LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteThe sides could be fluid, and still leave only those options.Originally Posted by PaulG
Not really, the sides were fluid. You had the nationalist so called Northern alliance and the Taleban. However these factions were levied by warlords groups of differing tribes and ethnic groups that would swao sides frequently. Going from one to the other, then back again, then back and so forth.
The reason it was so easy to get the Taleban out (for now) was because the warlords intelligently jumped onto the side that was supported by the US.
It's the way they have been for thousands of years and the way they will be for a while yet i presume.
The sides could be fluid, and still leave only those options.
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry
The point is the actions of the warlords show they were under no ones rule and supported whoever they thought was more beneficial to them. If they were ruled they would not change sides so fluidly. The Taleban and NA had there secure areas, and were allowed to use areas controlled by their freinds. They didnt rule those areas.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: