Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: the US armed forces actually failed in afghanistan.
MadSkiLlZzzz    10/28/2005 5:58:59 PM
well... if i remember the us army invaded afganies to capture bin laden... but i dont see laden anywhere. some say hes in pakistan. some say hes in iran. and a lot of roumors. i just wanna know one thing wat else americans did in afghanistan except for killing the civilians.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2
bunkerdestroyer    RE:the US armed forces actually failed in afghanistan - Mad   10/28/2005 9:07:21 PM
why is everyone in an uproar? cant you recognize OBL's code name: MadSkiLIZzzz Al Zarqwai has his own as well, supported and broadcast by Aljerkzeea..... So Mr OBL, or I should say MadSkiLIZzzz, I doubt you will find any stupid, impressionable, uneducated, zapped from reality, brain washed(with little effort) dis-infranchised young Muslim men to recruit, so save your time... SEMPER FI
 
Quote    Reply

Panther    RE:the US armed forces actually failed in afghanistan - Mad   10/28/2005 9:11:18 PM
I have to agree with Yimmy on this one. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than knowing & seeing the likes of bin laden sitting behind bars at gitmo awaiting interrogation. Other than that, this guy is seriously and deeply misinformed!
 
Quote    Reply

Genesis    RE:the US armed forces actually failed in afghanistan - Mad   10/29/2005 7:05:08 AM
Guys ...i am posting from Kabul.The US army had done wonders here.Except for the areas bodering Pakistan, the rest of Afghanistan has been cleared of Taliban . The boder areas close to Pak are still insecure mainly for two reasons. 1. The tough mountain terrain 2.Logistical Support from Pakistani jihadi outfits and Pakistani ISI to these militants. The US campaign here (unlike Iraq) is a complete success. Afghans are now happy that peace has returned to them after 2 decades of war.They are also happy that the US has not deserted them once the Taliban were thrown off. (US did this mistake of abandoning afghan once when the russians withdrew - that ultimately led to Pakistan and extremist Taliban gaining control )This time the US is making sure that Afghanistan is properly fixed . One of the primary objectives of the US army here is the building up of the Afghan national Army. Iam sure its only a matter of time . In the 2 years i have been in Afghanistan i have seen tremendous developments and Iam sure the US had done its part well.
 
Quote    Reply

S-2    RE:the US armed forces actually failed in afghanistan -Genesis Reply   10/29/2005 7:16:44 AM
Hey dude, go read my latest posts over on "Should sovereign nations..." under the Armed Forces of the World. Try to access the TehranTimes.com, as well. I can't, for some reason, but I can read you, and have gotten the Jerusalem Post.
 
Quote    Reply

Basilisk Station    RE:Missing a vital point   10/29/2005 11:55:55 AM
MadSkilIZzzz is obviously ugly and his mother dresses him funny.
 
Quote    Reply

longrifle    RE:the US armed forces actually failed in afghanistan.   10/29/2005 10:32:58 PM
This is very close to the "win or loose Vietnam" debate. We have not been defeated tactically, we have not achieved our goal. We've won most of the firefights but we don't know Bin Laden's status and "Al Queda" has not been totally destroyed.
 
Quote    Reply

GOP    RE:the US armed forces actually failed in afghanistan.   10/30/2005 12:28:31 AM
I would say that killing 5,000 AQ members, taking out a terrorist supporting regime, and killing several AQ HVT's is a success. You don't have to cut the head of a bear to kill it, when a JDAM can do the trick (yes, one of GOP's famous sayings :)
 
Quote    Reply

hist_ed    RE:the US armed forces actually failed in afghanistan.   10/30/2005 1:06:36 AM
"This is very close to the "win or loose Vietnam" debate. We have not been defeated tactically, we have not achieved our goal. We've won most of the firefights but we don't know Bin Laden's status and "Al Queda" has not been totally destroyed." In this case I am in complete agreement with Darth's last post. HE wrote"---LOL...I love when ignorance is so obvious. The reason for invading Afghanistan was not to capture or kill any one man. The President and other military and political official have repeatedly stated that the reason was to uproot a corupt regime and deprive AQ of its base of operations. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. 20000 dead? Are you mad? Even if that wild A$s number was true. Its within our means to suffer those kinds of loses. In fact only ignorant civilians talk of casualties and Bin Laden. But oh well. " So let's reiterate so it is clear. AQ no longer can use Afghanistan as a training facility/staging area. While they still operate in a small portion of the country, they do not run the place. Thousands of AQ members are dead. More importantly, millions of Afghans are no longer subject to the medieval whims of the AQ/Taliban government. OBL is probably (though not definitely) still alive, but he really can't do too much except the occasional video clip. In response to the comparison with Vietnam. The commies controlled a huge portion on Vietnam and were very well placed to take over the rest. Please explain how the Taliban are going to sweep into the 90% of Afghanistan that they do not control and take it over? Please, in your explanation, account for the fact the the US military is in Afghanistan for the long haul, that there will be no cut and run deals there. And remember in Vietnam we faced a large conventional army in addition to the VC and it was the large conventional army that did most of the damage to US forces and that in the end conquered South Vietnam. Where, exactly, is the large convention army that is going to conquer Afghanistan for the Taliban? Comparisons between Vietnam and Iraq are absurd enough. Comparing Afghanistan to Vietnam simply shows the the writer knows nothing about either war. I will also be charitable and assume that you meant 2,000 dead, not 20,000 (those commas in number can be useful). Please let us know which number you really meant. We all know that the 2,000 dead figure refers to Iraq, not Afghanistan and the numbers are not "way beyond" 2,000. As of this writing, they are not yet to 2,010. To the sane of SP: Shall we all just let this thread die the death of neglect that it deserves (that was my first impulse, but after a few more post by others I had to weigh in).
 
Quote    Reply

AlbanyRifles    RE:the US armed forces actually failed in afghanistan.   10/31/2005 10:19:35 AM
STOP FEEDING THE TROLLS!!!!!
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy