Taliban arms supplies?
Discussion
Who's currently supplying the Taliban with their arms and explosives then? Why hasn't the UN imposed sanctions on these countries and why doesn't there seem to be any talk at all about destroying these supply routes? If the arms supply isn't cut off, as far as I can see, this conflict is going to go on for many decades. The bloody rules of engagement bullst is beyond belief, as soon as they put their weapons down and decide to go for their tea we cannot shoot the b*stards!! I'm not naive enough to believe that we fully adhere to this policy but who the hell comes up with crap like this?
Edited by eldudereno on Thursday 17th September 22:41
eldudereno said:
Who's currently supplying the Taliban with their arms and explosives then?
Does it matter?You cannot rule a country by force. When you try to, horrible bast*rds like the Taliban rise to the top.
The sooner we get the f*ck out and let the ensuing civil war sort it out the better.
Disco_Dale said:
eldudereno said:
Who's currently supplying the Taliban with their arms and explosives then?
Does it matter?You cannot rule a country by force. When you try to, horrible bast*rds like the Taliban rise to the top.
The sooner we get the f*ck out and let the ensuing civil war sort it out the better.
I'm pretty sure I saw a talibany' with a MP/STG 44 the other day on the news, I know these were produced after WW2 by other countries but that gun would still be worth a fortune.
Anyway there were so many fully kitted soviet militray bases all over the USSR that have now collapsed there will ne stock piles of weapons all over that area, especially in states like Kazakstan, Turkmenistan and Uzebekistan were the Soviets upped and left. (IIR my history C)
Anyway there were so many fully kitted soviet militray bases all over the USSR that have now collapsed there will ne stock piles of weapons all over that area, especially in states like Kazakstan, Turkmenistan and Uzebekistan were the Soviets upped and left. (IIR my history C)
Don't forget there's been an official war there since 1980, where the Russkies threw everything they had against them, while at the same time the Yanks supported the "insurgents".. so there must be a huge tonnage of weaponry floating about.. especially up in the mountains... and the place is riddled with caves and underground shelters.
There are just not enough troops on the ground to be able to do a complete sweep.... Mind you the tribal areas of pakistan are also awash with weaponry and some of that gets into A-stan....
There are just not enough troops on the ground to be able to do a complete sweep.... Mind you the tribal areas of pakistan are also awash with weaponry and some of that gets into A-stan....
Disco_Dale said:
eldudereno said:
And give them time to sort themselves out and commit more attrocities like 9/11?
Yeah, because terrorism stopped dead once we invaded Afghanistan, and stopped even more after we invaded Iraq....Bill said:
Disco_Dale said:
eldudereno said:
And give them time to sort themselves out and commit more attrocities like 9/11?
Yeah, because terrorism stopped dead once we invaded Afghanistan, and stopped even more after we invaded Iraq....I didn't realise people were so naive to think these farmers and poor men who have been at war with invading nations all their lives actually decided to highjack the palnes on 11/9!!!
I'm sure I would be picking up a gun formerly provided by the attacking nations to shoot those invading me!!
Bill said:
Disco_Dale said:
eldudereno said:
And give them time to sort themselves out and commit more attrocities like 9/11?
Yeah, because terrorism stopped dead once we invaded Afghanistan, and stopped even more after we invaded Iraq....Still, yet more great spin - the taleban are just a kind of home guard.
The best way to combat terrorism is to stop slaughtering innocents in a far off land in a war that is about nothing more than resources.
If you are keen on the history of the Brittish Empire, you can see most of the problems that we are currently stumbling into a long way off. Especially if you listen to the news with a critacal ear.
For example, shortly after deciding on going into Afghanistan, the news began allways mentioning Al-Qaeda and The Talban together. It seems to have worked, though.
Rules Of Engagement is just a way for politicians to go to war with a clear conscience. Was anyone really surprised by Abu Gahraib? No, because we all know that this is how people will behave. They really should go back to letting the military do their thing, without trying to hobble them.
Pricks, the lot of them.
There's not much of a guarantee that they are fighting The Taliban anymore. Since opium cultivation came back, they can afford anything that they can sneak in.
For example, shortly after deciding on going into Afghanistan, the news began allways mentioning Al-Qaeda and The Talban together. It seems to have worked, though.
Rules Of Engagement is just a way for politicians to go to war with a clear conscience. Was anyone really surprised by Abu Gahraib? No, because we all know that this is how people will behave. They really should go back to letting the military do their thing, without trying to hobble them.
Pricks, the lot of them.
There's not much of a guarantee that they are fighting The Taliban anymore. Since opium cultivation came back, they can afford anything that they can sneak in.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff