NATO will be moving troops into - GoFuckYourself.com

theking · 05-29-2006, 05:35 AM

...Afghanistan...in force...beginning in July and is expected to be the singular military force in country by the end of the year.

They are expected to deploy throughout the entire country in an effort to subdue all of the opposition forces (alQuiada...Taliban...drug lords, organized criminal elements) in those parts of the country where there is not a current military presence.

This is according to the current CG of Nato forces and was stated in a speech I watched this morning...on C-Span.

I suspect that at some point NATO forces will move into Iraq...but the CG did not state this to be a fact.

Joe Citizen · 05-29-2006, 06:24 AM

Well look who's back? Sgt. Speedbump.

How are the double bloody mary's this morning?

05-29-2006, 06:59 AM

oh well, not sure what itll achieve time will tell

05-29-2006, 06:59 AM

oh well, not sure what itll achieve time will tell

KRL · 05-29-2006, 07:09 AM

About time, if some more troops don't arrive soon, Afghan will be controlled by the Taliban again.

E$_manager · 05-29-2006, 07:09 AM

it all lookes like invasion.

E$_manager · 05-29-2006, 07:10 AM

tell me if i am wrong.

theking · 05-29-2006, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KRL

About time, if some more troops don't arrive soon, Afghan will be controlled by the Taliban again.

According to the CG there is not a significant re-emergence of the Taliban. He stated that the violent acts being committed in Afghanistan are remnants of the alQuiada, Taliban, drug lords, tribal leaders, and organized criminal elements. The above listed have little to do with one another and operate independant of one another having their own agenda.

FetishDollars · 05-29-2006, 08:05 AM

Invasion is the right word.

mOrrI · 05-29-2006, 08:09 AM

Now it's NATO....
anyone else... ?

kanalj · 05-29-2006, 08:17 AM

The U.S moved to few troops there in the first place, just enough to build and protect their natural gas pipe. surprise.

directfiesta · 05-29-2006, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

According to the CG there is not a significant re-emergence of the Taliban.

Happy to hear that

Quote:

In recent weeks, southern Afghanistan has been hit by some of the deadliest fighting since the ouster of the Taliban regime in late 2001. Militants have stepped up attacks in their former heartland, drawing a fierce response from coalition and Afghan forces.

http://www.forbes.com/technology/fee...ap2778938.html

BTW, got out of jail ?

theking · 05-29-2006, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta

Happy to hear that

BTW, got out of jail ?

He stated that the violent acts being committed in Afghanistan are remnants of the alQuiada, Taliban, drug lords, tribal leaders, and organized criminal elements. The above listed have little to do with one another and operate independant of one another having their own agenda.

I have never been in jail in my life...ass wipe. I quit posting on this board and am here today to remind Americans that it is memorial day...thank you very much.

theking · 05-29-2006, 08:32 AM

Just for clarification...I do not post on any other board either.

mardigras · 05-29-2006, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

...Afghanistan...in force...beginning in July and is expected to be the singular military force in country by the end of the year.

They are expected to deploy throughout the entire country in an effort to subdue all of the opposition forces (alQuiada...Taliban...drug lords, organized criminal elements) in those parts of the country where there is not a current military presence.

This is according to the current CG of Nato forces and was stated in a speech I watched this morning...on C-Span.

I suspect that at some point NATO forces will move into Iraq...but the CG did not state this to be a fact.

In other words, Bush failed (other than stirring things up) and NATO has to go in and clean up his mess.

theking · 05-29-2006, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mardigras

In other words, Bush failed (other than stirring things up) and NATO has to go in and clean up his mess.

A Marine General is the allied Commander of NATO and US forces are the largest member forces of NATO. Bringing in NATO forces means bringing in more allied/coalition forces and a larger force than what is currently in Afghanistan.

But yes...you can say that the US Commander in Chief did not put enough forces in Afghanistan...just as you can say the same about Iraq.

directfiesta · 05-29-2006, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

and am here today to remind Americans that it is memorial day...thank you very much.

1 - remind on MEMORIAL day ... oxymoron ...

2 - Good thing it is only one day ... you promise to leave till next year ....
3 -

mardigras · 05-29-2006, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

But yes...you can say that the US Commander in Chief did not put enough forces in Afghanistan...just as you can say the same about Iraq.

Regardless of any other differences you and I may have over the war/ this administration, this is one comment I agree whole-heartedly with

baddog · 05-29-2006, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mardigras

In other words, Bush failed (other than stirring things up) and NATO has to go in and clean up his mess.

Oh please. What mess has NATO ever successfully cleaned up?

Manga1 · 05-29-2006, 10:44 AM

Ok, who can tell me why NATO was originally created and how moving into Afghanistan serves this purpose?

marketsmart · 05-29-2006, 10:48 AM

congrats to all the winners...

theking · 05-29-2006, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manga1

Ok, who can tell me why NATO was originally created and how moving into Afghanistan serves this purpose?

Changing times changes purpose/mission. I do not know of anything that is static.

hova · 05-29-2006, 03:15 PM

we'll see what happens

sweetgirl2006 · 05-29-2006, 03:48 PM

oh well will wait and see whats happens

Manga1 · 05-29-2006, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

Changing times changes purpose/mission. I do not know of anything that is static.

Wrong answer. NATO was created to defend against and contain the Soviet Union (Russia). NATO troops in Afghanistan do just that. Afghanistan used to be part of the Russian sphere of influence. NATO troops in Afghanistan serve to contain Russia so that if Russia makes a comeback it will not be able to become as powerfull as it was before. NATO hasn't changed it's mission. It is just busy finishing the job.

directfiesta · 05-29-2006, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manga1

Wrong answer. NATO was created to defend against and contain the Soviet Union (Russia). NATO troops in Afghanistan do just that. Afghanistan used to be part of the Russian sphere of influence. NATO troops in Afghanistan serve to contain Russia so that if Russia makes a comeback it will not be able to become as powerfull as it was before. NATO hasn't changed it's mission. It is just busy finishing the job.

Russia is laughing their head off while watching the occident stuck with the problem ...

Why do you think that the USSR went in Afghanistan in the first place ? Oil ? Land ? Wealth ?

No, just to contain the support that afghanistan was giving to the Tchechen ( their own islamic " terrorists " ).
The Americans, with their simplistic foreign policy ( communists ... argh ) armed, financed, supplied technicals to those religious rebels , under the command of a well know guy now ...

So you think that Russia will come back ...

NATO is not finishing any jobs, it just became the hoe ....

05-29-2006, 05:35 AM	#1
theking Nice Kitty Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: The good old USA!!! Posts: 21,053	NATO will be moving troops into ...Afghanistan...in force...beginning in July and is expected to be the singular military force in country by the end of the year. They are expected to deploy throughout the entire country in an effort to subdue all of the opposition forces (alQuiada...Taliban...drug lords, organized criminal elements) in those parts of the country where there is not a current military presence. This is according to the current CG of Nato forces and was stated in a speech I watched this morning...on C-Span. I suspect that at some point NATO forces will move into Iraq...but the CG did not state this to be a fact. __________________ When you're running down my country hoss...you're walking on the fighting side of me! FOR THE LYING LOWLIFE POSTING AS PATHFINDER...https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...athfinder.html

05-29-2006, 07:09 AM	#5
KRL Entrepreneur Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: USA Posts: 31,429	About time, if some more troops don't arrive soon, Afghan will be controlled by the Taliban again. __________________ If you would like to develop your domains, you can lease inexpensive foreign labor from the leaders in the field at iWebmasters.com TO LOWER YOUR COSTS AND INCREASE YOUR PRODUCTION! * * * * * * * * * * * * Domains Adult News KRL's Newsletter Biz Tips Just Listed Domains

05-29-2006, 07:09 AM	#6
E$_manager Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: pink adult dreams Posts: 13,557	it all lookes like invasion. __________________ Enjoy more sales with EnjoyBucks! Homemade: Asian : Ebony : GFs : Voyeur : Nudist : Public : 3D

05-29-2006, 07:10 AM	#7
E$_manager Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: pink adult dreams Posts: 13,557	tell me if i am wrong. __________________ Enjoy more sales with EnjoyBucks! Homemade: Asian : Ebony : GFs : Voyeur : Nudist : Public : 3D

05-29-2006, 08:05 AM	#9
FetishDollars Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2006 Location: Sydney, AU Posts: 187	Invasion is the right word. __________________ http://www.strippokerclub.com/ Lets play poker

05-29-2006, 06:24 AM	#2
Joe Citizen Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 4,552	Well look who's back? Sgt. Speedbump. How are the double bloody mary's this morning?

05-29-2006, 06:59 AM	#3
Altwebdesign Guest Posts: n/a	oh well, not sure what itll achieve time will tell

05-29-2006, 08:09 AM	#10
mOrrI It's over there... Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 4,212	Now it's NATO.... anyone else... ? __________________ Get Your Binance Account

05-29-2006, 08:17 AM	#11
kanalj Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Sweden Posts: 639	The U.S moved to few troops there in the first place, just enough to build and protect their natural gas pipe. surprise. __________________ I made that back in the days!

05-29-2006, 08:32 AM	#14
theking Nice Kitty Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: The good old USA!!! Posts: 21,053	Just for clarification...I do not post on any other board either. __________________ When you're running down my country hoss...you're walking on the fighting side of me! FOR THE LYING LOWLIFE POSTING AS PATHFINDER...https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...athfinder.html

05-29-2006, 10:44 AM	#20
Manga1 Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Malakiaville Posts: 952	Ok, who can tell me why NATO was originally created and how moving into Afghanistan serves this purpose?

05-29-2006, 10:48 AM	#21
marketsmart HOMICIDAL TROLL KILLER Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Sunnybrook Institution for the Criminally Insane Posts: 20,419	congrats to all the winners...

05-29-2006, 03:15 PM	#23
hova Traffillionaire Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: ICQ:209371571 Posts: 22,430	we'll see what happens __________________ http://traffillions.com/ Sign up and get lifetime revshare on your traffic

05-29-2006, 03:48 PM	#24
sweetgirl2006 Confirmed User Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 1,194	oh well will wait and see whats happens __________________