Türk porno yayini yapan http://www.smfairview.com ve http://www.idoproxy.com adli siteler rokettube videolarini da HD kalitede yayinlayacagini acikladi. Ayrica porno indir ozelligiyle de http://www.mysticinca.com adli porno sitesi devreye girdi.
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 51

Thread: Afghanistan

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    1,112

    Default Afghanistan

    Jerome Starkey

    THEY are on the front line of the war on terror, but German pilots facing the Taliban are insisting they stop at tea time every day to comply with health and safety regulations.

    The helicopter pilots, who provide medical back-up to Nato ground troops, set off for their base by mid-afternoon so they can be grounded by sundown.

    Their refusal to fly in the dark is hampering Operation Desert Eagle, an allied offensive, which involves 500 Nato-led troops plus 1,000 Afghan troops and police.

    Although Germany has sent 3,200 troops to Afghanistan, they operate under restrictive rules of engagement.

    They spend much of their time in an enormous base, complete with beer halls and nightclubs, in Mazar-e-Sharif, a 90-minute flight from the fighting. They also have a base at Kunduz.

    Germany, which has lost 25 soldiers in Afghanistan to suicide attacks and roadside bombs, commands the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in the north. But its men are not allowed to travel more than two hours from a “role two medical facility” - a hospital equipped for emergency surgery.

    The restrictions have fuelled tensions among allied troops. Norwegian soldiers, who were fighting to stem a growing Taliban insurgency in this remote stretch of Afghanistan’s northwest frontier, were forced to desert their Afghan comrades midway through a firefight when German medical evacuation helicopters withdrew.

    The Germans contribute unmanned surveillance planes, an electronic warfare team and a hospital to the operation.

    One Norwegian cavalry officer, who was engaged in a day-long fight with more than 40 Taliban near Jari Siya in Badghis, said: “It’s hopeless. We were attacking the bad guys, then [at] three or four o’clock, the helicopters are leaving.

    “We had to go back to base. We should have had Norwegian helicopters. At least they can fly at night.”

    Abandoned by their western allies, the 600 men from the Afghan army’s 209 Corps were forced to retreat until a convoy of American Humvees arrived the next day to reinforce them.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2890985.ece
    Last edited by pdf27; 10-08-2008 at 03:05 PM. Reason: Fixed link - pdf27

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Paramilitary wing of CAMRA
    Posts
    4,099

    Default Re: Afghanistan

    Uh, you do realise this story was published in November 2007, and hotly disputed by the Germans at the time, don't you?
    I have neither the time nor the inclination to differentiate between the incompetent and the merely unfortunate - Curtis E LeMay

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    1,112

    Default Re: Afghanistan

    No, I did not.Sorry about that, I just found the article so fascinating , and wondered why you didn’t put it originally in this forum, compared to that other forum you put it in. I find your work so interesting PDF. Your comments and threads in World Affairs and Alternative History and even computer forum’s are so well articulated around the Web. I have a newfound respect for you!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Paramilitary wing of CAMRA
    Posts
    4,099

    Default Re: Afghanistan

    How cute. I've got my very own cyberstalker
    I have neither the time nor the inclination to differentiate between the incompetent and the merely unfortunate - Curtis E LeMay

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,402

    Default Re: Afghanistan

    Quote Originally Posted by pdf27 View Post
    How cute. I've got my very own cyberstalker
    LOL You've never even had certifiably psychotic females, banned from some of the most liberal (Van Halen) forums on the internet, call your girlfriend/wife and tell her she's having an affair with you yet!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    1,112

    Default Re: Afghanistan

    Nick, I'm still trying to figure out how and why you were banned from Armchair General?...I mean, your an upstanding member of this forum so I think you were framed!..You should go back to them and appeal. I will support you if you need references!

    Romanes Eunt Domus
    Last edited by herman2; 10-09-2008 at 09:30 AM. Reason: add

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,402

    Default Re: Afghanistan

    Quote Originally Posted by herman2 View Post
    Nick, I'm still trying to figure out how and why you were banned from Armchair General?...I mean, your an upstanding member of this forum so I think you were framed!..You should go back to them and appeal. I will support you if you need references!

    Romanes Eunt Domus
    Um, speaking of cyberstalkers...

    Why are you following me around on the 'net...

    And I got banned from Armchair General because one of the webbies there, "Admiral," is a censorship-pansy that can't take any sort of debate, even via private message. And no profanity was used...

    I "insulted" him because I called him "biased" via PM, which is pretty weak, and reveals a deep insecurity on his part. The really funny part is that board, while it has many good posters, really is run by "armchair generals," as most of the mod staff have a bunch of excuses as to why they never served in the military, yet have a profound interest in stopping "Islamofascism."

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    1,112

    Default Re: Afghanistan

    I wasn't following you around, I merely was trying to find other websites related to war and everywhere I go, I run into you guys.I can't help it if your so popular---one of those things you have to live with I guess..So, I read up, and learn. I'm not that interested in your Van Halen or U2 threads ..thier so boring..so I only look up war stuff, so I can learn and be as smart as you guys....sorry you were BANNED though....at least I feel happier knowing I was not the only one that ever got BANNED for their opinions. Your like a regular bloke, now that I know this....it almost puts a tear to my eye...

    Anyways back to Aghanistan, if i may redirect this thread...as you know the Canadian government has taken a lead in the Afghanistan mission. Lately there has been a lot of scrutiny over the cost (like the USA),,todays ctv news blerb came out as follows:
    On the eve of a parliamentary report on the financial cost of the Afghanistan mission for Canada, an independent group has released their own answer on the subject: $28 billion.
    The Rideau Institute, an advocacy group and think tank that largely opposes Canada's military participation in Afghanistan, said the mission will cost the government $20.7 billion by 2011.
    In addition, the Institute said the direct and indirect costs to the Canadian economy due to soldiers' deaths and injuries will be about $7.6 billion.
    Parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page will release his report Thursday morning at 11 a.m. ET. The report was due to be released last month, but concerns of interfering with the election led Page to delay the release -- although Canadians will head to the polls on Tuesday.
    The Conservatives have pegged the cost of the Afghanistan mission from 2002 to 2008 at about $8 billion. A significantly higher cost could be a political problem for Harper.
    Support for the mission is lowest in Quebec, where the Tories are struggling to gain seats in the election.
    Steven Staples, president of the Rideau Institute and co-author of the report, said he may be taking it a step further than Page's estimate, but obviously won't know until Thursday.
    "We took it a second step further by also looking at the loss to the economy of the wounded and killed soldiers," he told CTV.ca.
    He said he based his estimate on some American studies that looked at the financial cost of the Iraq war, and included the price to health care. One such study was authored by Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz. In 2006, he suggested the Iraq war had cost the U.S. $2 trillion, about 10 times the amount previously thought.
    Staples said the war in Afghanistan has also come at the cost of Canada's contribution to UN peacekeeping missions.
    "We've given up so much in this war, not just in terms of government costs but also the lost contributions of all these young men and women that have died, and also internationally -- we're contributing a lot less to UN peacekeeping where we used to do a lot more," Staples said.

    "We used to be Number One in the early 1990s. We had more than 1,000 troops involved in UN peacekeeping. Now we're down to something like 160. In fact, we send more police for UN peacekeeping than soldiers, so when you count the number of soldiers involved it's roughly 50 or 60."
    Another report on the cost of the Afghan mission by David Perry, a former deputy director of Dalhousie University's Centre for Foreign Policy Studies pegged the bill at $22 billion.
    In light of the global economic downturn and a diminishing budget surplus, Staples suggested the Afghanistan mission could put significant stress on government coffers.

    "It's clear that the government's budgetary and foreign policy hands will be tied if it intends to keep our troops in Afghanistan through December 2011," Staples said earlier Wednesday in a news release.
    There are about 2,000 Canadian soldiers based in Afghanistan's volatile Kandahar province.
    Since the mission began in 2002, 97 Canadian solders and one diplomat have been killed in Afghanistan.

    Romanes Eunt Domus
    Last edited by herman2; 10-09-2008 at 09:58 AM. Reason: add

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    1,112

    Default Re: Afghanistan

    I don't know how you guys, but USA has spent close to a TRILLION dollars for the war in Iraq. Canada has spent 18 Billion in Aghanistan,....and WE are complaining?? The Toronto Star Newspaper today has headlines as follows:

    The Conservative government deliberately misled Canadians about the mounting cost of Canada's Afghan mission, federal New Democrats said after a new report pegged the price tag at up to $18.1 billion before it ends in 2011
    "They have tried to hide the real cost," NDP Leader Jack Layton said yesterday after the parliamentary budget officer released a report that tallied the cost of the war – and also said that successive Liberal and Conservative governments were not upfront with Canadians.

    "Those numbers show the costs of the war are dramatically higher than the (Stephen) Harper government has been telling Canadians. The costs are billions of dollars more. And whether it was the Liberals that took us into the war, the Conservatives who extended the war with the help of the Liberals, they haven't been straight up with Canadians about the cost," said Layton.
    The Conservative government has pegged the cost of the war at up to $8 billion, not including related, long-term costs.

    Yesterday's independent report thrust the issue of the Afghan conflict into the political arena in the final days of the campaign for Tuesday's election.

    Off the record, I really really don't know what the hell Afghanistan does to benefit the world. It has No oil, No exports, ugly people and there all either dirt poor or dam stupid and illiterate. Why should MY taxes go up so some dirt farmer can learn to read and write? You can't save the entire world? Let the Saudi's spend their god dam money on Afghanistan. They are Muslim aren't they? They are closer aren't they? They helped hide Idi Amyn and gave him seven virgins every night of his 23 yrs in exile, so why the hell is Canada spending money to protect this stupid useless country that nobody cares about or even heard about?. The Saudi’s are so generous to help and hide and fund terrorists so why can’t they help and fund these poor poor helpless MUSLIM Afghani’s? We let half a million Rwandans slaughter each other when CANADIAN peace keepers were over in Rwanda, but we don’t do spit about that. We let the dam Afghani’s grow their Opium which accounts for 90% of the heroin in the USA, which costs USA Taxpayers billions in health care costs, not to mention the crime that subsequently arises from the habitual drug user who resorts to this to spoof his fix. Why don’t we burn all the dam opium crops and put an end to it? Oh, because some stupid farmer might not get the money from the crops to feed his 15 stupid children because he don’t use protection, while I can only afford 1 child because my taxes have to pay for his 15 children who get money from the opium he supplies my country and we are to sensitive and compassionate to harm the Afghani ‘s by burning their crops?. Give me a break!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,267

    Default Re: Afghanistan

    Quote Originally Posted by herman2 View Post
    Off the record, I really really don't know what the hell Afghanistan does to benefit the world.
    The same can be said of a lot of countries.

    Quote Originally Posted by herman2 View Post
    It has No oil, No exports, ugly people and there all either dirt poor or dam stupid and illiterate.
    The same may well be said by some of America within fifty to one hundred years if things continue on their current path. There are grounds for starting to say it now in the minds of some people.

    Quote Originally Posted by herman2 View Post
    [Why should MY taxes go up so some dirt farmer can learn to read and write?
    Because that's how most Western tax systems already work, and not always with much success, domestically? If it's a good idea at home, why is it a bad idea for other people?

    Quote Originally Posted by herman2 View Post
    [You can't save the entire world? Let the Saudi's spend their god dam money on Afghanistan. They are Muslim aren't they? They are closer aren't they? They helped hide Idi Amyn and gave him seven virgins every night of his 23 yrs in exile, so why the hell is Canada spending money to protect this stupid useless country that nobody cares about or even heard about?. The Saudi’s are so generous to help and hide and fund terrorists so why can’t they help and fund these poor poor helpless MUSLIM Afghani’s? We let half a million Rwandans slaughter each other when CANADIAN peace keepers were over in Rwanda, but we don’t do spit about that. We let the dam Afghani’s grow their Opium which accounts for 90% of the heroin in the USA, which costs USA Taxpayers billions in health care costs, not to mention the crime that subsequently arises from the habitual drug user who resorts to this to spoof his fix. Why don’t we burn all the dam opium crops and put an end to it? Oh, because some stupid farmer might not get the money from the crops to feed his 15 stupid children because he don’t use protection, while I can only afford 1 child because my taxes have to pay for his 15 children who get money from the opium he supplies my country and we are to sensitive and compassionate to harm the Afghani ‘s by burning their crops?. Give me a break![/B]
    1. Because if Saudi Arabia, from whence bin Laden sprang although even he was too visibly radical for and hostile to them, was funding Afghanistan it would be Saudi Arabia on steriods without the restraint; without the intellect; and without having much to lose by a resurgence of the Taliban at their worst in sponsoring al Qaeda etc because it doesn't have oil or anything else that legitimately backs major currencies or economies. It would be a junk yard dog off the chain and leaping fences again.

    2. Because the Afghanis are human beings with the usual range of good, bad and indifferent. Before the Taliban took over, Kabul was a reasonably sophisticated city with a reasonably sophisiticated population. Bombing the country back to the stone age will ensure the survival of the least sophisticated elements because they are the most numerous and least concentrated, when, at least from the West's viewpoint, the road to anything approaching success is paved with support for the more sophisticated elements in Afghan society and politics.

    3. Because in places like Afghanistan which have none of the social security benefits expected in the West, your children are your social security and superannuation. Not unlike Western agrarian societies almost within living memory when there wasn't any state sponsored social security.

    4. Because the invasion of Afghanistan was justified to eradicate the likes of bin Laden, but it should have been a raid with promises of more to come if they reverted to their past ways rather than a doomed attempt to try to achieve the impossible of converting the nation into neutrality at worst and alliance with the West at best.

    5. So, yeah, we should have invaded Afghanistan but we were stupid to stay there and think we could achieve what no other foreign colonial power has managed, but Bush & Co were sufficiently ignorant and arrogant to think they could, and still sufficiently stupid to lack the ability to see that it's not about pride in refusing to leave a bad situation but wise to get out intact and let Afghanistan know that if it goes back to its old Taliban ways, so far as they allow the likes of al Qaeda to operate, there will be another devastating raid. From the skies, where America is supreme, rather than bogging down on the ground where, like Vietnam, Iraq, and even France in WWII, the foreign power will usually be unable to control a determined insurgency.
    Last edited by Rising Sun*; 10-10-2008 at 08:41 AM.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    1,112

    Default Re: Afghanistan

    Excellent!.Thank You RS, I enjoyed reading that.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,402

    Default Re: Afghanistan

    Quote Originally Posted by herman2 View Post
    I wasn't following you around, I merely was trying to find other websites related to war and everywhere I go, I run into you guys.I can't help it if your so popular---one of those things you have to live with I guess..So, I read up, and learn. I'm not that interested in your Van Halen or U2 threads ..thier so boring..so I only look up war stuff, so I can learn and be as smart as you guys....sorry you were BANNED though....at least I feel happier knowing I was not the only one that ever got BANNED for their opinions. Your like a regular bloke, now that I know this....it almost puts a tear to my eye...
    I'm not in any U2 threads, maybe a few, but never on a board for very long. And most of my Van Halen stuff is currently, possibly permanently, gone.

    http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/index.php?s=

    And you weren't banned for your opinions, neither was I really - just the way I stated them. You were banned for being a trolling buffoon.

    Anyways back to Aghanistan, if i may redirect this thread...as you know the Canadian government has taken a lead in the Afghanistan mission. Lately there has been a lot of scrutiny over the cost (like the USA),,todays ctv news blerb came out as follows:
    On the eve of a parliamentary report on the financial cost of the Afghanistan mission for Canada, an independent group has released their own answer on the subject: $28 billion.
    The Rideau Institute, an advocacy group and think tank that largely opposes Canada's military participation in Afghanistan, said the mission will cost the government $20.7 billion by 2011.
    In addition, the Institute said the direct and indirect costs to the Canadian economy due to soldiers' deaths and injuries will be about $7.6 billion.
    Parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page will release his report Thursday morning at 11 a.m. ET. The report was due to be released last month, but concerns of interfering with the election led Page to delay the release -- although Canadians will head to the polls on Tuesday.
    The Conservatives have pegged the cost of the Afghanistan mission from 2002 to 2008 at about $8 billion. A significantly higher cost could be a political problem for Harper.
    Support for the mission is lowest in Quebec, where the Tories are struggling to gain seats in the election.
    Steven Staples, president of the Rideau Institute and co-author of the report, said he may be taking it a step further than Page's estimate, but obviously won't know until Thursday.
    "We took it a second step further by also looking at the loss to the economy of the wounded and killed soldiers," he told CTV.ca.
    He said he based his estimate on some American studies that looked at the financial cost of the Iraq war, and included the price to health care. One such study was authored by Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz. In 2006, he suggested the Iraq war had cost the U.S. $2 trillion, about 10 times the amount previously thought.
    Staples said the war in Afghanistan has also come at the cost of Canada's contribution to UN peacekeeping missions.
    "We've given up so much in this war, not just in terms of government costs but also the lost contributions of all these young men and women that have died, and also internationally -- we're contributing a lot less to UN peacekeeping where we used to do a lot more," Staples said.

    "We used to be Number One in the early 1990s. We had more than 1,000 troops involved in UN peacekeeping. Now we're down to something like 160. In fact, we send more police for UN peacekeeping than soldiers, so when you count the number of soldiers involved it's roughly 50 or 60."
    Another report on the cost of the Afghan mission by David Perry, a former deputy director of Dalhousie University's Centre for Foreign Policy Studies pegged the bill at $22 billion.
    In light of the global economic downturn and a diminishing budget surplus, Staples suggested the Afghanistan mission could put significant stress on government coffers.

    "It's clear that the government's budgetary and foreign policy hands will be tied if it intends to keep our troops in Afghanistan through December 2011," Staples said earlier Wednesday in a news release.
    There are about 2,000 Canadian soldiers based in Afghanistan's volatile Kandahar province.
    Since the mission began in 2002, 97 Canadian solders and one diplomat have been killed in Afghanistan.

    Romanes Eunt Domus
    There's probably going to be an intensification of the US mission in Afghanistan in 2009, it's difficult to predict or speculate what will result...

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,267

    Default Re: Afghanistan

    Quote Originally Posted by Nickdfresh View Post
    There's probably going to be an intensification of the US mission in Afghanistan in 2009, it's difficult to predict or speculate what will result...
    Probably not much different to the position in 2019 if the West, which doesn't have the Asiatic stomach for long wars, is still there.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    1,112

    Default Re: Afghanistan

    Even Australia is thinking of withdrawing their 1100 troops....I read this in the Arab news:..looks interesting...

    WE’RE not going to win this war,” a British commander in Afghanistan, Brig. Mark Carleton-Smith, recently disclosed to the Sunday Times. He suggests the most that can be hoped for is to dampen the insurgency, which he believes will still be active once the foreign armies have left unless efforts are made to negotiate with the Taleban, who, until now, have refused to sit down with “invaders”.

    Australia’s Defense Minister Joel Fitzgibbon agrees that a decisive military victory may not be attainable, while NATO’s secretary-general wants to find a diplomatic solution to end the conflict.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,402

    Default Re: Afghanistan

    Quote Originally Posted by Rising Sun* View Post
    Probably not much different to the position in 2019 if the West, which doesn't have the Asiatic stomach for long wars, is still there.

    There's going to be a shifting away from a national gov't mentality, as Karzai is ineffective and his gov't colludes with some bad characters, to a more tribal gov't. In short, the US is going to do what they've done in Iraq and throw their hands up and begin to acknowledge that tribal divisions are real, and begin to payoff tribal leaders - as we have done in Iraq...

    I also think that there will be a much more aggressive policy with Pakistan...

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •