Afghanistan: Why NATO cannot win - Page 3

Ray · 10-24-2006, 07:27 AM

This is the reason why NATO cannot win, no matter what the US' frontline ally has to say.

In fact, the frontline ally has taken the US for a ride including making a mockery of the same with the so called Pact with the Taliban and withdrawing the forces from FATA.

More Western troops will meet their Maker because wool has been pulled over their eyes.

When will the West learn?

Quote:

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 E-Mail this article to a friend Printer Friendly Version

Taliban-style militants roam N Waziristan after pact

MIRANSHAH: Pakistani militants Mohib and Amir used to cross the porous border from the Waziristan region of Pakistan to neighbouring Afghanistan whenever they had the urge to fight US-led forces.

But their trips have stopped since Waziristan tribal leaders struck a deal with Pakistani authorities last month barring militants from entering Afghanistan from the semi-autonomous tribal state. The Pakistani government believes the arrangement will enable it to stem a growing tide of “Talibanisation” among members of the conservative and fiercely independent Pashtun tribes who live in six semi-autonomous tribal states along the Afghan border.

Sitting cross-legged in a bazaar near the Afghan border, the two bearded militants say the arrangement is an inconvenience rather than a barrier to their goals to wage “jihad”, or holy war, against US-led forces in Afghanistan.

“The border is not just in Waziristan,” 25-year-old Mohib, who declined to give his full name, said with a smile as he sat in a market stall in Miranshah. “If you can’t go into Afghanistan from Waziristan, you can go from other areas. There are many, many other ways to go,” he told Reuters, stroking his beard with one hand, while holding an AK-47 assault rifle with the other.

Critics fear the Waziristan pact risks creating havens for Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters. But Pakistani officials say the deal will empower tribal elders to control militants in their region.

These days, Pakistani forces are nowhere to be seen and government officials keep low profiles in their offices. Instead, long-haired, bearded militants wearing skull caps and with AK-47 rifles slung over their shoulders, roam Miranshah and the nearby town of Mir Ali. Some wear badges on their chests reading “Appointed by the office of the Taliban, the mujahideen of the North Waziristan Agency”.

Mujahideen, or “holy warriors”, flocked to the border region in the 1980s to battle Soviet invaders in Afghanistan. Many left Afghanistan and sought refuge in Waziristan after US-led forces ousted Afghanistan’s Taliban in 2001. From there, they infiltrated back into Afghanistan to fight foreign and government troops, until last months’ deal.

Near Miranshah’s main bazaar, the militants have opened an office in a madrassa, where their officials settle disputes among Pashtun tribesmen.

“We are responsible for maintaining law and order in the bazaar,” Eid Niaz, the deputy head of the office, told Reuters as tribesmen sat in a circle, waiting to plead their cases on issues such as disputes with neighbours.

Under the deal, tribes can be held responsible and punished for any violation to the agreement in line with tribal law. Punishment includes having vehicles confiscated by the government and shops and houses demolished or sealed.

Residents said crime had fallen since the militants took over security responsibilities in the region, though several people accused of being “American informers” had been killed.

The situation is similar to that in adjacent South Waziristan, where militants virtually took over after months of fighting with Pakistani forces.

Before the latest deal was reached, Taliban commanders in Afghanistan urged their allies in North Waziristan to stop fighting Pakistani forces and concentrate on jihad in Afghanistan instead, militant sources told Reuters.

Maulana Abdul Khaliq Haqqani, a member of a militant council, or shura, said his followers were strictly abiding by the pact, though he said the government had yet to keep its promises, such as compensation for families of those killed in the fighting. Haqqani, who is also a firebrand cleric, said they were not sending militants into Afghanistan but still offered “moral support” to those fighting jihad there.

“There is no doubt that we support this jihad against infidels, against these Christians who have invaded a Muslim land ... We support oppressed people in Afghanistan and we pray for their success,” he said. reuters
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default...10-2006_pg7_10

Read between the lines.

**Officer of Engineers** · 10-24-2006, 08:34 AM

Sir,

The real reason why NATO cannot win is that NATO cannot do the ANA's job.

Anon · 10-24-2006, 12:41 PM

Winning is not even an obtainable goal, so should not even be part of our thinking.

We need to maintain the status quo, no matter how long we're there, and no matter how messy. A-stan can never again be allowed to become a lawless haven. It's bad enough Pakistan is.

We really should've invaded Pakistan first.

leib10 · 10-24-2006, 13:47 PM

I second that. Pakistan is a cesspool for international Islamic terrorism. It would've been a tougher fight because their army is better equipped and trained than the Taliban's ever was, but at least we would've accomplished something.

India would've been all over the deal like flies on crap.

Ray · 10-24-2006, 14:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Winning is not even an obtainable goal, so should not even be part of our thinking.

We need to maintain the status quo, no matter how long we're there, and no matter how messy. A-stan can never again be allowed to become a lawless haven. It's bad enough Pakistan is.

We really should've invaded Pakistan first.

Sniper,

Every time I read any of your posts, I fall off the chair laughing!

You really spare no one.

So, Pakistan should have been attacked first?

Quote:

India would've been all over the deal like flies on crap.

Not fair to equate Pakistan with crap! :shock:

Anon · 10-24-2006, 18:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray

Sniper,

Every time I read any of your posts, I fall off the chair laughing!

You really spare no one.

So, Pakistan should have been attacked first?

I think so, if we REALLY wanted to address the problem of vast lawless areas outside the reach of a modern gov't, yes. Pakistan first.

We could've de-nuked them while we were at it too. And had the Indians as very powerful and interested allies in the region to help in the cause. Pakistan is a cancer, and the problems of islamic terrorism will never stop so long as that's the case.

PS: I'm so glad i amuse you.

Ray · 10-30-2006, 13:22 PM

Quote:

70 Taliban Killed in Night Battle, NATO Force Says

By ABDUL WAHEED WAFA
Published: October 30, 2006

KABUL, Afghanistan, Oct. 29 — A battle overnight Saturday in which NATO and Afghan forces engaged suspected Taliban insurgents in the southern Afghan province of Uruzgan might have killed as many as 70 insurgents, NATO officials said Sunday.

In a separate incident, NATO said one of its soldiers had been killed and eight more wounded, along with three local Afghan civilians, when their convoy was hit by a roadside bomb.

A statement from NATO said that its troops and Afghan National Army forces had come under fire from between 100 and 150 insurgents near a NATO operating base in the Chora Valley, north of Trinkot, in Uruzgan Province.

The statement said its troops had been backed up by attack helicopters and close air support during a firefight that lasted several hours.

NATO said last week that it had begun a widespread operation with the Afghan Army to try to overwhelm suspected Taliban fighters, especially in volatile regions where the insurgency had been on the rise since the beginning of the year.

A spokesman for the NATO operation, Maj. Luke Knittig, said the troops had been operating with Afghan Army forces north of Trinkot because the insurgents had been treating the area as a safe haven.

The roadside bomb that hit the NATO convoy exploded in an area where Dutch and Australian forces are based. The nationality of the soldier who was killed has not been announced.

Since NATO took over responsibility for the region from American troops at the beginning of August, 52 soldiers have been killed fighting the insurgency.

There also have been civilian casualties in the operation, including dozens of Afghan civilians killed last week in Kandahar Province during an airstrike by NATO planes.

At a news conference on Friday, President Hamid Karzai called for better coordination between Afghan and NATO forces during military operations to avoid civilian deaths.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/30/wo...=1&oref=slogin

Things are looking up!

troung · 10-30-2006, 16:12 PM

After the fighting and dying, the Taleban return as British depart
By Anthony Loyd and Tahir Luddin

World News

The Times October 30, 2006

Nafaz Khan: “Those British soldiers were cursing with us when we were all told to leave” (Richard Mills/The Times)

After the fighting and dying, the Taleban return as British depart
By Anthony Loyd and Tahir Luddin

AMONG the many battles in his life, Nafaz Khan recalls the long fight for Musa Qala as one of special significance. As the former chief of police and militia commander in the northern Helmand town it was there that he fought alongside British troops against the Taleban.

“I loved those British soldiers,” he said. “They were great fighters and knew each of my men by name. Together we killed many, many Taleban.”

Soldiers from the Royal Irish Regiment, who were withdrawn from Musa Qala this month as part of a deal with Afghan tribal elders after more than two months of heavy fighting, remember the experience as one of violence, dirt, heat and lack of water. For Mr Khan, though, it held particular deprivation.

“Shrapnel from a Taleban mortar blew off one of my testicles soon after the fighting started,” he said while waiting to petition the governor of Helmand in Lashkar Gah for more men and munitions to attack a Taleban headquarters elsewhere. “But I stayed in Musa Qala with the British and fought on for another two and a half months until we were ordered to leave. The pain was terrible, but there were Talebs to kill.”

But when asked whether the deal to withdraw from Musa Qala had left the town free of Taleban influence, as Nato and Afghan government officials claim, Mr Khan’s face clouded as if in greater discomfort.

“Those British soldiers were cursing with us when we were all told to leave,” he said. “They said that they had fought and lost friends to keep the town. And now these tribal elders who are in charge of Musa Qala are the same who gave the Taleban support when they fought against us. The deal was just a clever trick to get the foreign soldiers to go.”

Musa Qala was one of four towns in northern Helmand to which British troops were sent this summer at the request of the Muhammad Daud, the governor of the province, after his officials and police proved incapable of defending themselves against Taleban attack.

Most observers agree that British commanders had little choice but to respond to Governor Daud’s request for troops. Yet opinion divides sharply as to whether the fighting — and loss of 17 British lives — has improved stability in the province. Today there are neither Afghan police nor British soldiers nor, apparently, Taleban in the centre of Musa Qala, which is governed instead by a shura — council — of 50 tribal elders, each of whom has supplied one gunman to protect the centre of the town.

Under the terms of the 14-point deal leading to the demilitarisation, Musa Qala is supposed to remain under nominal government control with the rule of law, including the collection of taxes, education and redevelopment, administered by the elders. None of that has yet happened.

“It is too early to expect these things to have occurred,” Governor Daud said. “The administration of elders has only had two weeks. Schools remain closed in Musa Qala, but they remain closed in many other districts in Helmand, both for girls and boys.”

He insisted that he was examining costings for redevelopment work in Musa Qala, and hoped to extend stability from the town centre into new territory. But elders said that since the British withdrawal almost all the surrounding district had returned to the Taleban.

They also said that most of the fighters who had attacked the British, rather than being insurgents who had crossed the border from Pakistan, were local people.

“Most of the fighters weren’t real Taleban,” said Wakil Haji Mohammed Naim, one of the elders in Musa Qala’s new administration. “There were some outsiders, but most were local men who were angry with the Government, its robbery and corruption, who were persuaded to fight against the foreigners by our preachers in the mosques. We’ll see how long this deal lasts. The Taleban are respecting it but our people are very angry with the Government.” His words reflected how easily, despite their best intent, British forces in northern Helmand often became embroiled in defending criminalised district officials against a force that was only part Taleban. “I’ll take a hell of a lot of convincing to believe that the fighting in Sangin didn’t start as a struggle between a bunch of drug criminals,” one British official in Afghanistan said, referring to another of Helmand’s battle zones in which British forces saw heavy action. “We should never have gone near it. It was a straight-up face-off between two drug lords and we were used to tip the balance.”

Whatever their success in suppressing attacks, the British may find that the force required and the death toll among indigenous Afghan fighters makes it all the harder to mollify the rural population with redevelopment projects.

To illustrate, Mr Khan pulls out the ID of an attacker killed in the fighting at Musa Qala. It was a United Nations voter registration card, belonging to an Afghan man who only two years ago had believed enough in the political process to vote in the presidential elections.

Ray · 11-01-2006, 16:58 PM

Take heart.

All is not lost.

Quote:

NATO Forces Fight Taliban in 5 Provinces of Afghanistan

By ABDUL WAHEED WAFA
Published: November 1, 2006

KABUL, Afghanistan, Oct. 31 — Clashes erupted in five provinces in eastern and southern Afghanistan on Monday and Tuesday, with roadside bombs, suicide bombings and gun battles killing four NATO soldiers and an estimated 67 Taliban fighters, NATO officials said.

The violence came as NATO forces continued a military operation started last week intended to put pressure on Taliban forces through the fall and winter, and to allow reconstruction and development to reach the country’s restive south and east, NATO officials said. Taliban forces, meanwhile, continued to demonstrate their ability to carry out multiple roadside bombings and suicide attacks.

In the eastern province of Nuristan on Tuesday, a roadside bomb killed three NATO soldiers and wounded one as they patrolled in Weygal district, NATO officials said. In separate attack on Tuesday, one Afghan policeman died and two NATO soldiers were wounded in a suicide bombing in Ghazni Province, just south of Kabul.

On Monday, NATO soldiers involved in the new operation, named “Oqab,” or eagle, battled Taliban fighters in a six-hour firefight in the Daychopan district of the southern province of Zabul, NATO officials said. The clash killed one NATO soldier and an estimated 55 Taliban insurgents, they said.

In a second attack on Monday, three NATO soldiers were wounded by a roadside bomb in the eastern province of Kunar. In a third clash on Monday, NATO forces in the Zhera district of the southern province of Kandahar called in an airstrike on a group of suspected insurgents on the roof of a compound. The bombing killed as many as 12 insurgents, according to NATO officials.

Maj. Luke Knittig, a NATO spokesman, cautioned that the Taliban toll from Monday and Tuesday was an estimate. He said the figures had been based on sightings by pilotless aerial vehicles, aircraft and NATO soldiers directly involved in gun battles with insurgents.

“It is not a precise endeavor,” he said. “But we had eyes on these targets.”

Last week, Afghan villagers reported that dozens of civilians were killed in an errant NATO airstrike in the Panjwai district of Kandahar Province. An investigation ordered by the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, is still under way.

The clashes on Monday and Tuesday came after dozens of suspected Taliban were reportedly killed by NATO-led forces in fighting on Saturday in southern Oruzgan Province.

Since NATO took over responsibility for the region from American troops at the beginning of August, 56 of its soldiers have been killed in fighting. The nationalities of the four NATO soldiers killed Monday and Tuesday were not released.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/01/wo.../01afghan.html

Anon · 11-02-2006, 01:54 AM

As long as we're killing more of them than they're killing of us while maintaining military influence within their borders, it's a price we have to accept.

Which is why we love our soldiers and airmen and marines so much. Cause they're doing what has to be done. And what has to be done is damned dirty right about now, and for the forseeable future.

Ray · 11-04-2006, 16:08 PM

Quote:

Saturday, November 04, 2006 E-Mail this article to a friend Printer Friendly Version

Praise for Musharraf marred by Taliban

By Khalid Hasan

WASHINGTON: While the US government continues to “lavish praise” on President Pervez Musharraf for his cooperation and role in the war on terror, many of Pakistan’s extremist groups and associated Islamic institutions appear to be operating with “near impunity” and fuelling the insurgency in Afghanistan, according to a veteran observer of the area and an acknowledged expert.

Marvin G Weinbaum of the Middle East Institute, who recently returned from a visit to Afghanistan and Pakistan, wrote in the Newark Star Ledger that Pakistan and the US were increasingly questioning the benefits of their strategic partnership. Musharraf’s commitment to a peace process with New Delhi had earned him high approval in Washington, yet Pakistan’s security services were blamed for complicity in terrorist acts against India, he said. The Pakistani president was applauded for his moderate vision in the face of reported violations of civil liberties, and a federal government powerless to enact reforms, he said.

According to Weinbaum, US policymakers may believe that President Musharraf is indispensable at Pakistan’s helm, but many critics balk at continuing to give him a “virtual pass” to perpetuate the military ascendance and resist a full probe of its past nuclear-related transfers. Even if many in Washington are willing to accept that his assurances to the US are sincere, they believe Musharraf’s domestic constraints make it doubtful he can deliver on his promises. In Pakistan, the president’s cooperation with the US, he argued, had become a “growing liability”.

Weinbaum wrote that Washington’s offer of nuclear cooperation with India and its denial to Pakistan were seen as testimony that the US had cast its lot economically and strategically with India. The Musharraf government’s unpopular, failed militarisation of the tribal agencies is generally seen in Pakistan as having been undertaken at the behest of the US. The public seemed prepared to accept intelligence sharing, but “sovereignty-sensitive” Pakistanis were deeply offended by Washington’s declaration that the American military would enter Pakistani territory, he wrote.

Weinbaum sees the shoring up of US-Pak relations as increasingly problematic. He argued that if “Washington must alter some policies, so too must Islamabad”.

Weinbaum wrote, “The US has too much at stake to remain as passive as it has. Washington refrained from criticising Musharraf when he claimed the presidency through referendum, enhanced his constitutional powers, pre-cooked elections, and then reneged on a pledge to take off his uniform. The US thereby managed to reinforce the impression it prefers military governments to democratic ones. A failure now to encourage Musharraf to open the political system will doom hopes for progressive policies. It will only produce a coalition inclined to be more confrontational with India and Afghanistan. For many in Pakistan, it would also confirm the US as a fickle ally that will once again desert Pakistan if it should succeed against Al Qaeda. For an alliance that endures, Washington must counter the widely-held view that the American partnership is with Musharraf and the army, not with the people of Pakistan.”
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default...-11-2006_pg7_1

One of the impediments to winning the war in Afghanistan.

Ray · 11-04-2006, 16:14 PM

Quote:

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default...-11-2006_pg7_7

NWFP PA echoes with jihad calls

Staff Report

PESHAWAR: Members of the NWFP Assembly on Friday marched from the Assembly Hall to the main entrance amid slogans of “Allah-o-Akbar” and “al-jihad, al-jihad” to protest against the army airstrike on a madrassa in Bajaur Agency and for showing solidarity with the people of the area.

The protesting MPAs, including the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) ministers Asif Iqbal Daudzai, Shah Raz Khan, Hafiz Akhtar Ali and Malik Zafar Azam, pledged to continue the war against the “imperialist United States”, which they said, was responsible for the killing of innocent Muslims across the world. The NWFP legislators shouted pro-Islamic revolution and anti-Musharraf and Bush slogans during the march.

If the government is pro Taleban, then how can the NATO win?

The Taleban will get all the assistance and they will carry on their forays into Afghanistan, while the hapless NATO troops merely scratch out a military existence so as to look good!

Winning in such conditions is very difficult!

I sympathise with the troops!

10-24-2006, 08:34 AM	#32 (permalink)
Officer of Engineers *Military Professional* Moderator Scotch taster Join Date: 08-06-03 Posts: 15,917 Country:	Sir, The real reason why NATO cannot win is that NATO cannot do the ANA's job. __________________ Chimo

10-24-2006, 13:47 PM	#34 (permalink)
leib10 HKHolic *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 02-17-05 Location: Lubbock, TX Posts: 3,240 Country:	I second that. Pakistan is a cesspool for international Islamic terrorism. It would've been a tougher fight because their army is better equipped and trained than the Taliban's ever was, but at least we would've accomplished something. India would've been all over the deal like flies on crap. __________________ "The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world. So wake up, Mr. Freeman. Wake up and smell the ashes." G-Man

10-30-2006, 16:12 PM	#38 (permalink)
troung A Self Important *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 08-03-03 Posts: 4,236 Country:	After the fighting and dying, the Taleban return as British depart By Anthony Loyd and Tahir Luddin World News The Times October 30, 2006 Nafaz Khan: “Those British soldiers were cursing with us when we were all told to leave” (Richard Mills/The Times) After the fighting and dying, the Taleban return as British depart By Anthony Loyd and Tahir Luddin AMONG the many battles in his life, Nafaz Khan recalls the long fight for Musa Qala as one of special significance. As the former chief of police and militia commander in the northern Helmand town it was there that he fought alongside British troops against the Taleban. “I loved those British soldiers,” he said. “They were great fighters and knew each of my men by name. Together we killed many, many Taleban.” Soldiers from the Royal Irish Regiment, who were withdrawn from Musa Qala this month as part of a deal with Afghan tribal elders after more than two months of heavy fighting, remember the experience as one of violence, dirt, heat and lack of water. For Mr Khan, though, it held particular deprivation. “Shrapnel from a Taleban mortar blew off one of my testicles soon after the fighting started,” he said while waiting to petition the governor of Helmand in Lashkar Gah for more men and munitions to attack a Taleban headquarters elsewhere. “But I stayed in Musa Qala with the British and fought on for another two and a half months until we were ordered to leave. The pain was terrible, but there were Talebs to kill.” But when asked whether the deal to withdraw from Musa Qala had left the town free of Taleban influence, as Nato and Afghan government officials claim, Mr Khan’s face clouded as if in greater discomfort. “Those British soldiers were cursing with us when we were all told to leave,” he said. “They said that they had fought and lost friends to keep the town. And now these tribal elders who are in charge of Musa Qala are the same who gave the Taleban support when they fought against us. The deal was just a clever trick to get the foreign soldiers to go.” Musa Qala was one of four towns in northern Helmand to which British troops were sent this summer at the request of the Muhammad Daud, the governor of the province, after his officials and police proved incapable of defending themselves against Taleban attack. Most observers agree that British commanders had little choice but to respond to Governor Daud’s request for troops. Yet opinion divides sharply as to whether the fighting — and loss of 17 British lives — has improved stability in the province. Today there are neither Afghan police nor British soldiers nor, apparently, Taleban in the centre of Musa Qala, which is governed instead by a shura — council — of 50 tribal elders, each of whom has supplied one gunman to protect the centre of the town. Under the terms of the 14-point deal leading to the demilitarisation, Musa Qala is supposed to remain under nominal government control with the rule of law, including the collection of taxes, education and redevelopment, administered by the elders. None of that has yet happened. “It is too early to expect these things to have occurred,” Governor Daud said. “The administration of elders has only had two weeks. Schools remain closed in Musa Qala, but they remain closed in many other districts in Helmand, both for girls and boys.” He insisted that he was examining costings for redevelopment work in Musa Qala, and hoped to extend stability from the town centre into new territory. But elders said that since the British withdrawal almost all the surrounding district had returned to the Taleban. They also said that most of the fighters who had attacked the British, rather than being insurgents who had crossed the border from Pakistan, were local people. “Most of the fighters weren’t real Taleban,” said Wakil Haji Mohammed Naim, one of the elders in Musa Qala’s new administration. “There were some outsiders, but most were local men who were angry with the Government, its robbery and corruption, who were persuaded to fight against the foreigners by our preachers in the mosques. We’ll see how long this deal lasts. The Taleban are respecting it but our people are very angry with the Government.” His words reflected how easily, despite their best intent, British forces in northern Helmand often became embroiled in defending criminalised district officials against a force that was only part Taleban. “I’ll take a hell of a lot of convincing to believe that the fighting in Sangin didn’t start as a struggle between a bunch of drug criminals,” one British official in Afghanistan said, referring to another of Helmand’s battle zones in which British forces saw heavy action. “We should never have gone near it. It was a straight-up face-off between two drug lords and we were used to tip the balance.” Whatever their success in suppressing attacks, the British may find that the force required and the death toll among indigenous Afghan fighters makes it all the harder to mollify the rural population with redevelopment projects. To illustrate, Mr Khan pulls out the ID of an attacker killed in the fighting at Musa Qala. It was a United Nations voter registration card, belonging to an Afghan man who only two years ago had believed enough in the political process to vote in the presidential elections. __________________ To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Random Thoughts on the Mighty Hog - Part 2	Shipwreck	Military Aviation	113	Today 06:42 AM
The Causes & Consequences of Strategic Failure in Afghanistan & Iraq	lulldapull	The War in Iraq	35	05-20-2008 03:48 AM
Soviet Air Power in Afghanistan	IDonT	Military Aviation	0	06-19-2006 16:50 PM
Project Afghanistan: Pakistan and NATO	Ray	Operation Enduring Freedom	2	05-21-2006 18:08 PM

10-24-2006, 12:41 PM	#33 (permalink)
Anon New Member Join Date: 08-03-03 Posts: 0	Winning is not even an obtainable goal, so should not even be part of our thinking. We need to maintain the status quo, no matter how long we're there, and no matter how messy. A-stan can never again be allowed to become a lawless haven. It's bad enough Pakistan is. We really should've invaded Pakistan first.

11-02-2006, 01:54 AM	#40 (permalink)
Anon New Member Join Date: 08-03-03 Posts: 0	As long as we're killing more of them than they're killing of us while maintaining military influence within their borders, it's a price we have to accept. Which is why we love our soldiers and airmen and marines so much. Cause they're doing what has to be done. And what has to be done is damned dirty right about now, and for the forseeable future.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)