Britain Plans to Send 500 More Soldiers to Afghanistan

Originally posted by PrisonerOfSociety
... much like the CIA paid the taliban to fight the Russians.

I get so tired of fighting this same old BS propaganda lie, that I may just stop, and concentrate efforts elsewhere.

It's a red-herring. Never happened. I just can't seem to say that loud enough.

Just because folks keep repeating a lie doesn't make it the truth.

reply to post by nenothtu

When the Soviet Union invaded in 1979, a group of Afghan Muslims declared a holy war. They were known as the Mujahedeen. "The term Mujahedeen derives from the word jihad - the holy struggle," said Michael Semple of the Kennedy School of Government. They shared a common enemy with the United States and both the Carter and Reagan administrations gave the Mujahadeen $3 billion in military aid to fight the Soviets

CBS

If i'm completely wrong, i will retract the statement you quoted me on, and understand your frustration.

I meant no malice and the last thing i wish to do, is perpetuate 'lies'.

Regards
PoS

Edit: Further corroboration of CIA / Taliban acquiescence:

-Allegations of CIA assistance to Osama bin Laden
-Patrick Cockburn: Where the Taliban roam

The CIA paid large sums of money to local commanders to persuade them to go home

[edit on 15-10-2009 by PrisonerOfSociety]

reply to post by PrisonerOfSociety


Giving support to someone already fighting is a hell of a lot different from paying someone to fight.

Besides, a little payback for the Soviet "assistance" in Vietnam never hurts either.

reply to post by dooper


I guess any army can be bought for the right price, whether in $$'s or geopolitical reward, retrospectively or pre-emptive.

btw, Dooper, i've been meaning to ask you - why do you think America as the barking dog of the West, has a right to question Iran's nuclear agenda when they are the only country to have dropped two atom bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima?

I just find it ironic that the US stomps around the World with their military might, in the name of peace and democracy.

[edit on 15-10-2009 by PrisonerOfSociety]

reply to post by PrisonerOfSociety

I don't know if logic completely fails you, or if you're selectively ignorant.

I'll say it again. There is a vast difference between supporting an already engaged fighting force and paying one to fight.

The NorthVietnanese weren't paid by Russian Intelligence to fight the SouthVietnamese government, and the US.

They were going to fight anyway. So the Soviets sent masses of weapons, munitions, missiles, planes, tanks, and so on.

That's called "support."

When I went out with the Nungs and got $50 a head to kill NVA, THAT's paying someone to fight. No head, no bounty.




[edit on 15-10-2009 by dooper]

500 Extra troops is a large commitment on the ground pretty much the size of a Infantry Battalion. To lay to rest the fears hyped up by the media the British infantry soldier today is as well equipt as any of our NATO allies.

The one thing we could use more of are Helicopters but for any modern conflict there will never be enough choppers! NATO allies currently pool their air assets together anyway. The nations that show less commitment on ground troops have been assisting in the air. Although they are not commiting as much support as they could.

To the rest of NATO's defense though they see this as a conflict started and driven by the US/UK coalition and their public give virtually zero support for the war.

The nonsense that the UK government are spouteing as reasons for not pulling out of afghanistan is sickening though! The reason being for the UK's national security is rubbish. The IRA were very motivated, rich and able to reach the UK easily. Even after decades of terrorist activity and countless bombs they did not achieve the downfall of society!

Are we really supposed to believe the taliban could cause so much of a threat? All we've had so far were a few bombs in the underground that were exploded by domestic terrorists!!! I'm surprised I can leave the house I'm so scared

Good luck to all the troops out there at the moment.

At the end of the day we are all in the same boat!

Some countries will not commit thier troops to the most dangerous regions.

I say those countries within NATO, should be named and shamed, I do not care if it causes friction, it is about high time those countries within NATO put up, or withdraw from NATO Alltogether.

It is funny we and our american counterparts argue over this, who are the one's we should be arguing this with?

Those from the countries whom are not contributing enough or, getting involved.

Does that not tell us all something!

Originally posted by Laurauk
At the end of the day we are all in the same boat!

Some countries will not commit thier troops to the most dangerous regions.

I say those countries within NATO, should be named and shamed, I do not care if it causes friction, it is about high time those countries within NATO put up, or withdraw from NATO Alltogether.

It is funny we and our american counterparts argue over this, who are the one's we should be arguing this with?

Those from the countries whom are not contributing enough or, getting involved.

Does that not tell us all something!

Hi Laura,

Like I said in a previous post, It isn't their war. They don't really have to support us at all.

To put it into context, the US only interviened in WW2 because they were attacked by Japan, untill then they only supported the UK by SELLING arms and materials to them. At the time they were also our friends but the US citizens saw it as a European war and didn't want part of it.

Sounds very similar to the situation in Afghan doesn't it! Until the other countries get physically attacked or they see a clear and present threat their citizens will not allow them to send more troops to die.

reply to post by Jimmy1880


Well I potsed on you tube as many a times this is over oil, or the right precision pert to hit those within the middle east at teach countries leisure, this is now comming true. Tell me why now is obama and brown are giving an insurge of troops into that region if it is not to bolster thier combats readiness, which to me the UK needs to shurg off. will this make be more helpfull, deaths, I do not know.


All I know is us in the UK are getting to the stage, ALOT are saying enough is enough.

reply to post by Jimmy1880


The deal was already cut with Britain before the Japanese attacked.

In fact, the Japanese attack almost spoiled the plans of Roosevelt and Churchill.

Fortunately, Hitler came to their rescue, and declared war on the US.

Now the American people would have been happy to stay home, and out of the whole thing.

We're glad to have the help, and this commitment further cements our two nations.

As far as troops from other countries?

500 British troops are much preferable to 5,000 French troops.

As Patton once said, "I rather have a German Division in front of me than a French Division behind me."

reply to post by dooper


Thank you, I tried to explain it.

And it did not seem to come over.

But you said it in your comments

Star for you !!!

All 500 are to be from Welsh regiments. I know this is what these young boys sign up to do, but what are we achieving in Afghanistan. No more schools, hospitals or a substantial reduction of Heroin exports. So why are OUR Young men dying???

They say it was to stop terrorist attacks on the British mainland. No attacks happened here until after we invaded Iraq/Afghanistan, MOST people now know 9/11 wasn't an attack by the Taliban, but a False Flag Op by the USA Govt. So Again I ask, WHY are OUR men dying???

We aren't even saving the Afghani people from dying, as they still get killed by the Taliban, Landmines etc.

This is just a war to ensure the Very High up criminals at Govt levels can keep the heroin world trade, which is how they fund their Black Ops, Civil Wars in African/Sth Asian countries, etc.

What should be done is training/arming their own armies/Police and get out of there. The UK spent long enough in the troubles in Ireland to know, that you can never win a war when the enemy dress in the exact same clothing as the local civilians. Set Piece battle tactics Can NOT work in these situations. I have heard from a very high up member of the British army who said in his personal estimations to his superiors, they could be in Afghanistan for up to 30 years and he truly thinks it won't make much difference because as soon as we leave, the old tribal style leaders creep out from under their rocks and do it all over again.

I have personally spent time before the recent wars in Afghanistan/Nth West Frontier province of Pakistan. You can't fight these people conventionally. Every male child is brought up to be a warrior 1st and a farmer 2nd. As this is how they have existed for 1,000s of years it amazed me that quite a large percentage of the Afghani people have green/blue eyes, and very pale skins compared to other surrounding countries. This was because Alexander the great spent a long time with his armies in these areas as he respected them as warriors so much, and to this day, 10-15% of all the people I met there had fair skin, and blue/green eyes. Amazing eh.

reply to post by PrisonerOfSociety


It appears to me that you are confusing the Taliban with the mujahideen, a common enough misconception, fostered by certain interests now, but entirely untrue. I'm willing to concede it could be an honest mistake, as it's often difficult to keep the various factions separate in one's mind without a score card.

"Taliban" comes from "talib", a student. The Taliban, as a political unit, did not exist until after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the subsequent withdrawal from the same area of the CIA. We miscalculated in thinking that since "our" enemy was no longer there, we didn't need to be there either. When all the players but the locals took their balls and bats and went home, it created a vacuum that resulted in the creation of further factions, and a prolongation of the war. The Taliban was created and fostered by Pakistani ISI, and thrown into the cauldron with the rest of the warlords and warring factions, in the 1990s. They simply didn't exist as an independent entity when the CIA and Soviets were duking it out there.

Now, what I notice, and what leads me to the conclusion that it was an honest mistake, is that the references you provided make mention of the mujahideen, specifically, and NOT the Taliban. They aren't the same. The mujahideen were actively fighting AGAINST the Taliban for the entire time that the Taliban were in power. That's why Masud was assasinated just before 9/11. He was muj, and he was at war with the Taliban. Al-Qaeda, under Bin Laden, cut a deal with the Taliban, and Al-Qaeda actually carried out his assasination to remove a thorn from the Taliban's side. In return, the Taliban gave Al-Qaeda safe harbor.

That didn't set well with the Afghan populace, as Al-Qaeda were viewed as every bit as much "foreigners" as the Soviets, the Americans, et al. Matter of fact, when the Northern Alliance was rolling up the Taliban southward, right after the "invasion" by U.S. Special Forces, they would put a few bills in the mouth of any dead Al-Qaeda they found. Someone got curious about that custom, and asked, and the NA muj said "It's their pay as foreign mercenaries" and spat on the latest corpse he'd "paid".

Here's a link that may help you in sorting the two out:

Soviets War in Afghanistan

Admittedly, it's wikipedia, and it has a few inaccuracies in it, but all in all it's a pretty good overview.

You'll note that in every case of mention, the Taliban came AFTER the Soviet/ US withdrawal from the area.

So yes, there are muj, there are Talban, and there are Al-Qaeda, but they are not the same. Mujahideen is a general term for ANY jihadist, and so in a way does cover the Taliban, among many other groups, in a blanket sort of way, but neither they, nor Al-Qaeda, existed at the time of CIA involvement against the Soviets, when we were supporting "that" mujahideen.

Bin Laden WAS there, but Al-Qaeda didn't exist, Bin Laden brought his own big bucks rather than take money from the CIA (via the Saudis and Pakistani ISI - it was a twisted route of support), and only fought in one battle that I'm aware of, just so he could say he did. Most of the time he was behind the scenes in "safe" areas pulling strings,and handing out his share of his daddy's warbucks.

This is a long winded way of saying that the CIA did NOT equip or support the Taliban OR Al-Qaeda.


Mod-Typo-Edit

[edit on 22-10-2009 by Skyfloating]

reply to post by dooper


Hi Dooper, I don't wish to offend you, but regarding Pearl Harbour and Japan etc.

The USA can't say they weren't expecting a war with Japan, and Japan sneakily attacked you.

The USA were fighting against Japan, by supplying American aircraft, Pilots ground crews etc. You just didn't declare war on them, you forced them into a situation where by fighting for China, and threatening Japans plans to use captured oil supplies, they had to attack you or surrender to China. Now that is a whole other story that would take many books to even scratch the surface of. I'm NOT defending the Japanese attack, just saying your Govt KNEW they had left Japan NO OTHER route except to declare war on the USA.

reply to post by PYak1234


We knew there would be an attack just not really exactly where and how bad.

This is not a big surprise to anybody who knows the true history. Why do you think FDR was doing what he could both in the public and behind the scenes to get America on a war footing. Only an idiot couldn't see the clouds of war looming on the horizon.

Forcing them to attack us? That's debatable. More like a conflict on interests. The Japanese thought they could knock out our Pacific fleet [The only real threat to them at the time] then they would do a land grab thinking we would take as long as 1 to 2 years to recover before we could strike back.

Meanwhile they would have solidified the new territory and then negotiate and treaty where those fat lazy Americans would not want to fight a real war with them and they could keep the land they took.

[edit on 15-10-2009 by SLAYER69]

reply to post by PYak1234


I may be misremembering my history here. Weren't the Flying Tigers an independent mercenary outfit, under Claire Chenault? Granted, they put a hurt on the Imperial Japanese troops, but they weren't under official US sanction.

Now regarding the other line of reasoning mentioned, didn't NATO come into being AFTER WWII? So a NATO alliance can't be fallen back on to bring US troops into the European WWII theater under that treaty. It SHOULD, theoretically, bring all the NATO allies into the conflicts of the individual member nations AFTER treaty formation however.

But that's only if treaties count for much. I reckon with The Brits, honor counts. With the rest, well, maybe not so much.

Maybe it's time to dissolve NATO, and draw up some new lines. European nations that won't support us, probably don't have a lot of support coming to them in the future FROM us.

[edit on 2009/10/15 by nenothtu]

reply to post by nenothtu


Thats why the Brits and the US do have what I believe is a genuine back each other against all others if need be.

Regarding the Flying Tigers being non sanctioned mercenaries, I personally don't think thats true, but its ONLY MY opinion.

The bloody Chinese didn't do us ANY favours 5 yrs later in the Korean war, bloody dishonourable Commie BAS****s. Killed thousands of our boys, when if they had been left alone to the Japanese I believe China would have been overwhelmed. But hey we CAN'T Change History only learn from it.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Hi Mate, Please don't think I personally offend ANY people for the wars started by Govt and Corporations.

There are SO Many deals, corruption and Illuminati things going on all at the same time, its really hard to know what the truth really IS. They feed us just what they want us to believe. This is why I need sites like this, with people such as ALL of YOU so we can have enlightened discussions.

As the great Bob Marley said;
If you get down and quarrel everyday
You're saying prayers to the devil, I say
Why not help one another on the way
Make it much easier

Say you just can't live that negative way
You know what I mean
Make way for the positive day
Cause it's a new day
New time, new feeling yeah!
Say it's a new sign
Oh what a new day

Originally posted by PYak1234

Thats why the Brits and the US do have what I believe is a genuine back each other against all others if need be.

I think that too, even though a fair number of Brits occaisionally eat my lunch here at ATS. Come to think of it, I come under fire from a fair assemblage of yanks, too. Could it be something I say?

Regarding the Flying Tigers being non sanctioned mercenaries, I personally don't think thats true, but its ONLY MY opinion.

Could be. There IS the occaisional "under the table" deal in that avocation. Plausible deniability, ya know?

The bloody Chinese didn't do us ANY favours 5 yrs later in the Korean war, bloody dishonourable Commie BAS****s. Killed thousands of our boys, when if they had been left alone to the Japanese I believe China would have been overwhelmed. But hey we CAN'T Change History only learn from it.

I can't even FORCE myself to be upset with someone that dislikes communists as much as I do.

But to be fair, The Flying Tigers were flying for a different batch of Chinese overlords, not the commie variety.

The commies just took advantage of the situation. Like you said - dishonorable.

reply to post by nenothtu


Yeh, the Flying Tigers were the A.V.G. or American Volunteer Group. They flew mostly P40s during most of the early China campaign. Very devastating to the Jap zeros mostly due to superior tactics. They were a good investment for China.

I may be misremembering my history here. Weren't the Flying Tigers an independent mercenary outfit, under Claire Chenault? Granted, they put a hurt on the Imperial Japanese troops, but they weren't under official US sanction.