Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Afghanistan — A suicide bomber driving a truck attacked an advance NATO combat post in central Af

page: 11
10
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by galdur
 


unsure as to the credibility of said source but this walt.foreignpolicy.com...

seems to say that were gonna keep at least 4000 troops in country no matter what and replace alot of our leaving troops with "private security contractors" ala black water as well as private security consultants so either way we will have some presence there for a long long time

" Even as the military reduces its troop strength in Iraq, the C.I.A. will continue to have a major presence in the country, as will security contractors working for the State Department ... "

And furthermore:

The administration has already drawn up plans for an extensive expansion of the American Embassy and its operations, bolstered by thousands of paramilitary security contractors. It has also created an Office of Security Cooperation that, like similar ones in countries like Egypt, would be staffed by civilians and military personnel overseeing the training and equipping of Iraq's security forces.

Even without an extension of the deadline after 2011, that office is expected to be one of the largest in the world, with hundreds if not thousands of employees. Officials have previously suggested that keeping American soldiers in this office might not require a new security agreement to replace the expiring one since they would be cover by the same protection offered to diplomats (my emphasis)."

From source above and on the off chance we do pull out completely it seems we wont be going far as Kuwait has offered to let us keep a back up force in Kuwait patdollard.com... but no numbers on how many that would be so it seems we will be in the neighborhood for a while yet
edit on 12-9-2011 by KilrathiLG because: re formated it




posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


After Alexander’s death, Afghanistan is divided amongst 4 Greek governors with their capitals being Kabul and its suburbs, Heart and Sistaan, Qandahar and Baluchistan, and Bakhter (balkh area) and ruled for the next 55 years. By 250 BC the Governors of these 4 regions declared their independence and established and new Greek-Bakhter government independent of mainland Greece. Roxanne pregnant with Alexander's son moves back to Macedonia. After giving birth to the heir of Alexander's kingdom, both Roxanne and Alexander IV are killed by insurgents.

Remains of Zorasterian KingdomFor More Information on Alexander The Great and the Invasion of Afghanistan Click here or visit www.pbs.org

Ruins of Balkh west of Mazar-i-Sharif.

One of Alexander the Great's generals established a Greek-Macedonian kingdom here about 300 B.C. it existed for over three centuries. A place where Zoroaster (628-551 B.C.) the leader of the zoroasterians was born and established his religion.
www.afghanland.com... source.

so it seems he conqured it died and then had the country split into 4 parts that were governed for 50 years by greeks who then got independence from greece to then end up further divided and had several diffrent rulers from many areas for up to 300 years so they didnt seem that effective against Macedonian armies and the decendants of said empire ,(ps thought it was kinda funny they refered to the people who were fighting him as insurgents in the article ) and was kinda suprised that it seems the greeks had an easyer time then the mongols on pacifying the region but from the history of afganistan it seems its just a long serise of invaders that show up every time afganistan seems to be getting its stuff together and knock them back a few decades



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Se7enex
Agreed. We sit here and call these people fighting our troops terrorists but all they are really doing is fighting against a foreign occupation. I am positive Americans would do the exact same. It's a tragedy that people actually go to war, especially one as unjust as this. If our soldiers lay down there guns, if everyone quit the army, I think the world might understand that we aren't so bad, we've just been brainwashed by the media to believe everything we are told.


Jeebus.

So, insurgents aren't terrorists? And what do you call the Taliban in A-stan that throw acid on schoolgirls and blow up civilians with car bombs?



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 


I didn't say that was okay. I'm speaking for the people that just want peace. I've spoken to a lot of people in "A-stan" and they have told of the effects our army has had on them. Yeah it's terrible people do horrible things. But everyone does. Not just a couple jihads in Afghanistan. The stories are fierce against the terrorists but we have the body count to back up our horrible actions.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by NeverForget
 



Because you know the time it takes to defeat an army of guerilla fighters....You don't know anything really, you're just spewing nonsense.


History has shown that guerilla forces popular with the local population cannot be defeated... ESPECIALLY in the case of Afghanistan.
Either you are blissfully ignorant of Afghan history or you expect that things will miraculously turn out to be different this time around. Good luck with that.


I didn't claim any knowledge, but you certainly seem to. You are certainly quick to condemn USA, maybe you're right, the USA should leave and let the suicide bombers get on with destroying their countries and the people who want a civilisation, leave them to gather resources and enhance their networks so they can invade neighbouring countries, or even countries worldwide.

Thanks for the thumbs up, Emoticons certainly add credibility to your posts.....



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 



How can you support a war but not against the unarmed civilians.


Example: I would have supported the war on armed Nazi soldiers, but not helpless civilians (pacifists, jews, black people etc.)

What's hard to understand about that?

Again, If civilian targets were bombed, either by MY country or another country (e.g churches, orphanages, hospitals) I would be against that, I don't support uneeded barbarism.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65
And what do you call the Taliban in A-stan that throw acid on schoolgirls and blow up civilians with car bombs?

I call 'em "Not my problem."



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by starviego
 


Give it time.

Time without taking action.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by NeverForget
Give it time.

"Today der Kandahar, tomorrow der Vorld!"

Ouch, I think a radical muslim just threw some acid in my face.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by starviego
 




(Cool story, bro)



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   
double post
edit on 12/9/2011 by NeverForget because: double.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by nenothtu
 




If they are Jihadists, I want them dead - too dead to stink. I don't care, not even a little bit, where they are from, or where they are at right now. I only care what they are doing or planning to do.


US presence in Afghanistan = More people turn into Jihadis.


You mean the population will decrease if the US leaves?



This can only lead to perpetual conflict with no end in sight.


"No end in sight" is not the same as "perpetual". Just because you can't see an end doesn't mean there isn't one. Essentially, though, the sentiment is correct. it will continue until either we or they are extinct.



If thats what you want, then well... a former US president also had the same way of looking at things.


it's not a matter of what I want, it's a matter of what IS. We either fight back or go extinct.





Alexander won in Afghanistan. Genghis won in Afghanistan. Afghans are not "undefeatable", and neither is the US. It's all in the approach.


Alexander, Genghis Khan, the British and the Soviets all effortlessly stormed into Afghanistan. Yes.
The problems showed up AFTER they set foot on Afghan soil... and they had to leave in the end.
Not... very different from the US' situation there.


You are lumping the British Empire and the Soviets in with Alexander and Genghis inexplicably. Neither their wars nor the results of them were the same. The Greeks at least NEVER left. You can see their genes in Afghans to this very day. If you think that the Afghans drove out either the Greeks or the Mongols, you need to review your history again.

Afghanistan HAS been conquered - at least twice now.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by stormjust
 


Dude, the Soviets in 1980s Afghanistan were NOT careful in avoiding civilian casualties, and in fact, CAUSED them on purpose through their terror tactics, like booby trapping toys that children would pick up.

1) They had an entire program to scatter booby-trapped dolls and toys(look up PFM-1 landmine) to wound and kill CHILDREN. Soviet land-mines were air-scattered which killed over 25,000 Afghan civilians despite claims by the Soviets that they were used against the anti-communist Mujaheddin forces.

2) Irrigation systems, crucial to agriculture in Afghanistan's arid climate, as well as civilian targets were destroyed on purpose daily everyday by aerial bombing and strafing by the Soviet and Afghan communist-government forces.

3) The Soviet Air Force carpet-bombed Kandahar, reducing the population from 200,000 before the war to no more than 25,000 inhabitants. Here's an article for you. Despite the fact that the US-backed anti-communist Mujaheddin forces killed many civilians as the Soviet Union, majority of the civilian casualties were caused by Soviet Forces. Over two millions Afghans were killed after the Soviet-Afghan war compare to 15,000 Afghans killed in the 2001 U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan.


It is literally in the eye of the beholder.lI ts What the Afghan report's suppressed annex indicates, however, is a brutality by MOSCOW~S troops on an appalling scale. Thousands of children have been killed by Soviet bombs disguised as toys; gas and chemical weapons have been used against civilians; and torture is common at interrogation centers of the Moscow-controlled Afghan secret police, the Khad. The torture involves pulling out fingernails, as well as systematic beating and psychological pressure and Afghan government and Soviet troops try to seal border areas to prevent Afghans from fleeing The U.N. censored report presents, in fact, a very conservative picture of Soviet atrocities in Afghanistan. According to its author 1. See Mark Huber Moscow*s Bastion in Manhattan: The U.N. Department of Conference Services Heritage Foundation Backarounder No. 51 8, June 20, 1986........... While many egregious human rights violations were also committed by the Afghan soldiers, Ermacora emphasizes that most of the atrocities described in his report and%particularly in the censored annex, were committed by the Soviets.


www.heritage.org...

They are plenty of war crimes atrocities commited by Soviet forces in that war. At least anti-communist Mujaheddin forces attacked legitimate military Soviet targets, back then suicide bombing wasn't rampart as much as today Iraq and Afghanistan is. Read this whole link yourself.
Or this...


Pul-e-Charkhi (Persian: زندان پل چرخی), also known as Afghan National Detention Facility, is the largest prison in Afghanistan east of Kabul. Construction of the jail began in the 1970s by order of former president Mohammed Daoud Khan and was completed during the 1980s. The prison became notorious for torture and executions after the 1978 Saur Revolution as well as during the 10 year Soviet war that followed.[1] Between April 1978 and the Soviet invasion of December 1979, the communist People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) under Nur Muhammad Taraki executed around 27,000 political prisoners at Pul-i-Charki.


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 03:49 AM
link   
reply to post by kn0wh0w
 


Not at all.. What you and others seem to ignore though is their formation was done because of the Soviet Invasion. The Us did not put these groups together, they did it themselves. They became pissed at the US when the Soviets withdrewe because we ended support to the Muhajadeen units, which included Bin Laden. This would be when Bin Laden went off the Us bandwagon and wanted us dead because we refused to support his power play.

I dont deny we have involvement with these groups.

What I call into question and dispute is the manner you and others attempt to lay the creation of these people at the doorstep of the US. You and others apparently find it impossible for these people to form their own resistance groups. You ignore the fact they have been playing this game longer than our country has been in existance.

Give credit where credit is due, and quit underestimating the abilities of these people.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 03:53 AM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 


Which is all fine and dandy but what you leave out of your comparison is the fact they dont have uniforms, they dont recognize any UN conventions on warefare, they have no apparent chain of command, they use heavily populated areas, in addition to schools, mosques and Hospitals to attack from.

When you have an "enemy" who has no issues attacking another force in such a manner that it inten tionally places innocent civilians into the scene of action, blame for those deaths is on the idiots who forced the encounter, and in the case of your scenarios not the US, nor China.

You guys need to understand how Rules of warefare work, who it covers, and in what cases certain protections are lost (namely schools, mosques and Hospitals) as well as the little fact that the Taliban / Al Queida have killed their own countrymen for refusing to support them, and then blaming the deaths on the west.

But why should we concern ourselves with, you know, facts, when we can just continually blame the west for the perversion of a religion thats been around longer than the west, or the US.

We didnt make the mess, they did. We are left to deal with the idiocy of killing in the name of religion.

Going to war over religion is like fighting over who has the better imaginary friend.

Can you point out exactly when you and the others took a stand against the Muhajadeen and the Soviet Invasion? Or the Taliban control over key parts of the country that gave the illusion they were in coplete control? Or where you guys objected to the Taliban destroying religious / ancient archeological sites of non muslim religions? Or killing innocent people under a perversion of Sharia law?

Why do you guys only care when the Us is involved? Im sure, with your creativity, you can find other issues to blame on the US.
edit on 14-9-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 06:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 




They became pissed at the US when the Soviets withdrewe because we ended support to the Muhajadeen units, which included Bin Laden. This would be when Bin Laden went off the Us bandwagon and wanted us dead because we refused to support his power play.


Actually Pakistan and Saudi Arabia told us to back off rebuilding Afghanistan because they said we had no right to impose our values into there and we had to respect that. Instead of building a prosperous and a capitalistic economy, they impose a theocracy in Afghanistan instead. Also the Taliban came into power with the creation of Pakistan ISI in 1994.

And Bin Laden hated the U.S. for a lot of different reasons. But He hated the U.S. more during the 1991 Persian Gulf War because our presence in Saudi Arabia contained profaned soil - Mecca and Medina - to them and many radical Islamic people didn't like U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia and wanted us out immediately. Because of it, Bin Laden declared a "holy war" on us and vow into drawing us in the same fate as the Soviets are. Our troops stayed in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War ended in a ceasefire agreement for 12 years, enforcing a no-fly zone in the north and South, and watching Saddam followed the UN resolutions, that's where Al-Qaeda terrorists started attacking U.S. interests like the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombing in East Africa which killed 224 local civilians including 12 Americans, 1993 WTC bombing in New York which killed six people, 1996 Khobar bombing in Saudi Arabia which killed 19 USAF military personnel, and 2000 USS Cole bombing in Yemen which killed 17 U.S. sailors.
edit on 14-9-2011 by Paulioetc15 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 06:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Paulioetc15
 


Nation building was never an option during the Soviet invasion. We provided arms and sams to counter the air/helicopter threat, where the soviets had the advantage.

Once that ended, we left and didnt look back since itts was a cold war proxy to an extent.

Bin Ladens anger with the US started when we stopped providing support.
His issues with American troops in Saudi shouldhave been directed at the Saudi government for allowing the Us presence. Im not sure why the blame is so contained to the US while other government involvement is ignored.

We have no more troops in Saudi Arabia, which was one of the main goals Bin Laden set out with. We have one airwing unit left in Saudi at their request, so the argument of US presence in a country that contains 2 of their holiest sites doesnt hold water anymore.
edit on 14-9-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 




Bin Ladens anger with the US started when we stopped providing support. His issues with American troops in Saudi shouldhave been directed at the Saudi government for allowing the Us presence. Im not sure why the blame is so contained to the US while other government involvement is ignored.


It agree it should have been, But Bin Laden eeven demanded to the Saudi Arabian government that U.S. troops to leave Saudi Arabia during the 1991 Persian Gulf War and after the war, but Bin Laden got shunned, got this citizenship revoked, and expelled from Saudi Arabia as a result. He hide refuge in Afghanistan instead. That's why he wanted to declare a "holy war" on us. But Bin Laden cared about his own people, not his own people.



Nation building was never an option during the Soviet invasion. We provided arms and sams to counter the air/helicopter threat, where the soviets had the advantage. Once that ended, we left and didnt look back since itts was a cold war proxy to an extent.


Because we left the work for Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to do the working in Afghanistan. Instead they make a lot of things worse there. Talk about being friends.



We have no more troops in Saudi Arabia, which was one of the main goals Bin Laden set out with. We have one airwing unit left in Saudi at their request, so the argument of US presence in a country that contains 2 of their holiest sites doesnt hold water anymore.


After the 2003 invasion of Iraq, yes it is.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 




You mean the population will decrease if the US leaves?


I mean the US presence in Afghanistan is fuelling the jihad, therefore making it an endless conflict.





it's not a matter of what I want, it's a matter of what IS. We either fight back or go extinct.


"we either fight back or go extinct"

What? Afghan guerillas fighting off foriegn invaders on their soil, like they always have, might lead to your extinction? How?



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


...and what foreign group was the Taliban fighting to get off their homeland after the Soviet withdrawal? Are there varying levels of being Muslim? Does abiding by the Quran and Sharia law when it comes to the familes being the final say on certain death sentences make one level, and the Taliban, when they ignore those requests and carry out the executions themslves, therby violating Sharia / Quran, make a different level?

Next time when the US requests a person be turned over, comply. When they refused to turn Bin Laden over to the US, instead demanind he go to a neutral 3rd country for trial, they made their own bed.

If Al Queida acheives its goal of an Islamic government in the US, make sure you hide this info, since even dicussing it can result in a death sentence.






top topics



 
10
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join