Afghanistan: Coalition troops launch massive assault on Taliban

reply to post by Jakes51


Now you got it.

Russia needs the oil reserve in the region to either stop or have very low production rate. They are in direct competition with the future oil producers, so that's their "in". China needs oil desperately in order to keep the growth cycle going otherwise despite Pop culture view their economy grinds to a halt. That's their "in". The US will be a player like it or not We have the means to reach around the world and touch somebody that's our "in". They are all unhappy especially Iran about having the US in their collective backyards and they all know they cant really do squat just yet.

The games a foot.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Chaos as you well know is always a good thing in the Game.
But whether they get overthrown or not is not important what is important is that we stay in the region. The Taliban were created and supported by the CIA we all know that. They have outlived their usefulness.

Originally posted by Jakes51
On top of all that, which side will India take in this mess?

India is on the Wests side US/NATO we have been pumping up their economy "High Tech" to get them to be a counter weight to China's massive growth and their huge population. India's population and growth has lagged but they have come a long way...

Stay tuned on that one.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Don't worry the Taliban won't quite ever outlive it's usefullness and will live to fight another day Here thread by Hellmutt

What we might and I do stress as might be missing in the part of Iran is what real relationship existing Royals play in the game?

Does the Shah's son have a contractual right to Iran if he wants it, who has a contractual obligation to secure it for him if so?

These are all ellements and parts of the game. It is pure speculation but I think certain parties have a contractual obligation to resecure Iran for the Shah's son at some predecided point in time, it's a purely speculative guess but I think that time might be now.

All the actual 'players' of the game may in fact be entitled to a spot and base of power on the board if and when they so wish to occupy one.

Remember to them it likely is a game no different than Gin Rummy is to us.

One thing for sure the Game is not Solitaire!

Keep in mind there is now talk that Iran, and Kazikstahn and the U.S.A. will all share a nuclear energy bank together located in Kazikstahn. That pipeline by the way could in fact just as easily be made to go through dah dah ...Iran!

Originally posted by Jakes51
On top of all that, which side will India take in this mess?

Maoists in India?
Chinese supported forces being trained to enter the great game????

India's West Bengal State Agrees to Ban Maoists

In India, the West Bengal state government has banned the Maoist rebels, whose movement has been declared a terrorist organization. The West Bengal government came under pressure to ban the Maoists after security forces had to be deployed to evict the rebels from a rural district.

The Chief Minister of West Bengal state, Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee says his government will implement a ban ordered a day earlier by the federal government on the Maoist faction of the Communist Party of India.

[edit on 23-6-2009 by SLAYER69]

'Dozens dead' in US drone strike

The Pakistani army is preparing to launch an offensive against Taliban fighters under Mehsud's command, who are blamed for a number of deadly attacks.

But Zainuddin's killing is being seen as a setback for the government in its efforts to isolate Mehsud ahead of the security forces' next phase of their anti-Taliban offensive in the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan, says the BBC's Mike Wooldridge in Islamabad.

'Pakistan Taliban hit by US drones'

At least 45 people have been killed and dozens wounded in a series of missile raids by US drones in northwest Pakistan, Pakistani intelligence officials have said.

The first missile attack early on Tuesday hit what authorities said was a "Taliban training centre" in the South Waziristan tribal region that borders Afghanistan.

Several hours later a second attack was carried out during a funeral procession for those killed in the first raid.

There will be more burial and wedding parties targeting, for guerrilla fighters are normally dispersed

This is the only way to have a headline like "60 Taliban killed in one action".

Taliban are the guys who destroyed those giant Buddha statues, right?

They gonna pay for that!

The Taliban walk around with small arms, mortars, 4x4 trucks, even horses at times and we are proud of ourselves that we are winning a war with our multibillion dollar aircraft with laser guided bombs? LOL. I would hope to god we'd be beating back the Taliban. It's like killing a fly with 9mm. Come on people! The war on terror is a joke. I'll tell you one thing we are spread so thin militarily right now people have no clue. If a major conflict were to break out in any other part of the world it would be really scary.

I just posted this new thread. This looks good.

Russia to Open Airspace to U.S. for Afghan War

MOSCOW — The Russian government has agreed to let American troops and weapons bound for Afghanistan fly over Russian territory, officials on both sides said Friday. The arrangement will provide an important new corridor for the United States military as it escalates efforts to win the eight-year war.

The agreement, to be announced when President Obama visits here on Monday and Tuesday, represents one of the most concrete achievements in the administration’s effort to ease relations with Russia after years of tension. But the two sides failed to make a trade deal or resolve differences o

Originally posted by Zosynspiracy
The Taliban walk around with small arms, mortars, 4x4 trucks, even horses at times and we are proud of ourselves that we are winning a war with our multibillion dollar aircraft with laser guided bombs? LOL. I would hope to god we'd be beating back the Taliban. It's like killing a fly with 9mm. Come on people! The war on terror is a joke. I'll tell you one thing we are spread so thin militarily right now people have no clue. If a major conflict were to break out in any other part of the world it would be really scary.

yes lol, be fair guys. I laugh when I hear the word brave soldiers, its very brave shooting people from a cockpit of an apache like a video game against people who you know have no air defence.
I would call them brave if they were fighting against Russia or China or even North Korea but we never pick a fight with someone our own size. Fighting people with AK47 with F-16s, yes very brave. In all fairness it is Taliban that are brave fighting against a coalition of the best equipped armies in the world with AK47s. RPGs and IEDs they make in the same pots and pans they cook food in.

And comeon guys I thought you guys were different, this is about oil route for Central Asian reserve through Afghanistan, through Pakistan onto Arabian Sea. You really think a bunch of guys with AK47s are more of a threat then NK which does nuclear test, and missile tests every week and rubs it in our face

The afghan war is not what you think it is

[edit on 6-7-2009 by anonymouse11]

Originally posted by SLAYER69


Of course they are killing people. Why would they need to lie about that? It doesn't mean the war is over or even being won. It just means some of the Taliban have been killed. Why is it so hard to believe?

Simple answer to a simple question, and that is because inflating the death toll of "the enemy" is done as a means of propaganda to the consuming masses, giving the impression "the enemy" is hurting and in order to boost the morale of the troops fighting "the enemy", that they are killing multitudes of "the enemy."


It's an old trick, and anyone looking for a realistic death toll of "the enemy" in any war should knock off around half, or three quarters, off the numbers that the government/military/media gives.



Of course, if civillians are killed, the opposite happens, in that either their deaths are denied, or the numbers of dead and wounded are greatly understated as opposed to the reality of the true number.


Civillian deaths? Bad for morale militarily, and the masses back home don't like it.



The lesson? Don't take what your government/military tells you about a war as face value truth.


Don't believe the rubbish spouted that it's just the 'Taliban and Al-Qaeda' fighting the occupation. Afghans have a famed history of fighting against occupying and invading foreign armies, and it's fair to say that there are Afghans out there taking up arms against the occupation who are not 'Taliban' or 'Al Qaeda' but are labelled as such to avoid the fact that there are Afghans fighting against the occupation, just like how any Iraqi fighting against the occupation of Iraq is labelled as an 'Al Qaeda terrorist'.


Consumption by the masses is always in the mind of the governments and military when telling you how the war is going.


The war in Afghanistan is unwinnable. The Soviets sent more troops in than NATO and still lost.


The Afghan 'Government' is corrupt and are made up of crooked businessmen, Drug Lords, War Lords and Opportunistic Taliban, and who are opposed by the Taliban, Al Qaeda, ordinary Afghans, and other Drug and War Lords.


The West will try to cut a deal, to get what they want: Gas and Opium and if possible military bases for geopolitical and geostrategical reasons. Whoever is the best partners will suit, whether the current Afghan government, or any opposition to the Afghan government that will sell it.





[edit on 14-7-2009 by Regensturm]

[edit on 14-7-2009 by Regensturm]

Originally posted by anonymouse11

I would call them brave if they were fighting against Russia or China or even North Korea but we never pick a fight with someone our own size. Fighting people with AK47 with F-16s, yes very brave. In all fairness it is Taliban that are brave fighting against a coalition of the best equipped armies in the world with AK47s. RPGs and IEDs they make in the same pots and pans they cook food in.

You mean those very same Russian soldiers who after 8 years and 18,000 dead later could not handle it so they pulled out right?

OR...

The Chinese who love to massacre their own people or who cant seem to control their very own populations. I'm sorry but the afghans DO NOT make AK-47s and RPGs out of pots and pans. Talk about believing propaganda.

Originally posted by Regensturm
Simple answer to a simple question, and that is because inflating the death toll of "the enemy" is done as a means of propaganda to the consuming masses, giving the impression "the enemy" is hurting and in order to boost the morale of the troops fighting "the enemy", that they are killing multitudes of "the enemy."

I'd hardly call a story about a few dozen Taliban being killed a "killing multitudes of the enemy." It's a war. people die. Both sides. get it.

It's an old trick, and anyone looking for a realistic death toll of "the enemy" in any war should knock off around half, or three quarters, off the numbers that the government/military/media gives.

Well since you seem so knowledgeable on the topic. Please provide us links and your proof to this hypothesis otherwise it's nothing but speculation.

Of course, if civillians are killed, the opposite happens, in that either their deaths are denied, or the numbers of dead and wounded are greatly understated as opposed to the reality of the true number.

Civilians have always been killed in conflicts. Nobody has never denied any of that. Dresden comes to mind. Pull any conflict out of any history book you can find and read about the millions killed through out history. Your point is?

Civillian deaths? Bad for morale militarily, and the masses back home don't like it.

Yeah we know...
Some of us have had our sons actually over there fighting we get the first hand experiences of the real situation when they come home. Like my son

The lesson? Don't take what your government/military tells you about a war as face value truth.

DUH! Yeah we know...
Some of us have had our sons actually over there fighting we get the first hand experiences of the real situation when they come home. Like my son

Don't believe the rubbish spouted that it's just the 'Taliban and Al-Qaeda' fighting the occupation. Afghans have a famed history of fighting against occupying and invading foreign armies, and it's fair to say that there are Afghans out there taking up arms against the occupation who are not 'Taliban' or 'Al Qaeda' but are labelled as such to avoid the fact that there are Afghans fighting against the occupation, just like how any Iraqi fighting against the occupation of Iraq is labelled as an 'Al Qaeda terrorist'.

Well it seems that most of the Afghans now a days want their I-pods and cell phone coverage more than they want to fight.

Afghan DJs play tunes, break hearts in Taliban country

GARMSIR, Afghanistan (Reuters) - The DJs of Radio Garmsir in Afghanistan's lower Helmand River valley knew their station had touched a nerve when the letters started pouring in.

First a few, then more, and pretty soon 20 to 30 letters per day, hand delivered to a box outside the NATO base where they broadcast deep into Taliban territory from a desk in a tiny bunker.

Most are requests for songs. Some are complaints -- about police driving too fast through the bazaar, about the continuing failure of mobile phone companies to bring reception to the valley.

The war in Afghanistan is unwinnable. The Soviets sent more troops in than NATO and still lost.

The Soviets lost becuase of two main reasons.

A. We in the west were supporting and arming the Mujaheddin freedom fighter fight against an atheistic regime and puppet of the old Soviet Union.

B. The Russians were no longer willing to take those losses. The Soviet Union was already showing signs of coming apart at the seems. It was only a matter of a few years later that it did.

The Afghan 'Government' is corrupt and are made up of crooked businessmen, Drug Lords, War Lords and Opportunistic Taliban, and who are opposed by the Taliban, Al Qaeda, ordinary Afghans, and other Drug and War Lords. The West will try to cut a deal, to get what they want: Gas and Opium and if possible military bases for geopolitical and geostrategical reasons. Whoever is the best partners will suit, whether the current Afghan government, or any opposition to the Afghan government that will sell it.

Didn't you even bother reading the entire thread or are you just trolling through to vent your version of the events.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
I still say this has very little to do with actually winning against the "Taliban" and has everything to do with staying in the region so we can be future players in Central Asia and it's HUGE oil reserves. Russia just wants stability in the region. They have tried to gain that control by force in the 80s they didn't get very far. They know that contrary to pop culture opinion the US can get that stability. It will cost a few thousand lives but I think the Taliban are done for. IMO.

I could be wrong but they really just want to go home and grow poppies we wont let them have their peace. So they try to hang with some relatives across the border in Pakistan and because of pressure from the States the Pakistani Gov wont let them have a small territory to call their own.

Ahh...

What a tangled web we weave....

The Great Game is afoot.

US, Russia Focus on Military Issues

President Obama expressed appreciation for a Kremlin agreement to allow the transport of U.S. weapons across Russian territory for the NATO effort in Afghanistan.

President Medvedev said that without U.S.-Russian cooperation, there is little likelihood of success against threats emanating from Afghanistan, which include terrorism and drug trafficking.

Analyst Alexander Konovalov says the agreement is a breakthrough.

[edit on 14-7-2009 by SLAYER69]

Originally posted by SLAYER69


I'd hardly call a story about a few dozen Taliban being killed a "killing multitudes of the enemy." It's a war.

people die. Both sides. get it.

Killing 40 of 'the enemy' is considered a multitude when considering a war against an insurgency in the shadows is being fought, where the Taliban has grown wise to air strikes being called in....

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Well since you seem so knowledgeable on the topic. Please provide us links and your proof to this hypothesis otherwise it's nothing but speculation.

Look at military history, at how many of 'the enemy' killed both sides have claimed always claimed, and compare with that of the findings of neutral observers.


www.mediachannel.org... -old-tactic-in-pr-war/


From the link:

Enemy death tolls have been a feature of war ever since armies stuck heads on pikes. They appear in Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War and in the Old Testament, which enumerates the casualties of King David’s wars, including 360 Benjamites, 18,000 Edomites and 22,000 Arameans of Damascus.


In modern warfare, combatants have usually measured success by territory held. German progress during World War II was marked by front lines that advanced east and west across Europe. Allied progress was marked by pushing those lines back toward Berlin from the beaches of Normandy and the suburbs of Moscow.

That changed when the U.S. found itself mired in a guerrilla war in Vietnam, where front lines were blurred and villages taken or lost didn’t indicate who was winning, says Dale Andrade, senior historian at the U.S. Army Center of Military History. “Vietnam was the first war in which the body count became the one and only statistic on which victory was measured,” he says.

Some battlefield commanders inflated body counts to appear more successful than they were. The American public “kept hearing these stories about how two of our soldiers were killed and 100 Viet Cong were killed,” says Mr. Andrade. He says that eventually Americans wondered: “If we’re killing so many people, why aren’t we winning?”

Just one historical example.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Civilians have always been killed in conflicts. Nobody has never denied any of that. Dresden comes to mind. Pull any conflict out of any history book you can find and read about the millions killed through out history. Your point is?

My point is, is that in the age of 'surgical strikes' and awareness that a war is televised 24/7 into people's homes, the truth that more civillians are being killed then what is often admitted is not unsurprising considering that a war can lose support quickly if it is found many civillians are being killed by those who are supposed to be protecting them in what are termed 'intervention wars'.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Yeah we know...
Some of us have had our sons actually over there fighting we get the first hand experiences of the real situation when they come home. Like my son

No offence, but it's your son, not you, who is fighting over there, and there is probably a fair amount he won't tell you.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Well it seems that most of the Afghans now a days want their I-pods and cell phone coverage more than they want to fight.

Well, they are not going to ring up and announce they are fighting against the occupation are they? For fear of being tracked and arrested due to a radio station that may have links with Kabul and the occupying powers.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
The Soviets lost becuase of two main reasons.

A. We in the west were supporting and arming the Mujaheddin freedom fighter fight against an atheistic regime and puppet of the old Soviet Union.

And elements of the Pakistani intelligence services and rich Arab sheikhs still arm and support the Taliban and other fighters.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
B. The Russians were no longer willing to take those losses. The Soviet Union was already showing signs of coming apart at the seems. It was only a matter of a few years later that it did.

And members of NATO will soon no longer be willing to take the losses, and by the recriminations already flying about between members of "not pulling the weight" NATO may indeed be broken from what happens in Afghanistan.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Didn't you even bother reading the entire thread or are you just trolling through to vent your version of the events.

[edit on 14-7-2009 by SLAYER69]

I posted my views on the Afghan government and in Afghanistan as I see it. If somebody said something similar to me that shows that I'm not the only one that has those views.

This is a discussion forum, and it's purpose is for people to post their views on a thread's subject.


This one: Afghanistan.


Are you always this hostile and intolerant towards people who happen to disagree with your views?


Seemingly my posting my views must be down to me 'trolling' as you see it.






Lesson learned! I shall not post in this thread again.

[edit on 14-7-2009 by Regensturm]

[edit on 14-7-2009 by Regensturm]

Originally posted by Regensturm
No offence, but it's your son, not you, who is fighting over there, and there is probably a fair amount he won't tell you.



[edit on 14-7-2009 by Regensturm]

[edit on 14-7-2009 by Regensturm]

OK Here we go.

I'll reply to the rest of your thread piece by piece if need be. Lets start with this line here. There always seems to be some trolls, excuse me I mean some people who show up and they have all the answers. They will post their OPINIONS as if they know the real story whether they themselves have actually been there. Needless to say I'll believe my son over you no offense.

My questions before we proceed any further is since you think you have all the answers are...

1. What exactly are "My" life experiences?

2. What has my son and I discussed when he returned?

I'm just curios.

Coalition Forces should launch an all out offensive on the Airport at Khandahar and get the hell out of there. This war is another "for what" war. Terrible foreign policy needlessly wasting what little resources we have left. No wonder we're broke. Allot could be done for our military and borders with the money being spent in Iraq and Afghanistan. And need I mention the toll on human life our GI's and civilians caught in the crossfire. I already fought in one "for what war" and it sickens me to see that we didn't learn from it. Over 50,000 of my generation died in that "for what war" and I hope it doesn't happen again. It's all a bunch of deadly stupidity and it stinks.

reply to post by anonymouse11


You talk like it's entirely an air war, and there ain't no boots on the ground. Haven't done your homework, or what?

Fact is, using just air power, they'll NEVER defeat the Taliban. Using only huge masses of easily tracked troops, they'll NEVER defeat the Taliban. Using a combination of air power and huge masses of easily tracked troops, they'll NEVER defeat the Taliban.

That's not how the game is played. Just ask the Russians.

Originally posted by Regensturm

The war in Afghanistan is unwinnable.

Nein, Regensturm. It's by no means "unwinnable". However, I have to agree that going about the way they fight it now, they're riding for, if not a loss, at least an unending war.

When they learn to listen to old hands that have repeatedly told them how to go about winning, they will. Maybe I should say "if" they learn to listen.

Too many guys with shiny stars on their collars are trying to grab their share of the glory, where glory does not exist. And they're doing it at the expense of the men who serve under them, and at the expense of the American people.

Frakkin' military politicians.

Things are sure happening in Afghaistan, and especially the British & European Nato/Coalition troops seems to take some beating right now and during this last weeks?!

NATO: 7 killed in Afghanistan helicopter crash - The Taliban claimed to have shot down a helicopter with dozens of British troops aboard. NATO and Moldovan authorities said no one was aboard except the crew.

www.google.com...

Tears of soldier's girlfriend as eight killed in Afghanistan repatriated - Clutching a bunch of flowers and weeping, the pain on the face of Sasha Buckley captured the mood in Wootton Bassett, Wiltshire, as the bodies of eight British soldiers killed in Afghanistan were brought home.

Sasha, the 20 year-old girlfriend of fallen Rifleman Daniel Hume, was joined by thousands of mourners who lined the streets of the town to to pay their respects to the men killed during the bloodiest 24 hours for British front line troops since the Falklands.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Criticism of Afghan War is on Rise in Britain.

In a brilliant essay in a recent issue of the London Review of Books ("The Irresistible Illusion, July 9), Rory Stewart, the Director of the Carr Center on Human Rights Policy at Harvard, writes that "Afghanistan..is the graveyard of predictions." I'd add that is is also the graveyard of empires. Stewart is critical of President Obama's "new policy," which he explains "has a very narrow focus--counter-terrorism--and a very broad definition of how to achieve it: no less than the fixing of the Afghan state."

www.thenation.com...

Afghanistan: Italian govt expresses 'deep sorrow' for slain soldier

Fifteen British soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan in the past 30 days in the latest military offensive aimed at quelling a Taliban resurgence.

www.adnkronos.com...

Afghanistan has shown us the true horror of war

It’s probably true that the recent escalation in the death toll among British troops in Afghanistan has brought home to a new generation the true cost of war. But the flurry of deaths in recent weeks — 15 soldiers in 10 days in southern Afghanistan, taking the number of British troops killed since the start of operations in October 2001 to 184, surpassing the total who died in the Iraq war — has certainly brought the horror of it all home.

We are at war. And this is what it looks like.

Until recently, Afghanistan was The Nice War. Though there was unease among US-haters (who still haven't come to terms with the uncomfortable fact Obama is an American), one didn't find liberal ranters quite so vociferous about the multinational effort to oust the Taliban and restore democracy to a country ravaged by retarded, misogynistic, pseudo-religious tribalism.

They didn't like it; but Iraq was easier to bleat about and, as they’ve difficulty with issues too complicated to be summed up on a placard, they left Afghanistan alone.

Now, though, with the hated US-inspired strategy of the Surge having been successful in Iraq, the consequent upping of the stakes in Afghanistan has led to the Lib Dems breaking the consensus among political parties. And the mood has arisen that something is wrong in the way the war is being handled simply because British soldiers are dying in it.

www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk...

Bracing for war's hidden fallout - Canadian Forces expects mental toll of damage from roadside blasts to surface in years ahead.

OTTAWA – Coalition troops in Afghanistan are being attacked by roadside bombs at record levels, leaving Canadian soldiers with a legacy of traumatic brain injuries that health experts are grappling to understand.

And the mental toll of having to patrol bomb-seeded roads is expected to show itself in the years ahead in a spike in the number of soldiers with post-traumatic stress disorder, military officials say.

www.thestar.com...

Just check Goggle news for much more! - the home support for the war in Afghanistan is very low!

So it seems there are now voices in Nato Coalition countries rising against the war in Afghanistan.

If the casualties continues to come like this last month, I'm sure the US could stand without support next year?!

If this is starting to brew as a political issue in the European counties, it would be political suicide for the politicians to motivate a higher rate of casualties.

Well this is only my two €uro-cents!

They better speed up the war and win very soon - or they will fail! - people in the European countries are sick of all the wars & killings around the world in general by now!

Well! the politicians will be in trouble world-wide soon anyway! - the world revolution is coming! sooner or later!

The people of the world are frikking tired of their crap agenda!


[edit on 14-7-2009 by Chevalerous]