|
|
| Next: Doctor assisted suicide |
| Author |
Message |
tony7914
Joined: Dec 24, 2004
Posts: 4965
Location: Peru Indiana
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:42 pm Post subject: US readying south Afghan surge against Taliban |
|
|
| Quote: |
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan – Afghanistan's southern rim, the Taliban's spiritual birthplace and the country's most violent region, has for the last two years been the domain of British, Canadian and Dutch soldiers.
That's about to change.
In what amounts to an Afghan version of the surge in Iraq, the U.S. is preparing to pour at least 20,000 extra troops into the south, augmenting 12,500 NATO soldiers who have proved too few to cope with a Taliban insurgency that is fiercer than NATO leaders expected.......... |
Source.
That ought to get their attention  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gezzer
Joined: Oct 19, 2008
Posts: 666
Location: Buckinghamshire England
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| the Russians had a far greater number of troops in that region, when they were there, then the combined forces that are proposed. i hasten to add, they failed …
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tony7914
Joined: Dec 24, 2004
Posts: 4965
Location: Peru Indiana
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 01, 2009 8:14 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| Gezzer wrote: |
| the Russians had a far greater number of troops in that region, when they were there, then the combined forces that are proposed. i hasten to add, they failed … |
I was waiting for that
psssssssstttttttt.................................We are not the Russians. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gezzer
Joined: Oct 19, 2008
Posts: 666
Location: Buckinghamshire England
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 01, 2009 8:40 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| tony7914 wrote: |
| Gezzer wrote: |
| the Russians had a far greater number of troops in that region, when they were there, then the combined forces that are proposed. i hasten to add, they failed … |
I was waiting for that
psssssssstttttttt.................................We are not the Russians. |
the Russians didn't have to abide by the rules, they failed, but we do have to abide by them … |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tony7914
Joined: Dec 24, 2004
Posts: 4965
Location: Peru Indiana
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 01, 2009 8:51 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| Gezzer wrote: |
| tony7914 wrote: |
| Gezzer wrote: |
| the Russians had a far greater number of troops in that region, when they were there, then the combined forces that are proposed. i hasten to add, they failed … |
I was waiting for that
psssssssstttttttt.................................We are not the Russians. |
the Russians didn't have to abide by the rules, they failed, but we do have to abide by them … |
Like I said before........We are not the Russians. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gezzer
Joined: Oct 19, 2008
Posts: 666
Location: Buckinghamshire England
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:07 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| tony7914 wrote: |
| Gezzer wrote: |
| tony7914 wrote: |
| Gezzer wrote: |
| the Russians had a far greater number of troops in that region, when they were there, then the combined forces that are proposed. i hasten to add, they failed … |
I was waiting for that
psssssssstttttttt.................................We are not the Russians. |
the Russians didn't have to abide by the rules, they failed, but we do have to abide by them … |
Like I said before........We are not the Russians. |
you are most certainly not the Russians … |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tony7914
Joined: Dec 24, 2004
Posts: 4965
Location: Peru Indiana
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 02, 2009 12:19 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| Gezzer wrote: |
| tony7914 wrote: |
| Gezzer wrote: |
| tony7914 wrote: |
| Gezzer wrote: |
| the Russians had a far greater number of troops in that region, when they were there, then the combined forces that are proposed. i hasten to add, they failed … |
I was waiting for that
psssssssstttttttt.................................We are not the Russians. |
the Russians didn't have to abide by the rules, they failed, but we do have to abide by them … |
Like I said before........We are not the Russians. |
you are most certainly not the Russians … |
No. No we are not. There is no guaranty this will work and to be honest many of us wish we didn't have to be there but we have unfinished business there and we will finish this one way or another. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CowpokeBob
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
Posts: 1501
Location: South Carolina, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 02, 2009 8:39 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| tony7914 wrote: |
| Gezzer wrote: |
| tony7914 wrote: |
| Gezzer wrote: |
| tony7914 wrote: |
| Gezzer wrote: |
| the Russians had a far greater number of troops in that region, when they were there, then the combined forces that are proposed. i hasten to add, they failed … |
I was waiting for that
psssssssstttttttt.................................We are not the Russians. |
the Russians didn't have to abide by the rules, they failed, but we do have to abide by them … |
Like I said before........We are not the Russians. |
you are most certainly not the Russians … |
No. No we are not. There is no guaranty this will work and to be honest many of us wish we didn't have to be there but we have unfinished business there and we will finish this one way or another. |
Gezzer if your going to use poor examples to illustrate your defeatist attitude you could have used Vietnam which did involve the US, not the USSR, and which we indeed did lose. The USSR tried to rule over the Afghan people like they ruled over thier own, they lost in both cases. We are trying to free the Afghan people so they can rule themselves, a much different scenario. Gezzer, I'll never understand why you are so eager to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory before the fight even begins.
As Tony said this is by no means a sure thing in Afghanistan but that is not a reason to pack our bags and leave. We went there to try and give the Afghans a chance at a stable and peaceful country and we've yet to give it a good try. As several people have pointed out in other posts we have been distracted by iraq for some time but I think that is coming to an end now and I would not want to be the Taliban as we focus our attention on them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ejward
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Posts: 7054
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 02, 2009 11:17 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
I would hope that the Taliban is at a much weaker state now than when Russia was fighting them.
They better be, my tax dollars are paying for it ..... sorry, I'm not actually paying for aynything, my kids and grand kids will be paying for it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gezzer
Joined: Oct 19, 2008
Posts: 666
Location: Buckinghamshire England
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 02, 2009 11:40 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| tony7914 wrote: |
| Gezzer wrote: |
| tony7914 wrote: |
| Gezzer wrote: |
| tony7914 wrote: |
| Gezzer wrote: |
| the Russians had a far greater number of troops in that region, when they were there, then the combined forces that are proposed. i hasten to add, they failed … |
I was waiting for that
psssssssstttttttt.................................We are not the Russians. |
the Russians didn't have to abide by the rules, they failed, but we do have to abide by them … |
Like I said before........We are not the Russians. |
you are most certainly not the Russians … |
No. No we are not. There is no guaranty this will work and to be honest many of us wish we didn't have to be there but we have unfinished business there and we will finish this one way or another. |
there is never a guarantee in war, as of unfinished business, don't start any business unless you mean to finish it (Vietnam, Iraq spring to mind)
if you can not stand the heat or go the full course, get out of the kitchen
but that business started a decade, or more ago, and only now are we seeing the pay back that is required …
you talk the talk how about you stay the course to do the walk … |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gezzer
Joined: Oct 19, 2008
Posts: 666
Location: Buckinghamshire England
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 02, 2009 11:47 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| CowpokeBob wrote: |
| tony7914 wrote: |
| Gezzer wrote: |
| tony7914 wrote: |
| Gezzer wrote: |
| tony7914 wrote: |
| Gezzer wrote: |
| the Russians had a far greater number of troops in that region, when they were there, then the combined forces that are proposed. i hasten to add, they failed … |
I was waiting for that
psssssssstttttttt.................................We are not the Russians. |
the Russians didn't have to abide by the rules, they failed, but we do have to abide by them … |
Like I said before........We are not the Russians. |
you are most certainly not the Russians … |
No. No we are not. There is no guaranty this will work and to be honest many of us wish we didn't have to be there but we have unfinished business there and we will finish this one way or another. |
Gezzer if your going to use poor examples to illustrate your defeatist attitude you could have used Vietnam which did involve the US, not the USSR, and which we indeed did lose. The USSR tried to rule over the Afghan people like they ruled over thier own, they lost in both cases. We are trying to free the Afghan people so they can rule themselves, a much different scenario. Gezzer, I'll never understand why you are so eager to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory before the fight even begins.
As Tony said this is by no means a sure thing in Afghanistan but that is not a reason to pack our bags and leave. We went there to try and give the Afghans a chance at a stable and peaceful country and we've yet to give it a good try. As several people have pointed out in other posts we have been distracted by iraq for some time but I think that is coming to an end now and I would not want to be the Taliban as we focus our attention on them. |
i believe that the long term is the answer, but not in the way you require.
so sad to read your short term answer to the situation … |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tony7914
Joined: Dec 24, 2004
Posts: 4965
Location: Peru Indiana
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 02, 2009 11:59 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| Gezzer wrote: |
| tony7914 wrote: |
| Gezzer wrote: |
| tony7914 wrote: |
| Gezzer wrote: |
| tony7914 wrote: |
| Gezzer wrote: |
| the Russians had a far greater number of troops in that region, when they were there, then the combined forces that are proposed. i hasten to add, they failed … |
I was waiting for that
psssssssstttttttt.................................We are not the Russians. |
the Russians didn't have to abide by the rules, they failed, but we do have to abide by them … |
Like I said before........We are not the Russians. |
you are most certainly not the Russians … |
No. No we are not. There is no guaranty this will work and to be honest many of us wish we didn't have to be there but we have unfinished business there and we will finish this one way or another. |
there is never a guarantee in war, as of unfinished business, don't start any business unless you mean to finish it (Vietnam, Iraq spring to mind)
if you can not stand the heat or go the full course, get out of the kitchen
but that business started a decade, or more ago, and only now are we seeing the pay back that is required …
you talk the talk how about you stay the course to do the walk … |
I think if you take a look at Afganistan the Taliban is about to feel just how hot it can get in the kitchen quit yer bitchin we'll fix what NATO couldn't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gezzer
Joined: Oct 19, 2008
Posts: 666
Location: Buckinghamshire England
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 02, 2009 12:08 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| tony7914 wrote: |
| Gezzer wrote: |
| tony7914 wrote: |
| Gezzer wrote: |
| tony7914 wrote: |
| Gezzer wrote: |
| tony7914 wrote: |
| Gezzer wrote: |
| the Russians had a far greater number of troops in that region, when they were there, then the combined forces that are proposed. i hasten to add, they failed … |
I was waiting for that
psssssssstttttttt.................................We are not the Russians. |
the Russians didn't have to abide by the rules, they failed, but we do have to abide by them … |
Like I said before........We are not the Russians. |
you are most certainly not the Russians … |
No. No we are not. There is no guaranty this will work and to be honest many of us wish we didn't have to be there but we have unfinished business there and we will finish this one way or another. |
there is never a guarantee in war, as of unfinished business, don't start any business unless you mean to finish it (Vietnam, Iraq spring to mind)
if you can not stand the heat or go the full course, get out of the kitchen
but that business started a decade, or more ago, and only now are we seeing the pay back that is required …
you talk the talk how about you stay the course to do the walk … |
I think if you take a look at Afganistan the Taliban is about to feel just how hot it can get in the kitchen quit yer bitchin we'll fix what NATO couldn't. |
we can win every battle and we still lose the war
you still don't get it, yet …
there is another way (how hard are you, how much stomach do you have) … |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tony7914
Joined: Dec 24, 2004
Posts: 4965
Location: Peru Indiana
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 02, 2009 12:21 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| Gezzer wrote: |
| tony7914 wrote: |
| Gezzer wrote: |
| tony7914 wrote: |
| Gezzer wrote: |
| tony7914 wrote: |
| Gezzer wrote: |
| tony7914 wrote: |
| Gezzer wrote: |
| the Russians had a far greater number of troops in that region, when they were there, then the combined forces that are proposed. i hasten to add, they failed … |
I was waiting for that
psssssssstttttttt.................................We are not the Russians. |
the Russians didn't have to abide by the rules, they failed, but we do have to abide by them … |
Like I said before........We are not the Russians. |
you are most certainly not the Russians … |
No. No we are not. There is no guaranty this will work and to be honest many of us wish we didn't have to be there but we have unfinished business there and we will finish this one way or another. |
there is never a guarantee in war, as of unfinished business, don't start any business unless you mean to finish it (Vietnam, Iraq spring to mind)
if you can not stand the heat or go the full course, get out of the kitchen
but that business started a decade, or more ago, and only now are we seeing the pay back that is required …
you talk the talk how about you stay the course to do the walk … |
I think if you take a look at Afganistan the Taliban is about to feel just how hot it can get in the kitchen quit yer bitchin we'll fix what NATO couldn't. |
we can win every battle and we still lose the war
you still don't get it, yet …
there is another way (how hard are you, how much stomach do you have) … |
Oh but I do get it
Relax, it's not your fight anymore. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gezzer
Joined: Oct 19, 2008
Posts: 666
Location: Buckinghamshire England
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 02, 2009 12:24 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| tony7914 wrote: |
| Gezzer wrote: |
| tony7914 wrote: |
| Gezzer wrote: |
| tony7914 wrote: |
| Gezzer wrote: |
| tony7914 wrote: |
| Gezzer wrote: |
| tony7914 wrote: |
| Gezzer wrote: |
| the Russians had a far greater number of troops in that region, when they were there, then the combined forces that are proposed. i hasten to add, they failed … |
I was waiting for that
psssssssstttttttt.................................We are not the Russians. |
the Russians didn't have to abide by the rules, they failed, but we do have to abide by them … |
Like I said before........We are not the Russians. |
you are most certainly not the Russians … |
No. No we are not. There is no guaranty this will work and to be honest many of us wish we didn't have to be there but we have unfinished business there and we will finish this one way or another. |
there is never a guarantee in war, as of unfinished business, don't start any business unless you mean to finish it (Vietnam, Iraq spring to mind)
if you can not stand the heat or go the full course, get out of the kitchen
but that business started a decade, or more ago, and only now are we seeing the pay back that is required …
you talk the talk how about you stay the course to do the walk … |
I think if you take a look at Afganistan the Taliban is about to feel just how hot it can get in the kitchen quit yer bitchin we'll fix what NATO couldn't. |
we can win every battle and we still lose the war
you still don't get it, yet …
there is another way (how hard are you, how much stomach do you have) … |
Oh but I do get it
Relax, it's not your fight anymore. |
are you sure …
now dictate the battle tactics (if you can) … |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tony7914
Joined: Dec 24, 2004
Posts: 4965
Location: Peru Indiana
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:28 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
@geezer
| Quote: |
are you sure …
now dictate the battle tactics (if you can) … |
For the most part yes I am sure.
As for the battle tactic I'm not privy to that information any more than you are but your more than welcome to watch as it unfolds |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kenmabmcc
Joined: Nov 20, 2003
Posts: 8179
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand.
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 02, 2009 5:34 pm Post subject: Re: US readying south Afghan surge against Taliban [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| tony7914 wrote: |
| That ought to get their attention |
The resupply problem will increase as the troop numbers rise.
With the Taliban interdicting the Pakistani routes,
getting enough air cargo capacity into Afghanistan will be a problem...
Then there are still those old Stingers that the USA so thoughtfully supplied the Taliban with,
although they would need new battery packs for then now,
not a difficult reverse engineering process though.
But of course, they may have upgraded to more modern A/A missiles,
as every thing is for sale in the totally corrupt Afghani administration...
or from smugglers....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tony7914
Joined: Dec 24, 2004
Posts: 4965
Location: Peru Indiana
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 02, 2009 5:42 pm Post subject: Re: US readying south Afghan surge against Taliban [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| kenmabmcc wrote: |
| tony7914 wrote: |
| That ought to get their attention |
The resupply problem will increase as the troop numbers rise.
So will the amount of Taliban funerals I'm sure logistics have been taken into consideration.
With the Taliban interdicting the Pakistani routes,
getting enough air cargo capacity into Afghanistan will be a problem...
Then there are still those old Stingers that the USA so thoughtfully supplied the Taliban with,
although they would need new battery packs for then now,
not a difficult reverse engineering process though.
But of course, they may have upgraded to more modern A/A missiles,
as every thing is for sale in the totally corrupt Afghani administration...
or from smugglers....
I'm sure that was thought of too. A stinger wont do you a lot of good when it comes to troops on the ground
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CowpokeBob
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
Posts: 1501
Location: South Carolina, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 02, 2009 8:41 pm Post subject: Re: US readying south Afghan surge against Taliban [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| tony7914 wrote: |
| kenmabmcc wrote: |
| tony7914 wrote: |
| That ought to get their attention |
The resupply problem will increase as the troop numbers rise.
So will the amount of Taliban funerals I'm sure logistics have been taken into consideration.
With the Taliban interdicting the Pakistani routes,
getting enough air cargo capacity into Afghanistan will be a problem...
Then there are still those old Stingers that the USA so thoughtfully supplied the Taliban with,
although they would need new battery packs for then now,
not a difficult reverse engineering process though.
But of course, they may have upgraded to more modern A/A missiles,
as every thing is for sale in the totally corrupt Afghani administration...
or from smugglers....
I'm sure that was thought of too. A stinger wont do you a lot of good when it comes to troops on the ground
|
|
I sure am glad none of you defeatist armchair generals are actually in command over there. Its probably a good thing I'm not in charge of anything over there either because as you put it Gezzer I've no problem with doing what it takes to win. Interpret that how you will.
Since we are having a discussion about stinger missles I should point out that the stinger is a very short range AA missle so unless a fighter jet is dropping a bomb on your position or your siting at the end of the runway it isn't going to be a very effective weapon. Secondly Vietnam was very helpful in showing us how to get around AA. We put that knowledge to very good use in Bosnia, which had a much more robist AA defense than the Taliban are likely to put up.
And there are always ways to get supplies into the troops. Trucking them in is just the easiest method not the only one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tony7914
Joined: Dec 24, 2004
Posts: 4965
Location: Peru Indiana
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 02, 2009 8:52 pm Post subject: Re: US readying south Afghan surge against Taliban [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| CowpokeBob wrote: |
| tony7914 wrote: |
| kenmabmcc wrote: |
| tony7914 wrote: |
| That ought to get their attention |
The resupply problem will increase as the troop numbers rise.
So will the amount of Taliban funerals I'm sure logistics have been taken into consideration.
With the Taliban interdicting the Pakistani routes,
getting enough air cargo capacity into Afghanistan will be a problem...
Then there are still those old Stingers that the USA so thoughtfully supplied the Taliban with,
although they would need new battery packs for then now,
not a difficult reverse engineering process though.
But of course, they may have upgraded to more modern A/A missiles,
as every thing is for sale in the totally corrupt Afghani administration...
or from smugglers....
I'm sure that was thought of too. A stinger wont do you a lot of good when it comes to troops on the ground
|
|
I sure am glad none of you defeatist armchair generals are actually in command over there. Its probably a good thing I'm not in charge of anything over there either because as you put it Gezzer I've no problem with doing what it takes to win. Interpret that how you will.
Since we are having a discussion about stinger missles I should point out that the stinger is a very short range AA missle so unless a fighter jet is dropping a bomb on your position or your siting at the end of the runway it isn't going to be a very effective weapon. Secondly Vietnam was very helpful in showing us how to get around AA. We put that knowledge to very good use in Bosnia, which had a much more robist AA defense than the Taliban are likely to put up.
And there are always ways to get supplies into the troops. Trucking them in is just the easiest method not the only one. |
defeatist armchair general?!? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
| |
|
|
General