ForumsX
The forums of StarCraftLive.net


top_calendar.gif top_members.gif top_faq.gif top_search.gif top_home.gif    

vb_bullet.gif ForumsX > General Discussion > Serious Discussion > The Latest on Pakistan & Afghanistan
Search this Thread:

newthread reply Serious Discussion
prev.gif Previous Thread | Next Thread next.gif
Linear Hybrid Threaded

The Latest on Pakistan & Afghanistan  Pages (2): « 1 [2]
folder icon   01-28-2010, 01:25 AM
Post #36
Sammy the Saint

Overlord


Joined: Jan 30 2001
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,253 pos

Your "strategy" would not work. For the reasons I have stated over and over and over and over again...

As far as I am aware and can remember, out of approximately 50,000 coalition troops in Afghanistan, 36,000 of those are US troops...
(Something along the lines of 3,000 Canadian personal, if you wondered)

Now, in the eastern provinces (such as Paktika, Nangarhar, Khost) were most of the bombing and killing takes place. The US is pretty much the only one with troops there. A few British and what not but it is pretty much a US show. The US also have direct command.

In the western provinces (such as Herat, Ghōr) there is not really that much bombing and killing. This is where the ISAF is active, ISAF may as well mean NATO. Or Uncle Sam and Friends. There is still in fighting and bad things happening but it is mostly to do with warlords rather then ever having anything to do with the Taliban. The Taliban never held much sway in the west or the north, but we will get back to that.

In the Southern provinces (such as Helmand, Kandahar or Qandahar, Urōzgān) There is much more fighting here, once again it is the ISAF (Uncle Sam and his friends) it is like a mash of the eastern and western provinces. The fighting centers around warlords in some parts, Urōzgān for example were the Dutch are fighting (and are going to pull out this year much to the dismay of the Afghani and ISAF powers that be, and much to the delight of the local warlords). Or the fighting is against the Taliban, as the Canadians are doing in Qandahar. This is were the Taliban first emerged, and went on to control Afghanistan.

In the Northern provinces (such as Jowzjān, Fāryāb, Sari Pul, Balkh) the story is very different. This area of Afghanistan is said to be the most peaceful. this is also where the Northern Alliance hold the most sway, it was never conquered by the Taliban and was quick to WELCOME the coalitions troops. Here is where I would imagine myself had I lived in Afghanistan during the Taliban's rule. Here the invasion and interference was welcomed by the people of Afghanistan. Here is were my statement comes to play "if I was fighting against a corrupt government that was killing my people by the hundreds I would welcome my bothers from other counties that wished to help me fight against the oppressor." This is also were the Norwegians are building and doing general peace keeping missions. But do not let that make you think that this could some how work in any other part of Afghanistan, as stated, the Northern Alliance is the reason this is possible. It have little or nothing to do with the "strategy", it is simply that this area was a battle ground before the war (Taliban vs the Northern Alliance) now that the Taliban is fight the ISAF in the west, in the south, and in the east. The north can live in peace for the first time in a very, very long time. The north was never a target.

Now given the information we can now talk about all the reasons your "strategy" would not work. For instance you claim as proof it would that...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultra_punk
This is the strategy taken by the EU troops in the more peaceful regions which have now basically eliminated all their Taliban elements (although the warlords that in power in the karzai regime will be a long term issue). It works. EU troops take almost no losses and can walk around on the streets. Heck, they even take naps, confident that they won't be attacked. Taliban have no ability to assail those positions and they enjoy zero public support.
Yet given the nature of the Northern Alliance and the simple fact that the Taliban never had public support in the north we can see a massive flaw in the argument. In fact I would say that if this is what you have based you ideas on you have never read anything about the history and culture of Afghanistan.

Now as I have said before and once again, I don't think you read it the first time.

"While I do agree with you that the western forces should not be leading the command what real choice do they have? It is not like the Afghan's have a military that thus can lead the command. It is not like they have a police force that can control the streets. Now before you say it, yes that is a problem that should be rectified by the western forces in the way of more training, setting up those institutions, etc. But in the mean time some one have to defend the 'green zone'.

Western forces should be protecting school children?. Sorry but simply put Afghanistan is a really big place and the west simply does not have that many soldiers. If we were to do it that way we would neglect the vast majority of the country and start in a very small space in order to work out ward. This would only in courage the country populace to take up arms against the foreign antagonist who was trying to change their way of life. ie. the Taliban. One has to either work with the Taliban, or organize strikes against the 'enemy'. The west thus has no real choice but to continue down the path it has started which will end in defeat because we are too arrogant in what is best for the rest of the world then to admit and change. Lets face it, we want the world to be democratic but only if they have our chosen style of democracy electing our chosen candidates. They maybe country bumpkins but it would appear that these Afghani's and far less stupid then we think..."

Lets face it, when we make a deal with them they are 'Warlords' and when we bomb them they are the 'Taliban'...

To sum up.
Your "strategy" would not work. Because out side of the North there is no support for it. You would need millions of troops and more money they you are willing to spend. Not to mention you are simply saying that you are going to go in there and teach the kiddy all about western ideals and the western way of life. Yeah, I can see the Afghani public really going for that one!... You only real choice is to pick a side, and the west has in the Northern Alliance, and win the goddamn fucking war the Afghani way. Corruption!. It is fantastic!.

__________________
The Official Forum Saint and Patron Saint of Color
Posts: 5,253 pos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif find.gif buddy.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   01-28-2010, 10:54 AM
Post #37
Black~Enthusiasm

Arch Druid


Avatar

Joined: Sep 10 2001
Location: Quebec,Canada
Posts: 4,980 pospos

Why is that thread still going on? Just invade Pakistan, seize everything and give it back to the Indians. They'll finaly become a regional superpower, complete with opressive imperial duties in the afghan and pakistani provinces, and become our bestest buddies for life.

Posts: 4,980 pospos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif find.gif buddy.gif im_msn.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   01-28-2010, 05:35 PM
Post #38
Ultra_punk

Administrator


Avatar

Joined: Jan 30 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 9,387 posposposposposhighposhighpos

You and your trolling! B~e, one day i will defeat you and your band of religious fanatics.

---

@Sammy

Anyway, I think, this post, where you've clearly stated your concept, I have a much better understanding of what you are trying to say.

As far as the NATO success enjoyed in areas, originally not under Taliban control, the point was that there was originally large Taliban presences in the area. Now, my strategy is capable of pushing the taliban elements out but my greater concern is the decrease in Taliban popularity. I used the Dutch as an example because there used to be Taliban hotbeds in the region, which they've now largely eliminated.

Certainly, as you stated, the southern provinces are much more difficult and the taliban have more local support. However, the majority of the enemies we are fighting are only called Taliban in media but in reality just a collection of different local warlords. I think culturally, we have failed to understand the afghan tribal network and the relationships between people. We treat everything as Taliban and then just ahead and act like that.

I'm somewhat more optimistic that we do not have to commit ourselves to a never ending civil war. The defat you mention which is inevitable with our current doctrine of attempting to control everything and laucnhing unlimited strikes against the taliban, is the same result if my strategy fails. The only difference is that, at least i have a slim hope that it can work.

I'm also not sure why you keep arguing we don't have enough troops for my strategy. That is not logically possible. If we protect everything within the areas we choose for which we have enough soldiers, then i am therefore excluding all other things and I have enough troops to do everything i stated within the areas under our protection.

Anyway, they put in the curriculum and they put in their whatever. We're only protecting them from insurgents/warlords who want to take over a region with military power. I'm very against western enculturation. From what I have seen, Canadian soldiers try to respect the local culture as much as possible but I only have biased Canadian media to go on for that. (For example, simple things like not eating in public during Ramadan) Imposing western values on them would only be imperialistic and cause resentment.

The reason I want to substantially scale back our operations to be pure aid work is that our measure of success is literacy rate, school attendence rates, average reading levels etc... real measurable forms of success. I want to end the war in Afghanistan. We can't lose, if all we are doing is providing aid work.

The area will fall into civil war or it won't. We don't have any resources to prevent that and certainly continuing down our path is not our only choice. If you know it will fail, why do it? If your argument is that, this is what we'll do... sure fine I agree, Western leaders would never agree to my strategy at all. However, I think i should clearly state the intent of my strategy.

I do want to take over a country and I want to end the war.

__________________

a suicide bomber taken out by a suicide bomber? priceless
Masey209: JUST MAKE HER HAVE SEX WITH ME!!
Enix: Oops added an extra zero to it just like your hydro bill
CowUltrapunk: SLOW
CowUltrapunk: slow as your dick
dimitri583: i told you
dimitri583: my dick is fast as fuck
CowUltrapunk: working on your unspeakable weapon of mass atrocities?
ZoraxP: Yep. I call it the USA.
Urin Bloodface: i know ontario
Urin Bloodface: ive even been to vancover
Posts: 9,387 posposposposposhighposhighpos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif home.gif find.gif buddy.gif im_aim.gif im_yahoo.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   01-29-2010, 10:55 PM
Post #39
Sammy the Saint

Overlord


Joined: Jan 30 2001
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,253 pos

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultra_punk
As far as the NATO success enjoyed in areas, originally not under Taliban control, the point was that there was originally large Taliban presences in the area. Now, my strategy is capable of pushing the taliban elements out but my greater concern is the decrease in Taliban popularity. I used the Dutch as an example because there used to be Taliban hotbeds in the region, which they've now largely eliminated.
Ahhh I think you missed it. You know, the point of me trying to inform you about Afghanistan. I thought you were talking about the Norwegians...

The Dutch, they are losing. Casualties -- 15 soldiers were killed in action over 2007, 2008 and 2009. 43 soldiers have been wounded in action. Yeah, they really walk around smoking peace pipes with the natives. If they 'took a nap' they would be dead. The numbers are low because they simply do not have as many people over there as the US. It has nothing to do with strategy because they are using the same strategy as the rest of the ISAF...

As for the North, well we have already seen why they don't really have issues up there. The only place where your 'example' would have any relevance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultra_punk
Certainly, as you stated, the southern provinces are much more difficult and the taliban have more local support. However, the majority of the enemies we are fighting are only called Taliban in media but in reality just a collection of different local warlords. I think culturally, we have failed to understand the afghan tribal network and the relationships between people. We treat everything as Taliban and then just ahead and act like that.
I believe that I have said this before, that not all so called Taliban are in fact the Taliban. So nothing new here. You are missing one very important point though. To once again quote myself...
"with out a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence all the schools and roads in the world are not going to matter two hoots."
But we will come back to this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultra_punk
I'm somewhat more optimistic that we do not have to commit ourselves to a never ending civil war. The defat you mention which is inevitable with our current doctrine of attempting to control everything and laucnhing unlimited strikes against the taliban, is the same result if my strategy fails. The only difference is that, at least i have a slim hope that it can work.

I'm also not sure why you keep arguing we don't have enough troops for my strategy. That is not logically possible. If we protect everything within the areas we choose for which we have enough soldiers, then i am therefore excluding all other things and I have enough troops to do everything i stated within the areas under our protection.

Anyway, they put in the curriculum and they put in their whatever. We're only protecting them from insurgents/warlords who want to take over a region with military power. I'm very against western enculturation. From what I have seen, Canadian soldiers try to respect the local culture as much as possible but I only have biased Canadian media to go on for that. (For example, simple things like not eating in public during Ramadan) Imposing western values on them would only be imperialistic and cause resentment.

The reason I want to substantially scale back our operations to be pure aid work is that our measure of success is literacy rate, school attendence rates, average reading levels etc... real measurable forms of success. I want to end the war in Afghanistan. We can't lose, if all we are doing is providing aid work.

The area will fall into civil war or it won't. We don't have any resources to prevent that and certainly continuing down our path is not our only choice. If you know it will fail, why do it? If your argument is that, this is what we'll do... sure fine I agree, Western leaders would never agree to my strategy at all. However, I think i should clearly state the intent of my strategy.

I do want to take over a country and I want to end the war.

This war will not end until the country is won. That is until one coalition of warlords has a a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.

The reason that the it wouldn't work if you pull all your people in to a very small area is because of what happens out side of that area. You would get battered even more then they are now. There would be more killing because warlords would be sending people at you from all sides. And just like the Taliban did you little aid workers would most likely be ejected from the country, or the constant in fighting from the warlords would make it too dangerous and they would have to pull out. If you sent soldiers with them then they would most likely be attacked even more often because of the foreign military presence.

For good or for bad we have to continue to shoot people that refuse to give up their arms and join the warlords we have currently running the country. The only real way to end this war is not schools, it is training and wells. Training an Afghani Army, and building in the north where what you build is not simply going to be blown up the next day (or week) the problem is once again there is not enough people for this. To win one would have to train Afghani's to take over from what we are doing, and what we are doing is taking over a country, there is no other way to win a war. Yes that doesn't mean you have to kill everyone, you can make peace with some warlords in the hope that they give up their arms and you can take their people to train them etc. But all and all the only way to win is for a lose coalition of warlords to have control. Oh and did you know...
A total of 138 members of the Canadian Forces have died in Afghanistan between February 2002 and January 16, 2010. Of these, 117 were due to enemy actions. Just wondering.

__________________
The Official Forum Saint and Patron Saint of Color
Posts: 5,253 pos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif find.gif buddy.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   02-01-2010, 05:46 PM
Post #40
Ultra_punk

Administrator


Avatar

Joined: Jan 30 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 9,387 posposposposposhighposhighpos

Did i write norweigans? Oh well, if i did it was a typo. You need not inform me about Canadian losses, we have a whole highway i drive down all the time that is now used to ferry their caskets in national funerals. It's quite.. nationalistic. Anyways...

I don't rate success by the rate of people dying. I also expect that Taliban attacks and insurgent operations to increase for a duration of likely 5-10 years for my "strategy", because they'll have a larger area to gain hold. My key point here is public support is worth the lives lost. Across those 5-10 years, while the Taliban make their strongholds, gain some territory and so on, they lose ultimately on public support. In the long run, that is more key.

As for training Afghan troops, its the same issue. There's no point in building a whole bunch of training facilities if we can't watch over or protect them. They'll just become militant training facilities or get bombed into dysfunction.

My main argument is that mainly that western leaders aren't willing to make the real sacrifice to gain public support and win over the country. It's not number of troops, it's how we're using them. The Taliban and other violent warlords taking territory is just a house of cards. Let them build it, while we secure a real foundation. In 20 years, you can take them out fairly easily. Needless to say, nobody would want to spend the time/money/lives to do this, so let's just gtfo.

__________________

a suicide bomber taken out by a suicide bomber? priceless
Masey209: JUST MAKE HER HAVE SEX WITH ME!!
Enix: Oops added an extra zero to it just like your hydro bill
CowUltrapunk: SLOW
CowUltrapunk: slow as your dick
dimitri583: i told you
dimitri583: my dick is fast as fuck
CowUltrapunk: working on your unspeakable weapon of mass atrocities?
ZoraxP: Yep. I call it the USA.
Urin Bloodface: i know ontario
Urin Bloodface: ive even been to vancover
Posts: 9,387 posposposposposhighposhighpos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif home.gif find.gif buddy.gif im_aim.gif im_yahoo.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   02-01-2010, 07:40 PM
Post #41
Sammy the Saint

Overlord


Joined: Jan 30 2001
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,253 pos

First off if your assertion that the Taliban and Warlords... "...taking territory is just a house of cards. Let them build it, while we secure a real foundation. In 20 years, you can take them out fairly easily." Then we would never be having this conversation as the Taliban themselves would have been taken out fairly easily by now. In fact there would have been no need for our intervention as the Northern Alliance would have done the job for us.
The problem is that the various warlords and the Taliban do build and secure there territory with ideology and training fighters etc, etc. You would end up in losing a lot of people for relativity very little gain.

As I said I know we don't have enough personal there to commit to the training program that is needed, but we do have two things the 'enemy' does not. We have the north which is secure and were when can build training grounds, where we all ready have. We also have air superiority were we can identify 'enemy' training grounds and strike. The real problem is one of heavy handedness, we need to make an effort to limit all casualties. Also, the more you train the more soldiers you have, and native soldiers are the most important part of winning the war. Britain made mistakes when it ruled the world yes, but one of the things it did right was to use the natives to soldier and run things. The French on the other hand failed miserably.

__________________
The Official Forum Saint and Patron Saint of Color
Posts: 5,253 pos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif find.gif buddy.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   02-05-2010, 08:55 PM
Post #42
Ultra_punk

Administrator


Avatar

Joined: Jan 30 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 9,387 posposposposposhighposhighpos

Not exactly, by hosue of cards, I mean the taliban will become like the Northern Alliance. They (northern alliance) were basically getting slowly defeated and losing the north in a long slow war of attrition after having largely lost the civil war. In this case, it would be the reverse, with NATO holding most territory but the Taliban in control of the South, as they slowly lose their territory to a more prosperous central and north. Mind you, that's like a 20-year long tactic before the Taliban would become a contained group.

Training soldiers on the other hand, doesn't require nearly as much personnel. It's more of an economic and management issue (which requires far less people and in far less dangerous situations than combat soldiers). On that end, we just want to make it more cost effective for people to work for the central government than the local militias. It's pretty bad when the native police we train go around looting crap from people because that's how they supplement their income.

__________________

a suicide bomber taken out by a suicide bomber? priceless
Masey209: JUST MAKE HER HAVE SEX WITH ME!!
Enix: Oops added an extra zero to it just like your hydro bill
CowUltrapunk: SLOW
CowUltrapunk: slow as your dick
dimitri583: i told you
dimitri583: my dick is fast as fuck
CowUltrapunk: working on your unspeakable weapon of mass atrocities?
ZoraxP: Yep. I call it the USA.
Urin Bloodface: i know ontario
Urin Bloodface: ive even been to vancover
Posts: 9,387 posposposposposhighposhighpos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif home.gif find.gif buddy.gif im_aim.gif im_yahoo.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   02-05-2010, 09:58 PM
Post #43
Sammy the Saint

Overlord


Joined: Jan 30 2001
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,253 pos

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultra_punk
Not exactly, by hosue of cards, I mean the taliban will become like the Northern Alliance. They (northern alliance) were basically getting slowly defeated and losing the north in a long slow war of attrition after having largely lost the civil war. In this case, it would be the reverse, with NATO holding most territory but the Taliban in control of the South, as they slowly lose their territory to a more prosperous central and north. Mind you, that's like a 20-year long tactic before the Taliban would become a contained group.
You are assuming that the ISAF holds most of the territory of Afghanistan. Simply put, it does not. If you stop the combat missions then the warlords that are currently on your side in the west would most likely attack you. (For a lot of different reasons)
It would be the Taliban in the East and some of the South and most likely a coalition of warlords hostile to the ISAF in the west and some of the south and the same story as is now in the north but with more violence. Which is very similar to the story to what is now happening...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultra_punk
Training soldiers on the other hand, doesn't require nearly as much personnel. It's more of an economic and management issue (which requires far less people and in far less dangerous situations than combat soldiers). On that end, we just want to make it more cost effective for people to work for the central government than the local militias. It's pretty bad when the native police we train go around looting crap from people because that's how they supplement their income.
Agreed. But as I believe that one needs to keep up the combat missions I also think we need more people for the training... Also I have not heard anything about local police looting in a very long time, but I still think that you are right in saying that it is more of a economic and management issue.

__________________
The Official Forum Saint and Patron Saint of Color
Posts: 5,253 pos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif find.gif buddy.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   02-08-2010, 04:43 PM
Post #44
Kjell Thusaud

War Chief


Avatar

Joined: Aug 21 2003
Location: www.Giraffese.cx
Posts: 4,371 posposposposposhighpos
Micky Mouse on Crack

Quote:
Originally Posted by so and so
If you watch the film Hart's War, you'll see the problem wasn't that we funded the people of Afghanistan, it's that we neglected them after they won independence.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne1G...feature=related

__________________
Give a player a fish, and he’ll probably try to sell it to an NPC fisherman.

Teach a player to fish, and next week he’ll show up with the book, “The Complete Adventuring Fisherman”. He’ll start hunting for some monstrous leviathan to catch and enslave, and he’ll be dual-wielding two fishing poles
Posts: 4,371 posposposposposhighpos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif home.gif find.gif buddy.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   02-09-2010, 08:39 AM
Post #45
McLeod

Arch Druid


Avatar

Joined: Feb 09 2001
Location: Georgia, Europe
Posts: 4,583 pos

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultra_punk
Or for Hugo Chavez, perhaps then, you prefer the military dictatorship, supported by the US, to have been much better?

Venezuela's Hugo Chavez declares energy crisis

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that for vast majority of Venezuelan people, even a CIA backed government would've been much better than the piece of shit that they got right now. The guy has driven one of the richest energy exporting countries of the world into the ground.

Posts: 4,583 pos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif home.gif find.gif buddy.gif im_msn.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   02-11-2010, 09:26 AM
Post #46
Ultra_punk

Administrator


Avatar

Joined: Jan 30 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 9,387 posposposposposhighposhighpos

Well the last time a CBC journalist went over there (and then got kidnapped unfortunately but she got released later on) corruption amongst the Afghan military and police was still pretty significant. Unfortunately, they're just too damn poor to give a crap and our management system is... let's say confused.

There'll be a spike in violence but there'll probably be a spike in violence between the different warlords in the non-European areas. Considering that the Europeans don't need combat missions to reduce violence in those areas, I'm not sure how not doing something you're not doing anywyas would cause them to attack us? I'm not sure on that. However, I can say that yes the Taliban areas and similar provinces will probably see an increase in violence for some time if we don't use combat missions. But since long-term missions have no long-term gain, I don't think it's as big a deal as you say it is to not do so. The other problem is that it could just be like vietnam. People just don't want us there so really there's no way to convince them to choose us over a domestic regime.


@McLeod
As for Hugo Chavez running the richest country into the ground, you do realize that...

a) He was elected because the previous guy ran the country into the ground economically.

b) Every country in the world right now is facing major financial disaster, including your good ole friend USA whose debts are spiralling out of control and without the promised anything reform (like healthcare) they're fucked in the next 50 years. But yeah, let's blame socialists for everything. Oh, wait, isn't Cuba and the Islamic countries all doing fine during the subprime meltdown?

Please separate issues that aren't related to one another.

__________________

a suicide bomber taken out by a suicide bomber? priceless
Masey209: JUST MAKE HER HAVE SEX WITH ME!!
Enix: Oops added an extra zero to it just like your hydro bill
CowUltrapunk: SLOW
CowUltrapunk: slow as your dick
dimitri583: i told you
dimitri583: my dick is fast as fuck
CowUltrapunk: working on your unspeakable weapon of mass atrocities?
ZoraxP: Yep. I call it the USA.
Urin Bloodface: i know ontario
Urin Bloodface: ive even been to vancover
Posts: 9,387 posposposposposhighposhighpos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif home.gif find.gif buddy.gif im_aim.gif im_yahoo.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   02-11-2010, 10:12 PM
Post #47
Sammy the Saint

Overlord


Joined: Jan 30 2001
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,253 pos

While I know corruption amongst the Afghan military and police was still pretty significant. I am lead to believe that it is mainly at higher levels, eg You pay off the Warlord and he orders his men to do what ever the money was for, etc. That has more to do with the Afghani culture then being poor. It is also our inability to deal with their culture which lead to most problems in terms of breaking of cease-fires with the different warlords.

As for a spike in violence, it would most likely follow the ISAF up north. If the Europeans are not fighting with or for the warlords then they would be seen as an occupation force trying to change the way and beliefs of the Afghani people all the more readily. The East and South East would fold to the Taliban quite quickly, the West and South West would fall to the different warlords who most likely would not attack each other on any grand scale until the invading force to the East and North had been dealt with. They may even back the Taliban, no one really knows. In the North would be a really pissed off Northern Alliance and the ISAF, I am guessing that the really pissed off Northern Alliance wouldn't be half as friendly as they are now... Hence you would be attack from all fronts, With out combat missions you would be fucked to put it is simple terms. Yes you need to hand over command to the Afghani people as soon as possible, you also need to train the Afghani army to take over the combat missions but until this happens you need to lead the fight. meh.



Oh and as for the Islamic countries all doing fine during the subprime meltdown have you not heard of the Dubai?

__________________
The Official Forum Saint and Patron Saint of Color
Posts: 5,253 pos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif find.gif buddy.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   02-12-2010, 04:40 AM
Post #48
earn1getmoney
Banned

Joined: Feb 12 2010
Location: us
Posts: 6 pos

Quote:
Originally Posted by Black~Enthusiasm
I'm just saying this to nuance ultra's statement that "we created these terrorist networks because of our own interventions therefore all interventions are necessarily evil".

i do agree with the my friends comment as all countries are trying to maintain peace why bring such big masses in your country disturbing whole suburb area

Posts: 6 pos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif find.gif buddy.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   02-12-2010, 12:57 PM
Post #49
McLeod

Arch Druid


Avatar

Joined: Feb 09 2001
Location: Georgia, Europe
Posts: 4,583 pos

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultra_punk

Every country in the world right now is facing major financial disaster, including your good ole friend USA whose debts are spiralling out of control and without the promised anything reform (like healthcare) they're fucked in the next 50 years. But yeah, let's blame socialists for everything. Oh, wait, isn't Cuba and the Islamic countries all doing fine during the subprime meltdown?


As far as I know, there are no blackouts scheduled across all major US cities. Think about it: the fourth largest energy exporter in the world... can not supply its own population with energy. If you can't see the irony here, you are truly beyond hope.

Nice try to blame the world financial crisis for Chavez's obvious incompetence and counterproductive economic policies, by the way. But his own explanation is even funnier - apparently the energy crisis was caused by the drought and low water levels. Who would've thought that there could be no rain for a few weeks in Venezuela?!

And why on earth do you mention socialists and Islamic countries in the same economic context here? Islamic countries are run by socialists? That's news to me. Please separate the issues that are absolutely unrelated.

Last edited by McLeod on 02-12-2010 at 01:16 PM.
Posts: 4,583 pos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif home.gif find.gif buddy.gif im_msn.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   02-17-2010, 12:24 PM
Post #50
so and so

Moderator


Avatar

Joined: Jan 28 2001
Location: Boston, for now...
Posts: 5,764 pospospos

Here's a good recent article about Marja, and the comments after are also interesting: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blo...withdrawal.html

__________________
"Do you masturbate to your own rhetoric?" - Kegel
"The irony of this topic makes me want to fist myself with a pinecone." - Dark Jester
"No ones life is that interesting unless it involves war, porn, or zombies." - Urin Bloodface
"Any country that owes their existence to the french doesn't deserve to be a country." - Love
"i only eat yogurt with a minimum ph of 4.5." - PålädÌÑ
"I had my utensils removed last summer." - Kjell Thusaud
"Fuck reality, I prefer vodka." - Sammy
Posts: 5,764 pospospos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif find.gif buddy.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   02-17-2010, 05:35 PM
Post #51
Ultra_punk

Administrator


Avatar

Joined: Jan 30 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 9,387 posposposposposhighposhighpos

@Sammy

Well I don't know about your predictions about anything other than the Taliban controlled areas. The Europeans aren't fighting for or with the warlords right now, so what difference would it make if they kept doing the same thing?

It's really only the Taliban warlords that would step up their game when we stop hitting their strongholds. We'd take some losses, people would die but the key point isn't whether the Taliban gain a foothold. It's a matter of whether we gain a foothold. We're the foreigners, this is their land. We have to work hard to gain trust.

Anyway, I heard of Dubai. They don't have Islamic banking. They're fierce anti-Islamists. See, I do my research, so should you


@McLeod

Hm, well i guess you missed the point but perhaps i wasn't too clear. I was parodying your use of unrelated concepts. That is, for instance, if I were to link Islamic banking to good governance because they escaped the effects of the financial meltdown.

The original discussion was whether the CIA helped the situation. The answer is still no.

It doesn't matter if Hugo Chavez eats babies for dinner and shits radioactive waste. The point doesn't change that the CIA made Venezuela a worse place to live. They propped up a military dictatorship and they created a human rights abusing intelligence agency in the country. These are indisputable facts. I don't care how much you hate socialists or whatever flaws you dredge out about socialist states, it doesn't matter as to the debate of whether the CIA made the place worse to live.

If you wanted to discuss the other topic...

The discussion on Venezuela has to hinge on marginal changes. How was the country before Hugo? How were the economic conditions? What was the literacy rate? What was the poverty rate? How were businesses doing? You are focusing on things that are bad in Venezuela and nobody disputes this. The question is whether Chavez made it worse.

__________________

a suicide bomber taken out by a suicide bomber? priceless
Masey209: JUST MAKE HER HAVE SEX WITH ME!!
Enix: Oops added an extra zero to it just like your hydro bill
CowUltrapunk: SLOW
CowUltrapunk: slow as your dick
dimitri583: i told you
dimitri583: my dick is fast as fuck
CowUltrapunk: working on your unspeakable weapon of mass atrocities?
ZoraxP: Yep. I call it the USA.
Urin Bloodface: i know ontario
Urin Bloodface: ive even been to vancover
Posts: 9,387 posposposposposhighposhighpos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif home.gif find.gif buddy.gif im_aim.gif im_yahoo.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   02-17-2010, 07:45 PM
Post #52
Sammy the Saint

Overlord


Joined: Jan 30 2001
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,253 pos

so and so, nothing from the new yorker is good.

Ultra, We have a foothold it is called the North. The warlords we are currently fighting with our news called the Afghani government. The ones we fight against our news calls the Taliban. In the west were there is a lot of fighting, it is not the Taliban (I don't care want the western new claims) rather it has more to do with who is included in the government and who is left out. So yes, we are fighting with, for, and against warlords.

My opinion is unchanged.


Dubai was more a joke then anything, but you did say Islamic countries. Dubai is an Islamic country. At least it was when I live there. I don't know about it's banking sector, and do know it is one of the more liberal interpretations on Islamic law but the fact remains that it is indeed an Islamic country just as canada is a christian country. So meh.

__________________
The Official Forum Saint and Patron Saint of Color
Posts: 5,253 pos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif find.gif buddy.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   02-18-2010, 12:26 AM
Post #53
so and so

Moderator


Avatar

Joined: Jan 28 2001
Location: Boston, for now...
Posts: 5,764 pospospos

Sammy, you lived in Dubai? What was it like?

__________________
"Do you masturbate to your own rhetoric?" - Kegel
"The irony of this topic makes me want to fist myself with a pinecone." - Dark Jester
"No ones life is that interesting unless it involves war, porn, or zombies." - Urin Bloodface
"Any country that owes their existence to the french doesn't deserve to be a country." - Love
"i only eat yogurt with a minimum ph of 4.5." - PålädÌÑ
"I had my utensils removed last summer." - Kjell Thusaud
"Fuck reality, I prefer vodka." - Sammy
Posts: 5,764 pospospos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif find.gif buddy.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   02-18-2010, 03:42 AM
Post #54
Sammy the Saint

Overlord


Joined: Jan 30 2001
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,253 pos

Quote:
Originally Posted by so and so
Sammy, you lived in Dubai? What was it like?
Islamic, and Sandy...

Yeah I lived there after we left the USA, for about two maybe one and a half years. I was between ten and twelve and we left because my parents spilt, so all and all my memories are not the fondest. It was good though, we started learning Arabic in a school for the european children of the european workers. Lived for most the first year in a european compound for european workers and their families, I met my first crush there. (the daughter of one of my fathers work mates) They moved in to the dunes shortly after our arrival, as we did later on. We where meant to stay allot longer then we did, apparently my father couldn't keep his dick in his pants. I remember visiting them on the quads, that was cool. I also meet some Sheikh... meh...

__________________
The Official Forum Saint and Patron Saint of Color
Posts: 5,253 pos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif find.gif buddy.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   02-18-2010, 01:26 PM
Post #55
so and so

Moderator


Avatar

Joined: Jan 28 2001
Location: Boston, for now...
Posts: 5,764 pospospos

What's your take on this article: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...ai-1664368.html

__________________
"Do you masturbate to your own rhetoric?" - Kegel
"The irony of this topic makes me want to fist myself with a pinecone." - Dark Jester
"No ones life is that interesting unless it involves war, porn, or zombies." - Urin Bloodface
"Any country that owes their existence to the french doesn't deserve to be a country." - Love
"i only eat yogurt with a minimum ph of 4.5." - PålädÌÑ
"I had my utensils removed last summer." - Kjell Thusaud
"Fuck reality, I prefer vodka." - Sammy
Posts: 5,764 pospospos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif find.gif buddy.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   02-18-2010, 10:27 PM
Post #56
Ultra_punk

Administrator


Avatar

Joined: Jan 30 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 9,387 posposposposposhighposhighpos

Well, I meant "Islamic" banking, of which Dubai is clearly not. I was merely taking issue with how McLeod was relating socialist policy, which much of south america is following in addition to Chavez, with the financial disaster that Venezuela is facing. The situation being much more complex than his simple "someone is anti-american therefore everything must be horrible", if such were true, one would expect Ecuador or Brazil to be failing miserably as well but they are not. If McLeod ever bothered to actually look at Chavez's actual policies versus his fiery anti-american statements, he might find that the guy is actually a pretty tame leader. This compared to his boasting of Colombia which is actively killing thousands of its citizens today in the "war on drugs".

As far as I know about the slavery, I've only the anecdotal accounts of few people that have lived in the UAE. He pretty much confirms the article (which im quite sure you linked to before unless someone else gave me this exact link).

Anyway, I've not seen the Europeans launch "combat missions" of the sort that goes on in the Taliban areas. And yes, we've a foothold in those provinces. Without combat missions. That's kinda my point. If we stop using the Taliban label, we'll start to be able to get something done.

Although, in off-forum discussions with b~e, I believe he puts it lightly as "I don't see the point of the discussion" as he's quite disillusioned with our progress and has no hope in our ability to get anything done because our leaders are too stupid. But then, this is the internet, that's why we kid ourselves into thinking this discussion will mean something.

__________________

a suicide bomber taken out by a suicide bomber? priceless
Masey209: JUST MAKE HER HAVE SEX WITH ME!!
Enix: Oops added an extra zero to it just like your hydro bill
CowUltrapunk: SLOW
CowUltrapunk: slow as your dick
dimitri583: i told you
dimitri583: my dick is fast as fuck
CowUltrapunk: working on your unspeakable weapon of mass atrocities?
ZoraxP: Yep. I call it the USA.
Urin Bloodface: i know ontario
Urin Bloodface: ive even been to vancover
Posts: 9,387 posposposposposhighposhighpos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif home.gif find.gif buddy.gif im_aim.gif im_yahoo.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   02-18-2010, 10:44 PM
Post #57
Sammy the Saint

Overlord


Joined: Jan 30 2001
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,253 pos

I have long known about the issues of capitalism.

Don't fool yourself in to thinking that these are just Dubai's problems. They are very bad in Dubai but the underling issues are ones of the basic premiss of capitalism. That is the exploitation of the poor...

There are similar problems all over the second, and third worlds. Even in the western world (and all over the first world) we have problems of exploitation, and corruption.

The abuses are particularly bad in Dubai, and it is a very sad state, but to be honest I am not really all that shocked. Does it make you feel better that the exploited in the USA still have their passports? It is not like a passport is any good unless you have money for a ticket. It is not like they have any more luck in the USA, no health care, often no where to live, etc etc. I am not saying that it is anywhere near as bad in the USA, I am simply saying that it is common in a purely capitalist system. As for the laws of the country, they are based on Islamic law, just as ours are based on Judeo-Christian law. Meh...

I didn't read the whole article, it was too 'impassioned' for my liking. It just feels like the writer is trying tug you along your thinking (feelings) through his writing rather then through the story...


edit: We replied at the same time.
Ultra - I know you meant the banking systems, debt is seen as a very dishonorable thing in the Islamic world. Hence the laws of Dubai, which are very liberal for an Islamic country as far as I know.

Yes the all countries in the ISAF participate in the operations in the east, west, and south of Afghanistan... It is as if you think the Americans and Canadians are the only countries fighting in Afghanistan. No, all ISAF countries are fighting and all are using the same tactics which are laid out by the ISAF.

__________________
The Official Forum Saint and Patron Saint of Color
Last edited by Sammy the Saint on 02-18-2010 at 10:55 PM.
Posts: 5,253 pos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif find.gif buddy.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   02-19-2010, 02:12 AM
Post #58
Ultra_punk

Administrator


Avatar

Joined: Jan 30 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 9,387 posposposposposhighposhighpos

It's not that I think Europeans are doing nothing, it's that I think the Europeans aren't gallanting around the country blowing shit up and saying they're helping the locals. The Americans, British and Canadians take by far the most losses and substantially higher per capita than the Europeans. The reason is because we're holding the more volatile areas and because we commit ourselves to these combat missions. Take for instance this new offensive into Helmand province, and i probably just spelled something wrong but oh well the name isn't english anyways, and we just finished blowing up a bunch of civilians by accident in our no-civilian casualty policy.

The last time the Europeans screwed up big time was when the Germans called in an air strike on a fuel tanker that was surrounded by local villagers. Rarely do the other ISAF forces make massive offensives and they only recently started using heavy weapons and air strikes. You can see a marked rise in civilian deaths and subsequent revenge violence.

The same tactics are very clearly not used by each country, not even Canada and America. It's been a sticking point and has been a strain on the NATO integrity in the region. This has been publicly complained about by both military and governments across NATO.

Under the Liberals, Canada took a three prong approach of reconstruction, reconciliation and combat. When the Tories took over, they wanted to get closer to the Americans, so they put reconstruction on the back burner, dropped diplomacy altogether (saying "Canada does not negotiate with terrorists") and put combat up front. Losses have gone up hundred fold since then and we've made zero progress. But anyway, on the topic of "same tactics", take opium farmers for instance. Canada's approach has been irrigation projects which have largely failed because nothing good grows in the opium fields. The Europeans like to pay people not to make opium. There's also been a European push to simply legalize the trade and buy the opium up to make painkillers. On the other hand, the American approach has just been to napalm the fucking fields, which almost guarantees the farmer becomes an insurgent immediately afterwards and all the villages around the area also go to war against the Americans.

__________________

a suicide bomber taken out by a suicide bomber? priceless
Masey209: JUST MAKE HER HAVE SEX WITH ME!!
Enix: Oops added an extra zero to it just like your hydro bill
CowUltrapunk: SLOW
CowUltrapunk: slow as your dick
dimitri583: i told you
dimitri583: my dick is fast as fuck
CowUltrapunk: working on your unspeakable weapon of mass atrocities?
ZoraxP: Yep. I call it the USA.
Urin Bloodface: i know ontario
Urin Bloodface: ive even been to vancover
Posts: 9,387 posposposposposhighposhighpos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif home.gif find.gif buddy.gif im_aim.gif im_yahoo.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   02-22-2010, 08:30 PM
Post #59
Sammy the Saint

Overlord


Joined: Jan 30 2001
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,253 pos

Once again I will go back to the Dutch example. The Dutch have a lead role. They are killing and being killed. They are using the same tactics which are laid out by the ISAF. The reason that the British, Americans and Canadians have the lead role almost every where else there is allot of fighting? The answer is simple, out of approximately 50,000 coalition troops in Afghanistan, 36,000 of those are US troops, about 9,000 UK troops, and about 2,000 Canadian. You could push the number up to about 85,000 but you would be including non-combat personal. Even then the US would stand at about 47,000 well over half, the UK would only go up to about 9,500 and Canadians around 3,000... It is simple numbers, you hear mostly about Americans and British running around blowing shit up because they have more people on the ground. It is also media coverage, all most all media coverage focusses on the US. Other counties that are killing civilians on a regular basis include, Germany, Italy, France and Poland. But the only time you really hear about it is when they fuck up big time, like calling an air strike on a civilian caravan fleeing from the fighting. Or an air strike on a fuel tanker that was surrounded by local villagers...

Look, all ISAF countries are fighting and all are using the same tactics which are laid out by the ISAF. Some counties, those which disagree with the tactics normally send predominantly non-combat personal, and the combat personal they do send are there to protect their personal. They are mostly in regions where the worst of the fighting is over, eg the Norwegians in the North. The Canadians simply agreed to take on more fighting if they had not we would still hear about the Polish. I agree that there is a certain about of discord with in the ISAF, there always is in a multi-national force. But most if not all of it is political, I agree with the europeans on the opium trade. But no one is using napalm, yes they burn the fields which is stupid (just look as Zimbabwe) I agree.

This idea that every country had complete control is a fallacy which is propagated by almost every political party in every ISAF country for political gain. Most have very little say because they have committed little in respect to the overall force, hence why allot of voters think the countries should pull out. They don't really have a say so why the hell are they there. And this is what has been the real sticking point. Which it almost always is... Politics.

__________________
The Official Forum Saint and Patron Saint of Color
Posts: 5,253 pos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif find.gif buddy.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   02-24-2010, 05:21 PM
Post #60
Ultra_punk

Administrator


Avatar

Joined: Jan 30 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 9,387 posposposposposhighposhighpos

Well Karzai is even more awesome now. After those rigged elections, now he's moving to take total control over the process, basically becoming a dictator. Yeah, I'm not sure we have much hope left any more.

__________________

a suicide bomber taken out by a suicide bomber? priceless
Masey209: JUST MAKE HER HAVE SEX WITH ME!!
Enix: Oops added an extra zero to it just like your hydro bill
CowUltrapunk: SLOW
CowUltrapunk: slow as your dick
dimitri583: i told you
dimitri583: my dick is fast as fuck
CowUltrapunk: working on your unspeakable weapon of mass atrocities?
ZoraxP: Yep. I call it the USA.
Urin Bloodface: i know ontario
Urin Bloodface: ive even been to vancover
Posts: 9,387 posposposposposhighposhighpos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif home.gif find.gif buddy.gif im_aim.gif im_yahoo.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   02-24-2010, 07:45 PM
Post #61
Sammy the Saint

Overlord


Joined: Jan 30 2001
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,253 pos

I think that there is still hope, but yes Karzai is heading to become a dictator. Which he pretty much already is what with the massive amount of corruption and what not... But still, the idea of free and fair elections in a country that is pretty much on fire is fucking stupid anyway. It is not like the countries elections have ever worked and I would much rather a stable Afghanistan over a civil war the likes of which we see going on in the Congo...

__________________
The Official Forum Saint and Patron Saint of Color
Posts: 5,253 pos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif find.gif buddy.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   03-12-2010, 09:45 PM
Post #62
joanalex

Critter


Joined: Mar 04 2010
Posts: 4 pos

Pakistan officials told the Monitor they have arrested nearly half – 7 of 15 – members of the Afghan Taliban's senior leadership council in recent days, including the Taliban head of military operations in Afghanistan.Pakistan has arrested nearly half of the Afghanistan Taliban’s leadership in recent days, Pakistani officials told the Monitor Wednesday, dealing what could be a crucial blow to the insurgent movement.
In total, seven of the insurgent group’s 15-member leadership council, thought to be based in Quetta, Pakistan, including the head of military operations, have been apprehended in the past week, according to Pakistani intelligence officials.

Western and Pakistani media had previously reported the arrest of three of the 15, but this is the first confirmation of the wider scale of the Pakistan crackdown on the Taliban leadership, something the US has sought.

__________________
iedge card
Posts: 4 pos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif find.gif buddy.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   08-08-2010, 07:55 AM
Post #63
McLeod

Arch Druid


Avatar

Joined: Feb 09 2001
Location: Georgia, Europe
Posts: 4,583 pos

Yeah, Hugo Chavez is a tame leader that either closes down or nationalizes every single opposition media outlet in his country.

Somehow I don't see you complaining about people of Venezuela being denied the very basic freedom of speech and information, yet you argue to death on the full face-veil ban in France, which apparently is a horrible piece of oppresive lawmaking.

Ultra, your socialist agenda is so obvious, its not even worth debating with you anymore.

Posts: 4,583 pos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif home.gif find.gif buddy.gif im_msn.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   08-15-2010, 12:22 PM
Post #64
Ultra_punk

Administrator


Avatar

Joined: Jan 30 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 9,387 posposposposposhighposhighpos

When I saw a reply on this thread I thought a bot was screwing with the forums again but then I noticed it was you dragging up an old topic cuz you apparently really hate anything that isn't supportive of America.

I'm not sure what is socialist about my "agenda". I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal. It's hardly because I like Hugo Chavez's slew of policies that I speak of his character in more positive terms but rather that he is substantially more democratic than his predecessors. I'm not sure what kind of argument it is to say that American rule is superior when it was marked by death squads, dictatorships and military regimes. Then, outside of such influence, we have free elections, referendums and a generally improved economy. Literacy rates have skyrocketed, poverty has gone much lower and the median income has substantially improved. Simply because it currently isn't better than United States or Canada is not a reason to say it has not been improving. Social change is about trend in statistics, not about the instantaneous value of it.

Besides, countries that are supportive of America, like Colombia, apparently only get more war out of it. The Colombian president screwed over his chance for peace just to appease the Americans and attack his neighbours. This is the superior leadership you are looking for, just to be anti-socialist?

Standing in opposition to oppressive legislation in the west seems much wiser for my personal well being than is arguing for some nebulous concept of democracy in South America which apparently involves forcing capitalism down their throats. They run their country how they feel like, that's the definition of democracy. Democracy isn't a country being run like how foreigners feel like. I'm part of the west and I disagree with the veil-ban because if France does it, it's possible for Canada to follow suit so I believe it is necessary to voice my opposition. If Hugo Chavez nationalises a media corporation, I would simply state "That's bad" and that's about it.

Attacking my character or the consistency of my view on social policies is a poor choice of assault in the topic. It reveals your lack of argument especially since my views are highly consistent.

__________________

a suicide bomber taken out by a suicide bomber? priceless
Masey209: JUST MAKE HER HAVE SEX WITH ME!!
Enix: Oops added an extra zero to it just like your hydro bill
CowUltrapunk: SLOW
CowUltrapunk: slow as your dick
dimitri583: i told you
dimitri583: my dick is fast as fuck
CowUltrapunk: working on your unspeakable weapon of mass atrocities?
ZoraxP: Yep. I call it the USA.
Urin Bloodface: i know ontario
Urin Bloodface: ive even been to vancover
Posts: 9,387 posposposposposhighposhighpos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif home.gif find.gif buddy.gif im_aim.gif im_yahoo.gif edit.gif reply.gif
Return to Top  Pages (2): « 1 [2]

newthread reply Serious Discussion
prev.gif Previous Thread | Next Thread next.gif
Linear Hybrid Threaded

printer.gif Show Printable Version
sendtofriend.gif Email this Page
Rate this Thread:

Forum Jump:

Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On

All times are GMT -5 hours. The time now is 05:58 PM.

ForumsX > General Discussion > Serious Discussion > The Latest on Pakistan & Afghanistan

< Contact Us - http://www.forumsx.net - Archive >
Return to Top

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.0 Beta 7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.