DogOnPorch Posted October 14, 2009 Report Posted October 14, 2009 (edited) Here's a good little flick about a US outpost in a remote part of eastern Afghanistan. Edited October 14, 2009 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
wyly Posted October 14, 2009 Report Posted October 14, 2009 Not even close. The soviets had almost 120,000 troops in Afghanistan. American troop strength was just over 20,00 in 2006, and even lower than that in the first few years. If you add NATO forces, it's still not anywhere close. So yes, light footprint. It's only now starting to increase significantly, and rightly so. 105,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan now...vs one tribe of religiously motivated fanatics...the soviets had to fight the entire country who were being supplied by the USA with Stinger missiles...NATO is fighting a much weaker smaller adversary than the Soviets and still not winning...the Taliban now operate in 70% of the country...you cannot defeat an enemy that will not fight an open battle, they only fight on their terms, where they wish, at a time of their choosing...if the Taliban were being supplied with ground to air misslies like their predecessors this war would already be over... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 14, 2009 Report Posted October 14, 2009 ......you cannot defeat an enemy that will not fight an open battle, they only fight on their terms, where they wish, at a time of their choosing...if the Taliban were being supplied with ground to air misslies like their predecessors this war would already be over... False...the US fought a war against such an insurgency in the Philippines and won. Your characterization of the impact of Stinger missiles in A-stan is overblown. The Soviets were defeated by issues at home and the very nature of their conscripted forces more than helicopters being shot down. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
M.Dancer Posted October 14, 2009 Report Posted October 14, 2009 105,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan now... If by 105,000 NATO troops you mean just under 68,000, then you are 100% correct. http://www.nato.int/isaf/docu/epub/pdf/placemat.pdf ISAF Total Strength: approx 67,700 Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
wyly Posted October 14, 2009 Report Posted October 14, 2009 False...the US fought a war against such an insurgency in the Philippines and won. Your characterization of the impact of Stinger missiles in A-stan is overblown. The Soviets were defeated by issues at home and the very nature of their conscripted forces more than helicopters being shot down.the USA won the Phillipine insurection the only way possible, extermination/genocide(yes it's true you may want to look it up"...are you advocating we exterminate the Pashtun???...helicopters being shot down was the proverbial straw...like todays NATO forces travel by road was to dangerous for the soviets when travel by air/helicopter proved as dangerous the battle was over..."'I want no prisoners. I wish you to kill and burn: the more you kill and burn, the better you will please me,' and, further, that he wanted all persons killed who were capable of bearing arms and in actual hostilities against the United States, and did, in reply to a question by Major Waller asking for an age limit, designate the limit as ten years of age. ... General Smith did give instructions to Major Waller to 'kill and burn' and 'make Samar a howling wilderness,' and he admits that he wanted everybody killed capable of bearing arms, and that he did specify all over ten years of age, as the Samar boys of that age were equally as dangerous as their elders."In the path of the Washington Regiment and Battery D of the Sixth Artillery there were 1,008 dead niggers, and a great many wounded. We burned all their houses. I don't know how many men, women, and children the Tennessee boys did kill. They would not take any prisoners. You never hear of any disturbances in Northern Luzon; and the secret of its pacification is, in my opinion, the secret of pacification of the archipelago. They never rebel in northern Luzon because there isn't anybody there to rebel. The country was marched over and cleaned in a most resolute manner. The good Lord in heaven only knows the number of Filipinos that were put under ground. Our soldiers took no prisoners, they kept no records; they simply swept the country, and wherever or whenever they could get hold of a Filipino they killed him. The women and children were spared, and may now be noticed in disproportionate numbers in that part of the island Phillipine genocide Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted October 14, 2009 Report Posted October 14, 2009 If by 105,000 NATO troops you mean just under 68,000, then you are 100% correct.http://www.nato.int/isaf/docu/epub/pdf/placemat.pdf I sugeest you update your sources, the USA has 67,000 troops and the Brits 9,000...then there are all the other Nato countries... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
M.Dancer Posted October 14, 2009 Report Posted October 14, 2009 (edited) I sugeest you update your sources, the USA has 67,000 troops and the Brits 9,000...then there are all the other Nato countries... So you think NATO stats which are current are out of date? Current placemat: Valid as of 1 Oct. 2009 (PDF 2.74MB) - Source: ISAF Normally, what colour is the sky on your home world? Edited October 14, 2009 by M.Dancer Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Shady Posted October 14, 2009 Report Posted October 14, 2009 I sugeest you update your sources, the USA has 67,000 troops and the Brits 9,000...then there are all the other Nato countries... That's still nowhere near 120,000. And that's only relatively recent. It's been much less for the last several years. Nice try though. Quote
Shady Posted October 14, 2009 Report Posted October 14, 2009 Current placemat: Valid as of 1 Oct. 2009 (PDF 2.74MB) - Source: ISAF Ouch, that's gonna leave a mark! Quote
M.Dancer Posted October 14, 2009 Report Posted October 14, 2009 I sugeest you update your sources, the USA has 67,000 troops and the Brits 9,000...then there are all the other Nato countries... USA 31855 If you are out by that much, how much are you out on in general? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Shady Posted October 14, 2009 Report Posted October 14, 2009 USA 31855If you are out by that much, how much are you out on in general? I think that smacked him right out of the forum. Oh well, it's what liars deserve. Quote
wyly Posted October 14, 2009 Report Posted October 14, 2009 (edited) I think that smacked him right out of the forum. Oh well, it's what liars deserve. let this smack you ...as of aug 7th 2009 nato plus us troops NATO has 65,000 troops in Afghanistan....the USA has a further 36,000 operating outside of NATO command..that's 99,000 aug 7th... ouch!!! did that hurt when it smacked you upside your head????? Edited October 14, 2009 by wyly Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Sir Bandelot Posted October 14, 2009 Author Report Posted October 14, 2009 let this smack you ...as of aug 7th 2009nato plus us troops NATO has 65,000 troops in Afghanistan....the USA has a further 36,000 operating outside of NATO command..that's 99,000 aug 7th... ouch!!! did that hurt when it smacked you upside your head????? Well done! (High-5) Quote
Oleg Bach Posted October 14, 2009 Report Posted October 14, 2009 Wish I had a million buck to invest in the weapons industry...looks like we are in for the long haul as far as abuse of humanity and greed - when they come for your son to "sacrafice" himself for some lieing rich power crazed bastard - YOU might just become a pacifist also.. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 14, 2009 Report Posted October 14, 2009 ....ouch!!! did that hurt when it smacked you upside your head????? I just think it is so cute how you guys joust over the number of American troops in theatre. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Oleg Bach Posted October 14, 2009 Report Posted October 14, 2009 Got the peace prize for waging war hugh? Yep - America is really pushing the limits of dellusionary power projection..better be careful the world might get wise to your game.. Quote
M.Dancer Posted October 14, 2009 Report Posted October 14, 2009 let this smack you ...as of aug 7th 2009nato plus us troops NATO has 65,000 troops in Afghanistan....the USA has a further 36,000 operating outside of NATO command..that's 99,000 aug 7th... ouch!!! did that hurt when it smacked you upside your head????? 105,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan now... Do you want to continue to claim that there are 105K NATO troops operating when 36000 aren't operating with NATO. Need help to get unconfused? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 14, 2009 Report Posted October 14, 2009 the USA won the Phillipine insurection the only way possible, extermination/genocide(yes it's true you may want to look it up"... Good..you admit that your claim was false. I don't need to look anything up, having mastered the M1911 .45 service pistol many years ago and understanding exactly how/why it came into existence. Save that tearful genocide schtick for some other sucker. are you advocating we exterminate the Pashtun???...helicopters being shot down was the proverbial straw...like todays NATO forces travel by road was to dangerous for the soviets when travel by air/helicopter proved as dangerous the battle was over... If they are the enemy.....yes. Termination with extreme prejudice. Give 'em all the AA missiles you want to satisfy some twisted game of deja vu, but the outcome would not be the same, because NATO's purpose is not the same. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Oleg Bach Posted October 14, 2009 Report Posted October 14, 2009 Good..you admit that your claim was false. I don't need to look anything up, having mastered the M1911 .45 service pistol many years ago and understanding exactly how/why it came into existence. Save that tearful genocide schtick for some other sucker. If they are the enemy.....yes. Termination with extreme prejudice. Give 'em all the AA missiles you want to satisfy some twisted game of deja vu, but the outcome would not be the same, because NATO's purpose is not the same. Nato was brought into existance for a particular reason. Now that reason is gone. So off it goes looking for a purpose. Much like the UN - we as kids loved the idea of a united world and peace and justice for all - 50 years later you have a bunch of acedemics and extremely ambtious nerds seeking a purpose that they will never find..the machine is running and can not be stopped...the proverbial biblical beast is on the loose. It is the mindless mob of humanity in clusters like germs - each nation seeks to eat the next..auto cannibalism is in full swing and the beast walks - and we are that beast - mindless..but dangerous. Quote
Sir Bandelot Posted October 14, 2009 Author Report Posted October 14, 2009 Got the peace prize for waging war hugh? Yes haven't you heard the news lately? Under Bush we had Ignorance is Bliss. Now with Obama we have War is Peace Quote
Oleg Bach Posted October 14, 2009 Report Posted October 14, 2009 Yes haven't you heard the news lately? Under Bush we had Ignorance is Bliss. Now with Obama we have War is Peace Orwellianism has finally arrived. Orwell was a master bureacrat...he knew exactly how the machine runs..so does Obama - instead of a messiah we got a damned overly ambitious clerk who loves to strut and fly in the green helicopter - great - just great....finally - The lunitics have taken over. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 14, 2009 Report Posted October 14, 2009 Got the peace prize for waging war hugh? Yep - America is really pushing the limits of dellusionary power projection..better be careful the world might get wise to your game.. Hell, if we knew it would be this easy, President Bush would have gone Obama glam long ago. Not a damn thing has changed, but now it is raining Nobels....schweeeeeeeet ! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Oleg Bach Posted October 14, 2009 Report Posted October 14, 2009 Hell, if we knew it would be this easy, President Bush would have gone Obama glam long ago. Not a damn thing has changed, but now it is raining Nobels....schweeeeeeeet ! It is helpful for the average semi-thinking person to understand that our systems internationally are not to be empowered or respected. That we have suffered a moral collapse along with an intellectual dry spell....it's good to let the common guy know that the big dogs are not much smarter than they are - time to stop the idolizing of other human beings and stand tall as a human being and know - that the top dog is no better than the bottom one. Quote
dre Posted October 14, 2009 Report Posted October 14, 2009 I could care less who runs that dump. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Oleg Bach Posted October 15, 2009 Report Posted October 15, 2009 Why should you...it's like the mythical Satan figure in Paradise Lost that finally rules the world and in the process has turned it into a dump...no glory there - "You can have it all my empire of dirt" - good work - you are a wake. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.