Pages: 1 2 3

 

2006-09-14 01:19:53
Vilham
Say wat!?
+580|7157|UK

Bertster7 wrote:

A lot more than 700 Taliban have been killed by British forces over the past year. Although from what I've heard the Canadians have been the most involved in combat. I don't know what your source is on that, but I have numerous sources which show much higher figures than that.

500+ sounds plausible. Although they weren't quite keeping pace over the last 5 days apparently. I'm suprised it wasn't more (although I suppose you did say 500+).

The Guardian wrote:

Nato's battle to subdue the Taliban in southern Afghanistan intensified at the weekend when the international force said it had killed 94 Taliban fighters in air strikes and ground attacks in the Kandahar region, bringing the toll from nine days of combat to more than 420 deaths.
5 Canadians and one American soldier were killed in those 9 days, 14 British troops died in a plane accident, another Canadian died in a friendly fire incident.

The British currently have the most troops in Afghanistan and are in command of the NATO backed ISAF. Requests to NATO for another 2500 troops have been denied, British commanders are still calling on other countries to live up to the commitments they made earlier and send in more troops.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/4 … _203gr.gif

There are other US troops in Afghanistan though - not as part of the ISAF.

Estimates place remaining Taliban numbers at around 7000. Only another few months to go then.
Yeah sorry my mistake i got the figure from this.. http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006350757,00.html

Its actually 700 para kills since they returned to Iraq, which could be 1 month for all i know, i just remember the 700 and couldnt remember the specific time.
2006-09-14 01:23:07
Vilham
Say wat!?
+580|7157|UK

Kmarion wrote:

If anything invading caused oil cost to increase.
It has! In England we pay about 15 pence more per litre than before the war. Diesel is infact now cheaper than petrol, which it wasnt before the war.
2006-09-14 01:54:43
beerface702
Member
+65|7084|las vegas
where the fuck is the oil then?


hmm

anyway its not like we forgot about the place. 20,000 troops is quite a bit. not to mention airsupport, and naval that reside in the area.

nato has about some 18k troops down in the dirt also

i just think we need to step it up there. add about 30k more troops and the place should be pretty stable
2006-09-14 01:56:07
$teiner
Member
+8|6953|United Kingdom
God bless Poland. They have stepped up the plate, the Germans however seem to be using their lebanon taskforce as a smokescreen to avoid combat in the south of Afghanistan.
2006-09-14 01:57:16
$teiner
Member
+8|6953|United Kingdom

beerface702 wrote:

and naval that reside in the area.
Lmfao. In Afghanistan? Yah it's next to the great purple ocean.
2006-09-14 01:58:12
S3v3N
lolwut?
+685|6909|Montucky

ELITE-UK wrote:

OIL....OIL....OIL thats all america cares about these days
If its about Oil, then why the fuck am i paying $3.00+ for a gallon of gas?
2006-09-14 02:01:01
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|7035|Seattle, WA

S3v3N wrote:

ELITE-UK wrote:

OIL....OIL....OIL thats all america cares about these days
If its about Oil, then why the fuck am i paying $3.00+ for a gallon of gas?
Exactly.......

and jeez $3.00? I just got some for $2.69, and I'm in a medium/high demand priced area in the Pacific NW.  Some towns around here though are at $3.11, so its not out of the question. 
2006-09-14 03:25:13
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,068|7162|PNW

ELITE-UK wrote:

OIL....OIL....OIL thats all america cares about these days
And the rest of the industrialized world doesn't care about oil how?
2006-09-14 08:17:34
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6972|SE London

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

S3v3N wrote:

ELITE-UK wrote:

OIL....OIL....OIL thats all america cares about these days
If its about Oil, then why the fuck am i paying $3.00+ for a gallon of gas?
Exactly.......

and jeez $3.00? I just got some for $2.69, and I'm in a medium/high demand priced area in the Pacific NW.  Some towns around here though are at $3.11, so its not out of the question. 
Stop complaining. In Britain you can often pay over £1/litre for petrol. That's $7.14 a gallon.
2006-09-14 21:53:40
ts-pulsar
Member
+54|6893
Here's my convoluted answer that probably has no basis in realty, but I'll say it anyways.

Asscrackistan (sorry, I'm around too many marines who've been there) is just a mountainous area that looks a lot like Neveda (just compare pics of neveda and afghanistan, you'll see) and really doesn't have a whole lot to offer the rest of the world, besides heroin.  Only reason anyone wwants to conquer afghanistan is because they want to show that they were able to beat a people that Alexander the Great couldn't.


We're in Iraq cause every great power since the rise of civilization has tried to conquer messopitamia.  It's got a nice history of warfare, makes for good television.
2006-09-14 22:02:08
R3v4n
We shall beat to quarters!
+433|6877|Melbourne

ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:

IG-Calibre wrote:

Actually the level of fighting is far greater in Afghanistan than In Iraq.  The American's were smart they knew fine well that a far greater resistance would come from the Afghans than the Iraqi's, so they got their men out quick fucking sharp before the body bags started coming home in numbers and left it to the British/Canadians to pick up the pieces..
Thats halariously retarded and false. America never left Afghanistan and since the begining to today America consists of more than 90% of the troops on the ground. NATO's involvement was extremely minor in comparison. Even Pakistan and the Northern Alliance dwarf NATO's contribution. Also while the level of resistance has picked up lately its nowhere near the level of Iraq.

Its all due to the fact that the Taliban were weak and puny compared to Sadaam the Baathist's and the Republican guard. We applied the proper force needed in Afghanistan to topple the Taliban. If the question is not enough effort to find Osama thats a different topic. If you argue that its becuase of Iraq's oil then youre a dumbass becuase American companies like Halliburton have much more invested in pipelines in Afghanistan than anything energy related in Iraq.
And yet there was a Seven day war against the Taliban and Aus SAS troops, I would say it is not the Troops that have dropped of in Afghanistan but the Media covering it, There are allot of Special Forces in Afghanistan at the moment and, i could imagine that the Contense of what it is they are doing would not be aloud on TV, i pose that its the media dropping off in Afghanistan and not the troops.

Last edited by R3v4n (2006-09-14 22:05:37)

~ Do you not know that in the service … one must always choose the lesser of two weevils?
2006-09-14 22:05:01
King_County_Downy
shitfaced
+2,791|6988|Seattle

ts-pulsar wrote:

Here's my convoluted answer that probably has no basis in realty, but I'll say it anyways.

Asscrackistan (sorry, I'm around too many marines who've been there) is just a mountainous area that looks a lot like Neveda (just compare pics of neveda and afghanistan, you'll see) and really doesn't have a whole lot to offer the rest of the world, besides heroin.  Only reason anyone wwants to conquer afghanistan is because they want to show that they were able to beat a people that Alexander the Great couldn't.


We're in Iraq cause every great power since the rise of civilization has tried to conquer messopitamia.  It's got a nice history of warfare, makes for good television.
Close. The real reason we're in Afghanistan and Iraq is to position ourselves for war with Iran. I have insider information. Trust me on this one. It takes way too long to get that much stuff over there. Now it's there and ready. (Just needs to be pointed the other direction when the word is given)
Sober enough to know what I'm doing, drunk enough to really enjoy doing it
2006-09-14 22:17:23
Ctwo
Member
+7|6851|New Jersey, USA
Agreed, we have been surrounding Iran for years now.
2006-09-15 11:15:11
negolien
Member
+3|6886
Hey,
 

  It's fairly simple really. Iraq is a dense Urban Enviroment and The Ghani is a fkin sandbox with caves. U can secure alot of Afghanistan with Arty, Drones and Air power. This also lends itself to FF unfortuanatly. U make it sound like we take pleasure in killing Nato heroes with ff. Wtf are u an asshole or somthing? We mourn the loss of Nato soldiers the same as our own. It's harder for them to hide there then in Iraq which is packed with people and Urban areas. Also consider that Iraq is more of a political target for the media than Afghanistan. The media barely mentions US casualties in Afghanistan. Although they do cover Nato casualties with fervor. Afghanistan doesn't offer the political agenda the MSM is looking to push thus now coverage.
2006-09-15 11:47:01
M1-Lightning
Jeepers Creepers
+136|7122|Peoria, Illinois

King_County_Downy wrote:

Close. The real reason we're in Afghanistan and Iraq is to position ourselves for war with Iran. I have insider information. Trust me on this one. It takes way too long to get that much stuff over there. Now it's there and ready. (Just needs to be pointed the other direction when the word is given)
Yep. We now surround Iran on three sides.
2006-09-15 12:01:42
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6940|Southeastern USA
Afghanistan was (is) kinda tricky cuz they didn't want to stick their feet in it and end up with another Afghan/Russia type conflict. The coalition forces were working basically under guidance from the anti-taliban forces, having to tip toe carefully when conducting operations so as not to make people think that the US was trying to do the exact same thing that the USSR was trying to do in the 80's. As for Massoud, the pendulum of support/cooperation had begun to swing more his way after being pulled back during the Clinton years, but it simply did not make it in time for him. There also isn't near as much conflict going on over there concerning coalition forces, as they are providing more of a support role, a few Rangers/Marine Recon units lasering cave entrances for the Afghan forces and such, as opposed to the spearhead function provided in Iraq. The second Iraqui incursion was also partially a long overdue follow up to a broken promise long ago to assist the Iraqui people in ousting Saddam. Our previous failure in this regard resulting in the tortures and mass murders of the Iraqui revolutionaries. In a sense, we failed them by allowing the UN to legislate Hussein's staying in power after the first gulf war, and now the Iraquis have failed us by taking so long to uproot the corruption adn establish a cooperative government spanning all sects of it's society, as Afghanistan has done considerably well for it's circumstances.
2006-09-15 12:02:57
znozer
Viking fool - Crazy SWE
+162|6935|Sverige (SWE)

Simonym wrote:

Cause Afghanistan has only drugs and Iraq has oil.
It´s a pity that good old W loves oil more than durgs

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard