should be concerned.

Well, presumably it benefits those who are involved in the training and deployment of soldiers. If it cost , as you say $1,000,000 to train each soldier one must look at where that money is being spent. How much of that is in the private sector?



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
If 700 troops are killed every year, by 2015 that would equate to another 3500 lives gone to waste.

If every year, for one soldier 1 million dollar is spent, and there is 150000 soldiers. That would equal to 150000000000/year just for troop spending.

In five years, that would equate to 750000000000. That number in English means seven hundred fifty billion USD.

What is the point of spending that much money again?

Westerners should be concerned.


Because all you have just mentioned is payed by the Tax Payer..
The profits from whatever they liberate/steal/grow goes to private individuals and not to mention all the supplies at exhorberant costs on no tender contracts given to their mates such as Haliburton..
edit on 21-11-2010 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 





If 700 troops are killed every year, by 2015 that would equate to another 3500 lives gone to waste. If every year, for one soldier 1 million dollar is spent, and there is 150000 soldiers. That would equal to 150000000000/year just for troop spending. In five years, that would equate to 750000000000. That number in English means seven hundred fifty billion USD. What is the point of spending that much money again? Westerners should be concerned.


Oh man that post proves how delusional you are. You & the rest of the "muslim extremists" will be crushed by the co-alition!. Remember you started it!



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by phatpackage
 


Thank you for your service.

Appreciated.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by phatpackage
 


Thank you for your service.

Appreciated.


No worries will continue to help you & enlighten you! Will take a while but you will come around!
edit on 21-11-2010 by phatpackage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by oozyism
If 700 troops are killed every year, by 2015 that would equate to another 3500 lives gone to waste.

If every year, for one soldier 1 million dollar is spent, and there is 150000 soldiers. That would equal to 150000000000/year just for troop spending.

In five years, that would equate to 750000000000. That number in English means seven hundred fifty billion USD.

What is the point of spending that much money again?

Westerners should be concerned.


Because all you have just mentioned is payed by the Tax Payer..
The profits from whatever they liberate/steal/grow goes to private individuals and not to mention all the supplies at exhorberant costs on no tender contracts given to their mates such as Haliburton..
edit on 21-11-2010 by backinblack because: (no reason given)


I find it funny watching you antipodeans duking it out! I believe, after living in Oz for many years, that I understand their political position (nose firmly implanted up the US's arse), but I thought, politically, New Zealand was anti US. Am I correct in my summation? (I understand the English/French rivalry type of things you guys have, but surely thats harmeless banter) Or is it just that each country has a spectrum of political views?

edit on 21-11-2010 by sceptical me because: because I can


I should have guessed you were aussie with your handle, personally I preferred Bon Scott
edit on 21-11-2010 by sceptical me because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join