Afghanistan-no win situation

[Topaz]

I was listening to a CIA Operative on a news show and he said that the Taliban are coming back and OBL is backing them and the only way that the US can achieve peace in the region is through Iran. He said if the US doesn't try to reach a peace with the Middle-East, then there a very good chance the terrorists will come after the US in Europe and inside the US. So I guess you can say that Canada is in the same sinking boat. The terrorist are going to be strong in numbers and he say the NATO can't win this war! Perhaps the military know this and doesn't want the Canadian press to get this info.

[noahbody]

I was listening to a CIA Operative on a news show and he said that the Taliban are coming back and OBL is backing them and the only way that the US can achieve peace in the region is through Iran. He said if the US doesn't try to reach a peace with the Middle-East, then there a very good chance the terrorists will come after the US in Europe and inside the US. So I guess you can say that Canada is in the same sinking boat. The terrorist are going to be strong in numbers and he say the NATO can't win this war! Perhaps the military know this and doesn't want the Canadian press to get this info.

I assume by now the ony vigins Allah has left are butt-ugly. Maybe a 'we want you' recruitment ad campaign targeted at suicide bombers is a viable strategy featuring large hairy women.

[madmax]

Did you need to start another thread?

I was listening to a CIA Operative on a news show and he said that the Taliban are coming back and OBL is backing them and the only way that the US can achieve peace in the region is through Iran.

I think you have confused the issues. The Taliban have surged in the past year. Largely because of the failure to deliver the goods to Afghanistan 6 years after the overthrow of the Taliban. OBL is in the region, largely on the failure of the US to remain focused on Al Qaida. Instead they became diverted because their President was both opportunist and an ideologist. Iran has little to do with Afghanistan. About the best thing the US could have done was let Iran go after the Taliban in 1998 when they were at the brink of war. Iran backed factions in the Northern Alliance. Iran can do little against Sunni Muslims in Afghanistan, or Pakistan. They have little in common with Pashtuns. Iran was co-operative after 9/11 like Syria, because the enemy, Al Qaida, were a threat to them, and seen as an internal threat the Syria, and a Religious rival of Iran.

A CIA operative is a person whom is paid by the CIA to do things you wouldn't normally do. They are also people whom feed information into the system, both accurate and not.

He said if the US doesn't try to reach a peace with the Middle-East, then there a very good chance the terrorists will come after the US in Europe and inside the US. So I guess you can say that Canada is in the same sinking boat. The terrorist are going to be strong in numbers and he say the NATO can't win this war! Perhaps the military know this and doesn't want the Canadian press to get this info.

Their isn't a complete military solution to Afghanistan. There never was, after the route of the Taliban. The aid should have been rolling in while the Taliban and Al Qaida were Disorganized and Dispersed. Now, the military is stuck in a never ending counter insurgency war, where the enemy can reside in safety within the Pakistan Border.

But really, another thread???? This could have went into "AFGHANISTAN The LATEST" thread.

[Jean_Poutine]

The US, Britain, Poland and Denmark are sending more troops, but no mention of that. In fact, Britain will have more troops in Afghanistan than in Iraq, but sweep that one under the carpet. Canada will be sending additional equipment and funding for development. It was even reported recently that Pakistan got one of the top Taliban -- not Al Quaeda -- Taliban. What gets posted instead is the usual "doomed to fail" rhetoric, which sounds a little like Chicken Little screaming, "the sky is falling!"

For some frank discussion from the US about Afghanistan, I recommend watching the Senate Armed Services Cmte. Hearing on the Situation in Afghanistan. They cover pretty much every problem that's been brought up on these forums.

[jdobbin]

The US, Britain, Poland and Denmark are sending more troops, but no mention of that. In fact, Britain will have more troops in Afghanistan than in Iraq, but sweep that one under the carpet. Canada will be sending additional equipment and funding for development. It was even reported recently that Pakistan got one of the top Taliban -- not Al Quaeda -- Taliban. What gets posted instead is the usual "doomed to fail" rhetoric, which sounds a little like Chicken Little screaming, "the sky is falling!"

For some frank discussion from the US about Afghanistan, I recommend watching the Senate Armed Services Cmte. Hearing on the Situation in Afghanistan. They cover pretty much every problem that's been brought up on these forums.

Your link doesn't work for me.

Also, even with the surge of troops from the U.S., Britain and others, the Washington Post today says that U.S. says they are still two combat battalions short.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7030200639.html

Craddock said there has already been a slight increase in suicide attacks and roadside bombs _ the beginnings of an expected increase in violence as the weather improves. And he said he is still short by as much as two battalions, largely combat units, despite recent commitments for about 7,000 additional troops there, including more than 3,500 from the United States. A battalion is generally about 800 soldiers.

[madmax]

The US, Britain, Poland and Denmark are sending more troops, but no mention of that. In fact, Britain will have more troops in Afghanistan than in Iraq, but sweep that one under the carpet. Canada will be sending additional equipment and funding for development. It was even reported recently that Pakistan got one of the top Taliban -- not Al Quaeda -- Taliban. What gets posted instead is the usual "doomed to fail" rhetoric, which sounds a little like Chicken Little screaming, "the sky is falling!"

Well, that's why your here. To round things out a bit.

For some frank discussion from the US about Afghanistan, I recommend watching the Senate Armed Services Cmte. Hearing on the Situation in Afghanistan. They cover pretty much every problem that's been brought up on these forums.

The link doesn't work for me

[Jean_Poutine]

Hmm... http is automatically added even though it's a real media link.

Open Real Media player, select file/open, and copy & paste this into it:

rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/ter/ter030107_afghan.rm

Alternatively, at http://www.c-span.org/, you can find it under recent programs listed as: Senate Armed Services Cmte. Hearing on the Situation in Afghanistan (3/1/2007), and click on the link there.

[jbg]

I was listening to a CIA Operative on a news show and he said that the Taliban are coming back and OBL is backing them and the only way that the US can achieve peace in the region is through Iran. He said if the US doesn't try to reach a peace with the Middle-East, then there a very good chance the terrorists will come after the US in Europe and inside the US. So I guess you can say that Canada is in the same sinking boat. The terrorist are going to be strong in numbers and he say the NATO can't win this war! Perhaps the military know this and doesn't want the Canadian press to get this info.

The CIA is in State's pocket, and is against any war.

Frankly, we need to stop fighting with two hands tied behind our back.

[madmax]

The CIA is in State's pocket, and is against any war.

Frankly, we need to stop fighting with two hands tied behind our back.

You have more than two hands tied behind your back. FBI,CIA, Homeland Security, DEA, ATF, and the list goes on.

Often the agendas of these organizations cross over at polar opposites of their mandate.

[Saturn]

But really, another thread???? This could have went into "AFGHANISTAN The LATEST" thread.

What exactly is the benefit in a 1-yr, 50-pg long thread? Such treads are difficult to navigate and go off topic very quickly. Will you please, please let us start a new thread once in a while?

[madmax]

What exactly is the benefit in a 1-yr, 50-pg long thread? Such treads are difficult to navigate and go off topic very quickly. Will you please, please let us start a new thread once in a while?

You are correct, except the topic would have neatly fallen into "the latest" and the debate continue there. As it is there are 4 Afghan threads currently on the first page. The newest thread was something like February 26th. So new threads were being created just days before this one.

Regardless, you shall hear no more from me with regards to multiple thread posting. You've been around far longer than me.

[jbg]

The CIA is in State's pocket, and is against any war.

Frankly, we need to stop fighting with two hands tied behind our back.

You have more than two hands tied behind your back. FBI,CIA, Homeland Security, DEA, ATF, and the list goes on.

Often the agendas of these organizations cross over at polar opposites of their mandate.

More to the point, at polar opposites with the interests of the USA and the sentiments of its people.