 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / British History / July 2006Afghanistan again...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/07/23/wafg23.xml Whoops...  SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/07/23/wafg23.xml > > Whoops... We had a two junior NCOs, one from the Black Watch and the other a Patricia, killed in a suicide bomb attack on a convoy which also wounded eight others, followed by an attack on bystanders who came to the scene, which killed six Afghans and wounded 30 more. http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/07/22/soldiers.html SignatureAndrew Chaplin SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.) "William Black" wrote in message > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/07/23/wafg23.xml > > Whoops... Why? The US strategy was to concentrate basing to rationalize logistics, support and C&C assets, and to deploy from those bases against infiltration routes and Taliban concentrations once they were located. Basing in penny packets is never a good idea no matter what the government wants. Small fixed bases are too vulnerable and so is their re-supply. -the Troll. > "William Black" wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > packets is never a good idea no matter what the government wants. Small > fixed bases are too vulnerable and so is their re-supply. -the Troll. small outposts and rapid response worked fine in malasyia. it souinds like the rapid respose is what's lacking. > > "William Black" wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > small outposts and rapid response worked fine in malasyia. > it souinds like the rapid respose is what's lacking. Afghanistan is a place where the locals are better shots and fitter than the soldiers they are facing, and they know the country. This isn't Malaya where they're fighting urban Chinese who trained themselves to be jungle fighters or Iraq where they're facing urban mad bombers. They're fighting some of the hardest mountain men on earth who have a gun culture that makes NRA membership of Texas look like a set of badly armed swaggering cissies. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. > > > "William Black" wrote in message http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/07/23/wafg23.xml > > > > Whoops... > > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > themselves to be jungle fighters or Iraq where they're facing urban mad > bombers. no its af-g-stan. and a rapid respinde in the more open terrain should work fine. . > They're fighting some of the hardest mountain men on earth who have a gun > culture that makes NRA membership of Texas look like a set of badly armed > swaggering cissies. they bleed the same. > no its af-g-stan. and a rapid respinde in the more open terrain should work > fine. What open terrain? It's bloody mountains and the helicopters don't work properly, just like the Soviet ones didn't... > > They're fighting some of the hardest mountain men on earth who have a gun > > culture that makes NRA membership of Texas look like a set of badly armed > > swaggering cissies. > > they bleed the same. I don't know if you noticed, but so do our guys... SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. "ray o'hara" wrote in message > "hippo" wrote in message >> "William Black" wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> packets is never a good idea no matter what the government wants. Small >> fixed bases are too vulnerable and so is their re-supply. -the Troll. > small outposts and rapid response worked fine in malasyia. > it souinds like the rapid respose is what's lacking. When your opponent is mobile and near his sanctuary, common sense says you need to be mobile too. In Malaya the insurgents were unable to mass in a nearby sanctuary. In the Pakistani Tribal Lands they can. -the Troll > "ray o'hara" wrote in message > > > "hippo" wrote in message > > >> "William Black" wrote in message http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/07/23/wafg23.xml > >> > Whoops... > >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > need to be mobile too. In Malaya the insurgents were unable to mass in a > nearby sanctuary. In the Pakistani Tribal Lands they can. -the Troll the jungle was fine for hiding and massing. "ray o'hara" wrote in message > "hippo" wrote in message >> > small outposts and rapid response worked fine in malasyia. >> > it souinds like the rapid respose is what's lacking. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> need to be mobile too. In Malaya the insurgents were unable to mass in a >> nearby sanctuary. In the Pakistani Tribal Lands they can. -the Troll > the jungle was fine for hiding and massing. ...except it wasn't secure and the Brits could go after them and did. They can't into Pakistan. -the Troll > "ray o'hara" wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > ...except it wasn't secure and the Brits could go after them and did. They > can't into Pakistan. The problem with Pakistan, and it's a problem everyone is ignoring, is that Pakistan is most of the problem. Pakistan formed the Taliban and trained and equipped it. Pakistan allows people to flit across its border for sanctuary. The Tribal Areas are pretty wild, but stopping heavily armed men crossing a border these days isn't that hard, they could at least try... Pakistan allows Islamic fundamentalist training camps on its territory Pakistan gives sanctuary to senior Muslim terrorist leaders. Oh yes, and the government of the United States is a ally of Pakistan... Now, remembering that Pakistan is also a rather nasty military dictatorship, exactly when is the United States going to do something about it? It's not as if they're untouchable like the Saudi despots, they don't have any oil, or even a long-term relationship with the Bush family ... SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. > The problem with Pakistan, and it's a problem everyone is ignoring, is > that Pakistan is most of the problem. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > have > any oil, or even a long-term relationship with the Bush family ... Our House of Commons committee on defence has Wajid Khan, M.P., as a member. A former Pakistani Air Force pilot and "guest" of India during the unpleasantness of the 1970s, one of the things he keeps bringing up with witnesses before the committee is the role of Pakistan in the conflict in Afghanistan, and each time he does it I get the impression that he believes, as you do, that Pakistan is much of the problem. I think we may actually get a cogent recommendation about how to proceed as a result of his line. It has certainly been interesting. SignatureAndrew Chaplin SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.) > > The problem with Pakistan, and it's a problem everyone is ignoring, is > > that Pakistan is most of the problem. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > a cogent recommendation about how to proceed as a result of his line. It has > certainly been interesting. Just about everyone in South Asia is fully aware of the involvement of Pakistan is a the main sponsor of Islamic extremism in the Sub Continent and elsewhere. Nobody in India, including the government, has any doubts whatsoever about who is ultimately responsible for the recent outrages on the Western Railway in Bombay. What people there find incredible is the refusal of the US government to do anything about it. People in the UK, remembering the Irish troubles and watching the appalling prevarication by the US government about the new extradition laws, don't find this incredible at all... SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. "William Black" wrote in message > "hippo" wrote in message > The problem with Pakistan, and it's a problem everyone is ignoring, is > that Pakistan is most of the problem. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > have > any oil, or even a long-term relationship with the Bush family ... Quit it with the rhetorical questions, Mr. Reason. Musharaf is a very frail cork in a very nasty bottle. Making unreasonable demands on his administration is exactly what we, and he, don't need at the moment. The last time he tried to exercise government control in the Tribal Territories at our behest his army was humiliated. The only thing he does effectively control is the army. You know all of this. Why do you pretend you don't? -the Troll > "William Black" wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > control is the army. You know all of this. Why do you pretend you > don't? Except he obviously does control the army, and so the Pakistani Inter Services Intelligence Agency, known as ISI. You remember them, the inventors of the Taliban and the fomenters of the Kashmiri bomb groups. ISI is running wild and their ghastly protégés are blowing bits of India to pieces and the US is busy looking on and weeping crocodile tears... You'll be telling me next that all that Pakistani nuclear technology spread around the Middle East really was the idea of a single rogue scientist within that same military dictatorship... Pakistan IS the problem, and the US isn't helping. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. "William Black" wrote in message > "hippo" wrote in message > Except he obviously does control the army, and so the Pakistani Inter > Services Intelligence Agency, known as ISI. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Pakistan IS the problem, and the US isn't helping. I don't know he controls the ISI. It was in full operation before he came into power and probably represents one of the power centers over which he does not yet have complete control. Musharraf is a secularist, the ISI is packed with religious nutters. The spread of nuclear technology also preceded Musharraf. Read this from your own Guardian and keep your pants on: http://www.guardian.co.uk/kashmir/Story/0,2763,722049,00.html#article_continue -the Troll > "William Black" wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Read this from your own Guardian and keep your pants on: http://www.guardian.co.uk/kashmir/Story/0,2763,722049,00.html#article_continue I don't have a problem with any of that. And I know more about LeT and the Naxalites than I want to. I also know that Pakistan is as unstable as hell, can't keep a lid on its own militant lunatics, both in the military and out, is hiding people on the US most wanted terrorist list, is a brutal and violent military government and needs hitting repeatedly with a very big stick. I think they're called 'failed states' where you live, here we call them 'military dictatorships'. The Commonwealth was about to apply sanctions to this particular nasty military dictatorship and try and do something about it, seeing as the democratically elected Prime Minister of Pakistan was in exile in London at the time but... ... some Saudi madmen crashed several aircraft into buildings in the USA, and so the US government did a deal with Pakistan to allow easy access to Afghanistan and so promptly stopped all the international pressure and started to supply guns and money to them. You and I both know that the Pakistani tyranny is evil. Why is the US government propping them (and the ghastly gang who run the 'Stans) up with guns and gold? SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. "William Black" wrote in message > I don't have a problem with any of that. > > And I know more about LeT and the Naxalites than I want to. > > I also know that Pakistan is as unstable as hell, can't keep a lid on its > own militant lunatics, both in the military and out, is hiding people on > the US most wanted terrorist list, is a brutal and violent military [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Why is the US government propping them (and the ghastly gang who run the > 'Stans) up with guns and gold? I will repeat myself; Musharraf is a flimsy cork in a very dangerous bottle. If international leaders must be trusted in anything, it must be to choose their battles in sequence rather than to try and fight them all at once. In fighting Tojo and Hitler in WWII, we elected to temporarily disregard the character of our 'allies', Uncles Joe and Mao, Chiang Kaisheck, the Estado Novo dictatorship of Brazil, and Salazar, and neutral dictators like Franco. When you are not being political, you are too rational not to understand this concept. -the Troll > "William Black" wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > When you are not being political, you are too rational not to understand > this concept. We are not, despite the vapourings of the current US administration, fighting a 'world war'. We're supposed to be 'fighting terrorism'. The US government has allied itself to the biggest sponsor of terrorism in the Indian sub continent. A sponsor that has nuclear weapons and has been responsible for spreading that technology to places like Iraq, has training camps on its soil and who is harbouring known terrorists wanted by the US government. All things that can't be proven against Iraq or Syria or anyone else much. Pakistan IS the problem for the well over a billion people who live on the Indian sub continent. They can't do anything about it because America protects the bastards who run the place. I would very much like to know why, because it's starting to look like it's that well know fondness US intelligence agencies have for the sort of people who wear their Ray-Banns 'Aviators' inside the house and far too much gold braid outside... SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. "William Black" wrote in message > "hippo" wrote in message >> I will repeat myself; Musharraf is a flimsy cork in a very dangerous > bottle. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> When you are not being political, you are too rational not to understand >> this concept. > We are not, despite the vapourings of the current US administration, > fighting a 'world war'. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > who wear their Ray-Banns 'Aviators' inside the house and far too much gold > braid outside... If members of the US Administration have claimed we are fighting a 'world war' I haven't heard it from them. We are never-the-less fighting a war and the advisability of choosing the time, place, and opponents to fight is still pertinent. The Kashmiri problem is only one of the hundreds if not thousands of problems that exist in the cusp between the Muslim and non-Muslim worlds. At the moment is slightly less important to the US than the problems with Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, radical PLO splinter groups in the West Bank, sectarian militia armies in Iraq, the annual Talliban summer offensive in Afghanistan, the Kosovar separatist movement, and digging out Muslim fundamentalist cells in the US and Europe. For the present it serves our purposes to have a reasonably compliant regime in Pakistan rather than an open nut case regime like the one in Iran. Surely that isn't impossible to understand. -the Troll >> "William Black" wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] >> When you are not being political, you are too rational not to understand >> this concept. >We are not, despite the vapourings of the current US administration, >fighting a 'world war'. >We're supposed to be 'fighting terrorism'. >The US government has allied itself to the biggest sponsor of terrorism in >the Indian sub continent. >A sponsor that has nuclear weapons and has been responsible for spreading >that technology to places like Iraq, has training camps on its soil and who >is harbouring known terrorists wanted by the US government. >All things that can't be proven against Iraq or Syria or anyone else much. >Pakistan IS the problem for the well over a billion people who live on the >Indian sub continent. They can't do anything about it because America >protects the bastards who run the place. >I would very much like to know why, because it's starting to look like it's >that well know fondness US intelligence agencies have for the sort of people >who wear their Ray-Banns 'Aviators' inside the house and far too much gold >braid outside... It's a new sex fetish? ---- Paul J. Gans > "William Black" wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > When you are not being political, you are too rational not to understand > this concept. -the Troll It's a sticky one, obviously, by no means Black (sic) and white. But, with the WWII Allies, we weren't fighting their own citizens within their own borders. Pakistan (and Saudi) are atrocious anomolies. At the very least, each should be willing to accept massively extended assistance from the Coalition and fight alongside within their own borders, and the Coalition should be willing to offer this. Very touchy indeed, I know, but otherwise, sooner or later, they or we might need to decide which side they are on. Surreyman "a.spencer3" wrote in message > "hippo" wrote in message [.] >> I will repeat myself; Musharraf is a flimsy cork in a very dangerous > bottle. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > might > need to decide which side they are on. By the time we came to the actual occupation of Japan and Germany, both civil populations were numb with exhaustion from years of defeat and the effects of strategic bombing, which had killed millions. They were prepared to accept defeat. That is not yet the case with the Muslim fundamentalists or Arab and other forms of mid-East nationalists and their proxies, in part IMO, because we persist in fighting a moral war fought under moral constraints when the other side is fighting a total war under no restraints at all. The defeat of the Talliban, destruction of Saddam's regime and his army, and recent Israeli toughness in Lebanon has, I think, put the Muslim world on notice that we are no longer conducting business as usual, where they can grab a small victory and count on keeping it. Maybe they will learn but I don't think the time has come yet. -the Troll > The defeat of the Talliban, destruction of Saddam's regime and his army, and > recent Israeli toughness in Lebanon has, I think, put the Muslim world on > notice that we are no longer conducting business as usual, where they can > grab a small victory and count on keeping it. Maybe they will learn but I > don't think the time has come yet. -the Troll It's always nice when news breaks at convenient times... http://autofeed.msn.co.in/pandorav3/output/News/06d88fb6-b286-4b56-afa1-8b5a11bc 6494.aspx Which particular psychopaths would you like to see with nuclear weapons? SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. "William Black" wrote in message > "hippo" wrote in message >> The defeat of the Talliban, destruction of Saddam's regime and his army, > and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Which particular psychopaths would you like to see with nuclear weapons? No sociopath but Pakistan is already a nuclear power and has shown US military authorities where they are stored and how they are secured. They've been very co-operatively transparent in that respect. Pakistan isn't going to give up its nuclear weapons even if India does because it is militarily weaker and India won't until Pakistan does. -the Troll > "William Black" wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > > > It's always nice when news breaks at convenient times... http://autofeed.msn.co.in/pandorav3/output/News/06d88fb6-b286-4b56-afa1-8b5a11bc 6494.aspx > > Which particular psychopaths would you like to see with nuclear weapons? > > No sociopath but Pakistan is already a nuclear power and has shown US > military authorities where they are stored and how they are secured. They've > been very co-operatively transparent in that respect. Oh come on. They've spread the technology all over the Middle East and have given the necessary information to the US's biggest enemy in the area and you're pretending that, first, it didn't happen, and second, that they won't do it again. It did happen and they're going to do it again. These mad bastards will blow up the world if it means that they hang on to power, even if it's over a smoking hole in the ground, which is just about all that India will leave them with if it gets really nasty... >Pakistan isn't going > to give up its nuclear weapons even if India does because it is militarily > weaker and India won't until Pakistan does. I know this hurts, but India is a representative democracy with a commitment to a democratic future. Pakistan is a rather nasty Islamic military tyranny with a commitment to terrorists and blowing up innocents. Doesn't it make you sick to see the US trying to work out which side to be on, and starting to come down on the Pakistani side? http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1043707 SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. "William Black" wrote in message > "hippo" wrote in message >> No sociopath but Pakistan is already a nuclear power and has shown US >> military authorities where they are stored and how they are secured. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1043707 The US made the decision years ago and it wasn't on Pakistan's side. Quit beating your little drum, it's making you appear myopic. There are other much more dangerous bears in the woods at the moment. In the global scheme of things, Pakistan and India are an offset and reasonably stable compared to other areas. I didn't catch the nationality of the two caught for the Mumbai bombings, but thought they were said to have been Al Qaida. -the Troll > "William Black" wrote in message > The US made the decision years ago and it wasn't on Pakistan's side. Quit > beating your little drum, it's making you appear myopic. There are other > much more dangerous bears in the woods at the moment. In the global scheme > of things, Pakistan and India are an offset and reasonably stable compared > to other areas. I didn't catch the nationality of the two caught for the > Mumbai bombings, but thought they were said to have been Al Qaida. How can you possibly put your last two sentences in one paragraph. The Western Railway system (the largest in the world) getting blown up and almost 200 people dead is not anyone's definition of 'reasonably stable'. As for the al Qaida connection: That well known bunch of Islamic thugs and al Qaida associates called 'D Company' arte almost certainly responsible, they certainly were last time. They have been a Pakistani cat's-paw for years and their boss, Dawood Ibrahim, a man high on the US 'most wanted' list is living openly in a military housing area of Pakistan. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. "William Black" wrote in message > "hippo" wrote in message >> The US made the decision years ago and it wasn't on Pakistan's side. Quit >> beating your little drum, it's making you appear myopic. There are other [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > years and their boss, Dawood Ibrahim, a man high on the US 'most wanted' > list is living openly in a military housing area of Pakistan. I was talking about stable nuclear arsenals, not the terrorist situation. The two traditional Kashmiri terrorist groups have denied doing the bombing, one of them calling it barbaric. -the Troll > "William Black" wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > The two traditional Kashmiri terrorist groups have denied doing the bombing, > one of them calling it barbaric. Who's talking about them at all? 'D Company' isn't a Naxalite group, it's a bunch of urban Islamic fanatic terrorists associated with al Qaida, operating in Indian cities and run by Pakistani intelligence who have a track record for blowing up bits of Bombay and whose leader, wanted by the USA as well as India, is living openly in Pakistan. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea.. "William Black" wrote in message > "hippo" wrote in message >> The two traditional Kashmiri terrorist groups have denied doing the > bombing, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > and whose leader, wanted by the USA as well as India, is living openly in > Pakistan. He needs to have an accidental fall from a seventh story window. There are several Pakistanis in that category. -the Troll > "William Black" wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > He needs to have an accidental fall from a seventh story window. There are > several Pakistanis in that category. How many more times... He's not a Pakistani. He's an Indian Muslim terrorist leader who has been given sanctuary and money and training for his men by Pakistan. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. "William Black" wrote in message > "hippo" wrote in message [.] > He's an Indian Muslim terrorist leader who has been given sanctuary and > money and training for his men by Pakistan. He still needs an accident in his future. -the Troll > "William Black" wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > He still needs an accident in his future. -the Troll And the US government wants him as well. So why is US ally Pakistan hiding him? Can you say 'International Terrorism'. Iraq was invaded on a sight less evidence than there is against Pakistan. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. "William Black" wrote in message > "hippo" wrote in message [.] >> > He's an Indian Muslim terrorist leader who has been given sanctuary and >> > money and training for his men by Pakistan. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Iraq was invaded on a sight less evidence than there is against Pakistan. Oh, come off it. Do you think in 1942 we wanted to hang Stalin for having Trotsky shot? -the Troll >"William Black" wrote in message >> "hippo" wrote in message >>> The defeat of the Talliban, destruction of Saddam's regime and his army, >> and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> >> Which particular psychopaths would you like to see with nuclear weapons? >No sociopath but Pakistan is already a nuclear power and has shown US >military authorities where they are stored and how they are secured. They've >been very co-operatively transparent in that respect. Pakistan isn't going >to give up its nuclear weapons even if India does because it is militarily >weaker and India won't until Pakistan does. -the Troll NObody is going to give up nuclear weapons as long as one nuclear power insists that it has the right to pre-emptively attack anybody it wants to. In fact, such weapons will spread. ---- Paul J. Gans "Paul J Gans" wrote in message > NObody is going to give up nuclear weapons as long as one > nuclear power insists that it has the right to pre-emptively > attack anybody it wants to. > > In fact, such weapons will spread. They will unless we stop it. We've kept South Korea, Taiwan, Germany, and Japan nuclear free for decades. -the Troll >"Paul J Gans" wrote in message >> NObody is going to give up nuclear weapons as long as one >> nuclear power insists that it has the right to pre-emptively >> attack anybody it wants to. >> >> In fact, such weapons will spread. >They will unless we stop it. We've kept South Korea, Taiwan, Germany, and >Japan nuclear free for decades. -the Troll We have almost no control over it now. The cat is out of the bag. Plans and specifications are available everywhere. I'd bet that there are five or six countries working on nuclear devices right now. Indeed, any nation rich enough to afford it and who feels that they may be pressured by the US is either doing this or will soon start. By the way, I'd not bet on Taiwan -- though the Chinese doubtless have infiltrated *everything* on the island. And Japan is making noises about changing their Constitution. They are directly threatened by North Korea (with whom they have had bad relations ever since Japan invaded it a while back) and cannot trust that the US will actually become involved in a nuclear war that does not threaten us simply to get revenge for Japan. ---- Paul J. Gans >"William Black" wrote in message >> I don't have a problem with any of that. >> >> And I know more about LeT and the Naxalites than I want to. >> >> I also know that Pakistan is as unstable as hell, can't keep a lid on its >> own militant lunatics, both in the military and out, is hiding people on >> the US most wanted terrorist list, is a brutal and violent military [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >> Why is the US government propping them (and the ghastly gang who run the >> 'Stans) up with guns and gold? >I will repeat myself; Musharraf is a flimsy cork in a very dangerous bottle. >If international leaders must be trusted in anything, it must be to choose [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >When you are not being political, you are too rational not to understand >this concept. -the Troll Precisely so. I fully agree. Except why did we not finish the job in Afghanistan before going on to other adventures? ---- Paul J. Gans "Paul J Gans" wrote in message >>"William Black" wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > Except why did we not finish the job in Afghanistan before > going on to other adventures? Because there is no 'finish' until the local governing authority is strong enough to manage the place unaided, which takes decades. A I have explained to you endlessly, we decided at the beginning not to smother Afghanistan with troops, thereby repeating the Soviet experience. -the Troll >"Paul J Gans" wrote in message >>>"William Black" wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] >> Except why did we not finish the job in Afghanistan before >> going on to other adventures? >Because there is no 'finish' until the local governing authority is strong >enough to manage the place unaided, which takes decades. A I have explained >to you endlessly, we decided at the beginning not to smother Afghanistan >with troops, thereby repeating the Soviet experience. -the Troll The local government has worked just fine in Afghanistan. It wasn't broken. The problem lies in our trying to impose a different form of government on Afghanistan. They are not particularly interested in what we call "democracy". No clan-based society will be. Why can't they have their own form of government? We don't have to like it, just allow it. By getting rid of the Taliban we gained credit with them. We could have gained much more by helping with rebuilding and jobs. ---- Paul J. Gans "Paul J Gans" wrote in message >>Because there is no 'finish' until the local governing authority is strong >>enough to manage the place unaided, which takes decades. A I have [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The local government has worked just fine in Afghanistan. > It wasn't broken. WHAT? You are deranged. The surrounding countries were filled with four million Afghan refugees fleeing that 'unbroken' government, which was beheading women on public soccer fields and supporting an international terrorist organization aimed at US! > The problem lies in our trying to impose a different form > of government on Afghanistan. They are not particularly [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > we gained credit with them. We could have gained much more > by helping with rebuilding and jobs. Your memory is truly astounding. They elected their present government. You can't build in a warlord state just as we couldn't in China in the 30s, and the gifted money goes to the warlords. Besides, no one voted for a feudal culture. It was imposed upon them by the feudal caste system. Why is it you are so damned interested in progressive reform for the already progressive West and not for everyone? -the Troll >"Paul J Gans" wrote in message >>>Because there is no 'finish' until the local governing authority is strong >>>enough to manage the place unaided, which takes decades. A I have [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> The local government has worked just fine in Afghanistan. >> It wasn't broken. >WHAT? You are deranged. The surrounding countries were filled with four >million Afghan refugees fleeing that 'unbroken' government, which was >beheading women on public soccer fields and supporting an international >terrorist organization aimed at US! That was the Taliban. I'm talking about life *before* the Russian invasion. I should have made that more clear. >> The problem lies in our trying to impose a different form >> of government on Afghanistan. They are not particularly [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> we gained credit with them. We could have gained much more >> by helping with rebuilding and jobs. >Your memory is truly astounding. They elected their present government. >You can't build in a warlord state just as we couldn't in China in the 30s, >and the gifted money goes to the warlords. Besides, no one voted for a >feudal culture. It was imposed upon them by the feudal caste system. Why is >it you are so damned interested in progressive reform for the already >progressive West and not for everyone? -the Troll The "warlord" structure is already there and has not changed. Many of those in power were in power during the Taliban regime. Cultures are different. We can no more impose democracy on Afghanistan than we could impose feudalism (whatever that means) on the US. At this moment I suspect that the proper form of government for Afghanistan is to have the local regions directly represented in the central government and let those representatives select a "leader". His job would be to try to keep major wars from breaking out between the local leaders. On a local level, the leaders will be selected as they are now. Nondemocratically. What Afghanistan would accept is aid in building roads, TV stations, and internet connections. Once they are open to the seductions of the modern world, things will change. Why, in 100 years you might even notice the difference. ---- Paul J. Gans >> "William Black" wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/kashmir/Story/0,2763,722049,00.html#article_continue >I don't have a problem with any of that. >And I know more about LeT and the Naxalites than I want to. >I also know that Pakistan is as unstable as hell, can't keep a lid on its >own militant lunatics, both in the military and out, is hiding people on >the US most wanted terrorist list, is a brutal and violent military >government and needs hitting repeatedly with a very big stick. >I think they're called 'failed states' where you live, here we call them >'military dictatorships'. >The Commonwealth was about to apply sanctions to this particular nasty >military dictatorship and try and do something about it, seeing as the >democratically elected Prime Minister of Pakistan was in exile in London at >the time but... >... some Saudi madmen crashed several aircraft into buildings in the USA, >and so the US government did a deal with Pakistan to allow easy access to >Afghanistan and so promptly stopped all the international pressure and >started to supply guns and money to them. >You and I both know that the Pakistani tyranny is evil. >Why is the US government propping them (and the ghastly gang who run the >'Stans) up with guns and gold? So that we will have more folks to go to war with when *they* turn against us. We never learn. In hindsight it is clear now that Afghanistan was ever only an excuse. We possibly *could* have made a go of it by backing a government that the Afghans could love (if they could love *any* government). But we not only did not understand what was possible and what was not possible, we had no real intention of doing anything serious in Afghanistan, even catching bin Laden.[*]. The real point to Afghanistan is that it enabled us to have a "War on Terror" which, through lies and deceit, made Iraq possible. If Iraq had worked (fat chance) we could have ignored what happens in Afghanistan. ---- Paul J. Gans [*] I tend to pay more attention to what governments do than what they say. We have acted all along as if bin Laden wasn't really too important. He was only the Committee Chairman. I've been saying this all along. If he'd been important we would actually have sent US troops in some numbers to make sure he was tracked down. He wasn't and we didn't. > In hindsight it is clear now that Afghanistan was ever only > an excuse. Everyone with any knowledge of history (including both you and I) said that Afghanistan was probably 'just too hard'. We possibly *could* have made a go of it by backing > a government that the Afghans could love (if they could love > *any* government). Not a hope. No government of Afghanistan has ever had any influence in the hinterland. There's too much money in drugs... SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. >> In hindsight it is clear now that Afghanistan was ever only >> an excuse. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > There's too much money in drugs... And therein lies one of their few vulnerabilities. If we were to legalize the drug trade and drive down their cost, it would not only undermine warlords in Asia, but South America as well, just as prohibition change the face of crime. It is, unfortunately, still unacceptable to exploit the warlords' dependence on a drug economy in the West; the human cost in our cities would not be pretty. SignatureAndrew Chaplin SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.) >>> In hindsight it is clear now that Afghanistan was ever only >>> an excuse. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> >> There's too much money in drugs... >And therein lies one of their few vulnerabilities. If we were to legalize >the drug trade and drive down their cost, it would not only undermine >warlords in Asia, but South America as well, just as prohibition change the >face of crime. It is, unfortunately, still unacceptable to exploit the >warlords' dependence on a drug economy in the West; the human cost in our >cities would not be pretty. Hey, think of the taxes that we could collect! ---- Paul J. Gans >>>> In hindsight it is clear now that Afghanistan was ever only >>>> an excuse. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Hey, think of the taxes that we could collect! Europe and Canada do it rather more efficiently than the U.S. but, yes, that is the idea. SignatureAndrew Chaplin SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.) >>>>> In hindsight it is clear now that Afghanistan was ever only >>>>> an excuse. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >> >> Hey, think of the taxes that we could collect! >Europe and Canada do it rather more efficiently than the U.S. but, yes, that >is the idea. It has been suggested many times. Legalizing drugs, selling licenses to produce them, and taxing the result would not only bring in money to the Treasury, but, as you wrote, destroy a major fraction of our organized crime in the US. It would have a similar effect world wide. And it would improve our security. Remember the old mantra: how do you ship a nuclear device into the US? In a bale of marijuana... If all we sold was the local stuff... --- Paul J. Gans >> In hindsight it is clear now that Afghanistan was ever only >> an excuse. >Everyone with any knowledge of history (including both you and I) said that >Afghanistan was probably 'just too hard'. >We possibly *could* have made a go of it by backing >> a government that the Afghans could love (if they could love >> *any* government). >Not a hope. >No government of Afghanistan has ever had any influence in the hinterland. >There's too much money in drugs... I agree about the local government. That's what you are going to get in a clan-based society. But there have been national governments in the past -- figureheads mostly, but the place was stable until outsiders disrupted it. I'd have tried to put that back again. Most of the local warlords understood that some sort of weak national unity was needed because the outside world had changed. And then in came the west and tried to impose democracy. That's as popular with them as having religious overlords. They *are* religious, in their own way... Growing poppies is one of their ways. ---- Paul J. Gans > "William Black" wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Why? The exact quotation that sent me reeling was: "British commanders have admitted that they probably underestimated the tenacity of the Taliban" You'd have thought at least one senior staff man would have been sent to take a walk down to the Sandhurst library and had a look through the records of the last three Afghan wars and the constant guerrilla fighting on the border between British India and Afghanistan. The currently lethal Pakistani 'Tribal Areas' that hide bin Ladin were considered the friendly bit.... I mean. The legendary tenacity and endurance of the Afghan hill warrior isn't exactly a huge secret. Veteran officers of the old Regiment of Frontier Scouts left detailed records and information about conditions and the tribal set up. None of this is news to anyone who can read a history book... Look, this is Helmond Province, it's the black heart of the blood feud between fanatic fighters who hold a grudge for a dozen generations and who consider hanging about all day in either freezing or boiling temperatures for a decent shot at a passing target of opportunity to be normal but who can, if necessary, travel 60 miles a day over high mountains. <Information on individual Afghan military capabilities from 'The Frontier Scouts by Charles Chenevix Trench> SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. "William Black" wrote in message > "hippo" wrote in message > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/07/23/wafg23.xml >> > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > <Information on individual Afghan military capabilities from 'The Frontier > Scouts by Charles Chenevix Trench> We agree about the Afghanis. I wrote here about Afghani tribesmen shooting Pakistani border guards for sport. What astounded the officers I know most was their capacity to eat the food and drink the water without becoming ill. We can't. As to accuracy of rifle fire, we are not as badly prepared as the Soviets were. The US forces and BA have had sniper schools open for some time and are equipped with rifles in calibers (7.62mm NATO and .50 cal. US) especially designed to do the job. Usually two in a SF team are trained snipers. I'm confident the SAS and regular BA units have them too. These days the boot seems to be on the other foot. In the Soviet War, the Afghanis were armed with Enfields and the Soviets with AKs, which didn't have the range. These days it's the Talliban is armed with the AK, and many of them are not Afghanis at all but Pakistani and Arab volunteers, which have neither the stamina nor the experience. Most of the old veteran Muhajadin are retired or dead. The life expectancy for a man in Afghanistan, including the Pashtu Tribal Lands in Pakistan, is 47 years. The Soviets left Afghanistan in '89 or seventeen years ago. What your article seems to say is the BA tried forward fixed basing at the behest of the Afghan Government, which didn't work. It never will when the enemy can mass in a sanctuary nearby and nip across the border to attack your small, fixed, and known positions. -the Troll > We agree about the Afghanis. I wrote here about Afghani tribesmen shooting > Pakistani border guards for sport. What astounded the officers I know most > was their capacity to eat the food and drink the water without becoming ill. > We can't. It takes about two or three months to become acclimatized to South Asian food and water. Well it depends on your tastes... If you've got used to Indian food before you go it's easier, water out there takes about six weeks to get used to by starting off cleaning your teeth with it and making tea with it and working from there. The locals don't drink it unboiled. > As to accuracy of rifle fire, we are not as badly prepared as the Soviets > were. The US forces and BA have had sniper schools open for some time and > are equipped with rifles in calibers (7.62mm NATO and .50 cal. US) > especially designed to do the job. Usually two in a SF team are trained > snipers. I'm confident the SAS and regular BA units have them too. It doesn't matter. The ranges are short because a lot of the territory is vertical. Afghans using muzzle loaders made mincemeat out of Western soldiers with Lee Enfields. These days it's the Talliban is armed with the AK, and many > of them are not Afghanis at all but Pakistani and Arab volunteers, which > have neither the stamina nor the experience. The difference between an Afghan and a Pakistani from the Tribal Territories is negligible. The Arab volunteers are all in Iraq. Most of the old veteran > Muhajadin are retired or dead. The life expectancy for a man in Afghanistan, > including the Pashtu Tribal Lands in Pakistan, is 47 years. The Soviets left > Afghanistan in '89 or seventeen years ago. So what? You need to read up on the culture there. It really is hell. People fight blood feuds for fun and murder for sport. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. >> We agree about the Afghanis. I wrote here about Afghani tribesmen shooting >> Pakistani border guards for sport. What astounded the officers I know most >> was their capacity to eat the food and drink the water without becoming >ill. >> We can't. >It takes about two or three months to become acclimatized to South Asian >food and water. >Well it depends on your tastes... >If you've got used to Indian food before you go it's easier, water out >there takes about six weeks to get used to by starting off cleaning your >teeth with it and making tea with it and working from there. >The locals don't drink it unboiled. >> As to accuracy of rifle fire, we are not as badly prepared as the Soviets >> were. The US forces and BA have had sniper schools open for some time and >> are equipped with rifles in calibers (7.62mm NATO and .50 cal. US) >> especially designed to do the job. Usually two in a SF team are trained >> snipers. I'm confident the SAS and regular BA units have them too. >It doesn't matter. The ranges are short because a lot of the territory is >vertical. Afghans using muzzle loaders made mincemeat out of Western >soldiers with Lee Enfields. >These days it's the Talliban is armed with the AK, and many >> of them are not Afghanis at all but Pakistani and Arab volunteers, which >> have neither the stamina nor the experience. >The difference between an Afghan and a Pakistani from the Tribal Territories >is negligible. >The Arab volunteers are all in Iraq. > Most of the old veteran >> Muhajadin are retired or dead. The life expectancy for a man in >Afghanistan, >> including the Pashtu Tribal Lands in Pakistan, is 47 years. The Soviets >left >> Afghanistan in '89 or seventeen years ago. >So what? >You need to read up on the culture there. It really is hell. People fight >blood feuds for fun and murder for sport. One thing I'd stress is that we had a three year window to do what we could there. But we didn't take it, and turned our attention elsewhere. It is too late now. Just as it is too late in Iraq. ---- Paul J. Gans There's that wimpy, defeatist, jaded, cynical, Left-Wing academic, Blame-America-First mentality emerging again. Par for the course with Pogue Gans. DSH > One thing I'd stress is that we had a three year [sic] window to > do what we could there. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > ---- Paul J. Gans "William Black" wrote in message > "hippo" wrote in message >> We agree about the Afghanis. I wrote here about Afghani tribesmen >> shooting [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > The locals don't drink it unboiled. It's not the food, it's the unsanitary conditions of its preparation. Americans can eat BBQed lamb and most other Afghan food. >> As to accuracy of rifle fire, we are not as badly prepared as the Soviets >> were. The US forces and BA have had sniper schools open for some time and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > vertical. Afghans using muzzle loaders made mincemeat out of Western > soldiers with Lee Enfields. It did and does matter. The Muhajadin were shooting at the Soviets from outside the range of their AKs. They can't do that anymore. > These days it's the Talliban is armed with the AK, and many >> of them are not Afghanis at all but Pakistani and Arab volunteers, which [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > The Arab volunteers are all in Iraq. The Pakistanis are not all from the Pashtu Tribal Territories. For a year or more most infiltrators were kids right out of Pakistani madrassas and paid the equivalent of 40 US to sign up with Mullah Omar. Most Arab volunteers are in Iraq. > Most of the old veteran >> Muhajadin are retired or dead. The life expectancy for a man in [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > fight > blood feuds for fun and murder for sport. I know they do. That doesn't change the demographic. Veterans are more dangerous by far than others and most of the veterans are dead or too old to climb around in the mountains. One old Muhajadin an officer I know knew had become a village chief. He liked Americans because we also were enemies of the Soviets. By no means all the old Muhajadin have signed up with the Talliban. -the Troll > "William Black" wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > >> > He's an Indian Muslim terrorist leader who has been given sanctuary and > >> > money and training for his men by Pakistan. > >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > > Iraq was invaded on a sight less evidence than there is against Pakistan. > Oh, come off it. Do you think in 1942 we wanted to hang Stalin for having > Trotsky shot? Are you seriously comparing the USSR with Pakistan? Pakistan is a client state of the USA. The only thing stopping people imposing sanctions is US support for their rather nasty military dictatorship. And why on earth would the USA want anything to do with the people who murdered Trotsky anyway? It happened in Mexico. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.