GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   NATO will be moving troops into (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=615331)

theking 05-29-2006 05:35 AM

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.

Joe Citizen 05-29-2006 06:24 AM

Well look who's back? Sgt. Speedbump. :1orglaugh

How are the double bloody mary's this morning? :1orglaugh

Altwebdesign 05-29-2006 06:59 AM

oh well, not sure what itll achieve time will tell

Altwebdesign 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 :thumbsup

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 :thumbsup



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 ... :1orglaugh
2 - Good thing it is only one day ... you promise to leave till next year ....
3 - :321GFY

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:upsidedow

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... :thumbsup

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 ... :1orglaugh

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:27 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123