Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
We pay Pakistan for access to Afg.You wouldn't pay a criminal who had murdered your family would you? Or are you so stupid?
Then why do you pay a country Pakistan who is paying to have killed other American's family members, paying Al Qaeda to do 9/11 and paying the Taliban to kill Americans on the battlefields of Afghanistan?
Do you want me to say "Hurray for you" as you pay to get Americans killed?
This 2-hour video is of a British TV programme which explains in great detail the role of the Pakistani state via the ISI (Inter-services intelligence) has in supporting the Taliban's war against our forces in Afghanistan.
VIDEO: BBC Documentary - "SECRET PAKISTAN - Double Cross / Backlash" (2 hours) - YouTube
"Secret BBC - Pakistan Doubl..."
The YouTube account associated
with this video has been terminated
due to multiple third-party
notifications of copyright
infringement.
I need to post new links for that video. It really is essential viewing for anyone who wants to understand the enemy we face in Afghanistan.RECOMMENDED VIDEO - 2 HOURS WELL SPENT!
The insurgency in Afghanistan is being sponsored by Pakistan. So when we get peace from Pakistan, we get peace in Afghanistan.I have explained how we can go about turning Pakistan around yes but from a position of where Pakistani is now, a position of opposition where the Pakistani state is contemptuously sponsoring terrorists to kill us, now, that's what they are doing now - turning them around into to a new position of support where they don't sponsor terrorists against us any more.
No, I don't even slightly believe you have suggested anything close to that.
You've had nothing to say about causing peace in Afg. either.
Pakistan has made sure that Afghanistan would be unsuccessful.All you have is a suggestion that we try adding Pak (a nuclear nation) to our conquests. And, you have nothing to say about why conquering Pak would be any more successful than conquering Afg has been.
It's not about making friends with those enemy regimes. It is about regime change. Removing our enemies from running Pakistan and leaving our friends running it. Plenty of people in Pakistan hate the Taliban and when we seize control over Pakistani satellite TV broadcasting and tell them the truth about the state sponsoring of the Taliban, they'll want their treacherous countrymen slaughtered and will help us do it.It's a rare human that accepts the notion of slaughter of ones countrymen as an extended hand of friendship. I'll have to tell you, it's just not very appealing.
Ask Germany, Italy and Japan who were all regime-changed at the end of world war 2 and are all now good friends of ours.Ask the Israelis. They've been trying that for decades.
That's like paying for access to dig up someone's back yard and accepting that he will take pot shots at you with his rifle while you do so, using the money you gave him to buy ammunition and a new rifle and then to hire someone to take the pot shots.We pay Pakistan for access to Afg.You wouldn't pay a criminal who had murdered your family would you? Or are you so stupid?
Then why do you pay a country Pakistan who is paying to have killed other American's family members, paying Al Qaeda to do 9/11 and paying the Taliban to kill Americans on the battlefields of Afghanistan?
Do you want me to say "Hurray for you" as you pay to get Americans killed?
"Not everybody in Pakistan"? It's the Pakistani state, the military, the generals and former generals who are not "thrilled with us" and are sponsoring the Taliban's war against us. It's precisely the Pakistani state we pay who are paying the Taliban to kill us.As it turns out, not everybody in Pakistan is thrilled with us, so yes, we take losses in that transaction - as we do in many of our military adventures.
I agree with you that we shouldn't do that.
But, the notion that we should replace that with conquering Pakistan is just plain nonsense. We are smarter than that, for God's sake.
Conquering Pakistan isn't going to change that. You are assuming the people of that nation are not being represented. But, it's closer to the truth to say that Pakistani leadership is trying to toady to us without so upsetting the population that they are tossed out of government.That's like paying for access to dig up someone's back yard and accepting that he will take pot shots at you with his rifle while you do so, using the money you gave him to buy ammunition and a new rifle and then to hire someone to take the pot shots.We pay Pakistan for access to Afg.You wouldn't pay a criminal who had murdered your family would you? Or are you so stupid?
Then why do you pay a country Pakistan who is paying to have killed other American's family members, paying Al Qaeda to do 9/11 and paying the Taliban to kill Americans on the battlefields of Afghanistan?
Do you want me to say "Hurray for you" as you pay to get Americans killed?
"Not everybody in Pakistan"? It's the Pakistani state, the military, the generals and former generals who are not "thrilled with us" and are sponsoring the Taliban's war against us. It's precisely the Pakistani state we pay who are paying the Taliban to kill us.As it turns out, not everybody in Pakistan is thrilled with us, so yes, we take losses in that transaction - as we do in many of our military adventures.
I agree with you that we shouldn't do that.
But, the notion that we should replace that with conquering Pakistan is just plain nonsense. We are smarter than that, for God's sake.
Please watch the "Secret Pakistan" videos I posted earlier to understand who the enemy is.
I wouldn't use the words "conquering Paksitan" without qualification. It's the state sponsors of terrorism we'd be conquering. The Pakistani nation per se, we'd be liberating. We'd be making Pakistan a free country.Conquering Pakistan isn't going to change that.
That's a fact when elected representatives of the Pakistani people and other prominent figures in Pakistani public life are being assassinated by the terrorists controlled by the imperialist military to enforce the wishes of a military dictatorship in elected government's clothing.You are assuming the people of that nation are not being represented.
In what way can one call someone "a toady" who sponsors terrorists to kill you? That's not the act of a toad but of a backstabber.But, it's closer to the truth to say that Pakistani leadership is trying to toady to us without so upsetting the population that they are tossed out of government.
We'd be proving that we are the friends of the Pakistani people by removing their enemy Taliban and the generals who sponsor them.Proving to Pakistan that we ARE the enemy, just like the Taliban say, isn't some sort of improvement.
Like I said, it's not about "conquering" the nation it is about liberating the nation.And, deciding to conquer a nuclear nation of 180 million people that is cooperating with us to some degree is insane.
I've already explained that the failures in Iraq and Afghanistan were due to neighbouring countries sponsoring terrorism within the country to destablise it. We always had to confront the neighbouring countries too, perhaps regime change them too, to make sure they helped and didn't hinder our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.Your ideas are the neocon nonsense that made people think we could "nation build" in Afg and Iraq - while concentrating on the slaughter of war with NO time spent considering what is needed for peace.
It's hard to tell even where to start with this nonsense.I wouldn't use the words "conquering Paksitan" without qualification. It's the state sponsors of terrorism we'd be conquering. The Pakistani nation per se, we'd be liberating. We'd be making Pakistan a free country.Conquering Pakistan isn't going to change that.
That's a fact when elected representatives of the Pakistani people and other prominent figures in Pakistani public life are being assassinated by the terrorists controlled by the imperialist military to enforce the wishes of a military dictatorship in elected government's clothing.You are assuming the people of that nation are not being represented.
In what way can one call someone "a toady" who sponsors terrorists to kill you? That's not the act of a toad but of a backstabber.
In any case, the decisions to sponsor terrorism against us are not being taken by the government but by the generals who dictate military policy behind the scenes.
The generals can't be tossed out of government by the population at election. It works the other way around, the generals remove those elected politicians they don't like by having them assassinated.
We'd be proving that we are the friends of the Pakistani people by removing their enemy Taliban and the generals who sponsor them.
Like I said, it's not about "conquering" the nation it is about liberating the nation.And, deciding to conquer a nuclear nation of 180 million people that is cooperating with us to some degree is insane.
I've already explained that the failures in Iraq and Afghanistan were due to neighbouring countries sponsoring terrorism within the country to destablise it. We always had to confront the neighbouring countries too, perhaps regime change them too, to make sure they helped and didn't hinder our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.Your ideas are the neocon nonsense that made people think we could "nation build" in Afg and Iraq - while concentrating on the slaughter of war with NO time spent considering what is needed for peace.
Also I am not a "neocon" though I'm a big fan of Condoleezza Rice.
I'm a republican socialist. I oppose fascists, racists, nazis, dictatorships and monarchs.
I campaign politically for freedom, democracy, social justice and human rights.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=789SkK7uwiY"]Scottish republican socialist Peter Dow, author and protester[/ame]
I've never been a conservative. I support a republican revolution here in Scotland and anywhere where the Queen Elizabeth is imposed as head of state.
So I can't be a "neocon" if that means a new kind of conservative if I've never been a conservative now can I?
The beginning?It's hard to tell even where to start with this nonsense.
Neither am I. I'm suggesting we liberate the Pakistani people by conquering their oppressors and the sponsors of our Taliban and Al Qaeda enemies, the generals and former generals who dictate military policy behind the scenes.There is NO WAY that the Pakistani people are interested in us conquering them.
Neighbours are good but a neighbouring state destabilising a neighbour by sponsoring terrorism is bad.Pakistan has neighbors, too. In fact, every nation has neighbors.
Well speak for yourself. You may not be able to but others could certainly play an important positive role in sorting them out.And, our ability to sort terrorists from a foreign nation is nonexistent.
Slightly before my time. I'm only 53. I know America tried hard but maybe went about it in the wrong way?We couldn't in Vietnam.
Well the fact is that I've been giving excellent advice for years on stabilising those countries but it's not really been heeded and taken. My suggestions have been ignored by the authorities.We haven't been able to do so in Afg or Iraq.
Not I'm not. There are differences. I wouldn't have invited Queen Elizabeth to the White House as President Bush did, for example.You say you aren't a neocon and then claim being a Condi Rice fan? Sorry - that's you claiming to be a neocon in the Bush/Cheney mold -
Not "imperialism" no. Peace by defeating enemies who are waging war on us and we need the military for that.consistent with your ideas of peace through US military imperialism.
Both required struggles with a military dimension to force the other side to the table.There are two clear cases of having solved terrorism in recent times. One is Ireland. the other is South Africa. Neither of those required conquest, nor would have the slaughter of military conquest been a superior solution.
The above concludes the very long OP. It's a lot to read at one sitting so I will answer questions on any part as and when you want to ask them.
The Taliban hosted Al Qaeda & Bin Laden who did 9/11.And what is it the Taliban did to us?
It's never too late to learn how to fight terrorists and the states who sponsor them.It is too late, Peter.
We have the Bush Doctrine for future use, but it will only really be an effective doctrine if we actually have military strategies to confront and regime-change those hostile regimes who are sponsoring the terrorists who are attacking us.
It's always too soon to declare that "we dare not name certain state sponsors of terrorism as such because the generals we have in place right now don't know of any effective strategy to confront said states so let's just have peace talks."
A strong women's police force is a better counter to the Taliban for Afghan women than an liberal arts degree.The above concludes the very long OP. It's a lot to read at one sitting so I will answer questions on any part as and when you want to ask them.
The Taliban hosted Al Qaeda & Bin Laden who did 9/11.And what is it the Taliban did to us?
It's never too late to learn how to fight terrorists and the states who sponsor them.It is too late, Peter.
We have the Bush Doctrine for future use, but it will only really be an effective doctrine if we actually have military strategies to confront and regime-change those hostile regimes who are sponsoring the terrorists who are attacking us.
It's always too soon to declare that "we dare not name certain state sponsors of terrorism as such because the generals we have in place right now don't know of any effective strategy to confront said states so let's just have peace talks."
There is a much simpler way to defeat the Taliban.
Send all the women to a 4 year liberal arts university.
A strong women's police force is a better counter to the Taliban for Afghan women than an liberal arts degree.The above concludes the very long OP. It's a lot to read at one sitting so I will answer questions on any part as and when you want to ask them.
The Taliban hosted Al Qaeda & Bin Laden who did 9/11.
It's never too late to learn how to fight terrorists and the states who sponsor them.
We have the Bush Doctrine for future use, but it will only really be an effective doctrine if we actually have military strategies to confront and regime-change those hostile regimes who are sponsoring the terrorists who are attacking us.
It's always too soon to declare that "we dare not name certain state sponsors of terrorism as such because the generals we have in place right now don't know of any effective strategy to confront said states so let's just have peace talks."
There is a much simpler way to defeat the Taliban.
Send all the women to a 4 year liberal arts university.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCC1BYfQqYA]Afghan police women to defeat the Taliban. - YouTube[/ame]
AfPak Mission links
AfPak Mission channel
AfPak Mission twitter
AfPak Mission forum
AfPak Mission flickr
AfPak Mission blog
Yes, it is.A strong women's police force is a better counter to the Taliban for Afghan women than an liberal arts degree.There is a much simpler way to defeat the Taliban.
Send all the women to a 4 year liberal arts university.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCC1BYfQqYA]Afghan police women to defeat the Taliban. - YouTube[/ame]
AfPak Mission links
AfPak Mission channel
AfPak Mission twitter
AfPak Mission forum
AfPak Mission flickr
AfPak Mission blog
No it is not.
OK but sarcasm has limited utility in war.I said what I did, at least partly, in sarcasm.
Defeating the enemy in battles is much more helpful than getting defeated by the enemy but if you are pointing to the need for a winning overall strategy in this war then not only do I agree but I have already suggested such a winning overall strategy in this thread.But violent defeats in individual battles will not win this war.
That's historically just not so. Consider the generation of Germans, Italian and Japanese who don't hate us after our forces won many an individual battle in world war 2. The overall strategy was right and time has proven that to be true.It creates another generation of children who hate the victors and will listen to anyone preaching hate against us.
No actually, the Allies finished off the Nazis in world war 2 when the Soviets killed a lot of the Hitler youth, just boys, who were sent by the Nazis to defend Berlin against the Soviets when they'd run out of men to do their fighting.Educate the people, especially the women, and you create generation that will not support or tolerate the hatred. That is the only way to end it.
No, the war started when the Saudi - Pakistani - Jihadi axis terrorists attacked the USA, and did so making a show of Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan, precisely to lure our ground forces there and away from their valuable oil fields in Saudi Arabia.This mess started because of meddling in the affairs of sovereign governments. Stop meddling and actually do some good and the Taliban becomes the enemy of the population.
and keeping real estate in Asia is quite hard to do by brute force means when the enemy has a very large population to recruit from.Didn't we learning anything from Vietnam? You can't win a war without taking and keeping real estate.
This sounds like US partisan point scoring and I'm a working-across-the-aisle kind of Scot. Not my business to go there. Condi speaks for me on domestic US matters.Democrats got away with approving Bush's boots on the ground and then undermining the war as long as a republican was in office. Radical anti-war activists were running rampant during Bush's 2nd term and disappeared once a liberal democrat was elected. I guess democrats are playing to their dumbest low information base when they tell Americans that it's fine to tell the enemy the exact date US Troops will be leaving the battlefield and hope the enemy will surrender in the meantime.
Isn't anybody curious why a combat Marine was dragged to a court martial for pissing on the dead enemy
I'm overwhelmed by support says wife of the jailed Royal Marine... as 100,000 call for cut in his sentence
MPs and senior military figures among those calling for Alexander Blackman's ten year jailed sentence to be cut
His wife Claire Blackman praised the 'outstanding' backing he has received
Blackman found guilty of executing the wounded Taliban prisoner
By IAN DRURY, Daily Mail
PUBLISHED: 23:23, 8 December 2013 | UPDATED: 12:09, 9 December 2013
The wife of jailed Royal Marine Alexander Blackman last night said she was overwhelmed by support for calls for his freedom.
Claire Blackman praised the outstanding backing from more than 100,000 people, including MPs and senior military figures.
There is now huge momentum behind the campaign to urge senior judges to reduce the commandos sentence or even quash his conviction for murdering an Afghan insurgent.
The 39-year-old sergeant must serve at least ten years in prison after being found guilty last month of executing the severely wounded Taliban prisoner in Helmand in September 2011. But the severity of the punishment has sparked a massive wave of support for the first British serviceman to be convicted of murder on active service abroad since the Second World War.
Many believe Blackman should have received a more lenient sentence reflecting how the intense stress of fighting on the front line led to a moment of madness.
...
Last night a petition on a government website calling for Blackman to be freed had attracted more than 26,000 names.
Another 80,000 people had used Facebook to call for the non-commissioned officer dismissed from the elite corps in disgrace to also have his conviction overturned.
Meanwhile, a survey found that six out of ten people thought the commandos prison sentence should be halved to five years.
One in three of the 900 people questioned by pollsters Survation felt he should serve no jail time at all.
Blackmans legal team have pledged to fight for a reduced sentence at the Court Martial Appeal Court and are studying whether there are grounds to challenge the conviction itself.
Supporters have pointed to the case of Canadian soldier Captain Robert Semrau, who was kicked out of the Canadian Army but spared prison for shooting a severely wounded insurgent in 2008.
Former defence minister Sir Gerald Howarth said: The court should have paid greater attention to this mans fine record and that he had done several tours of duty in Afghanistan.
..
Left-wing MP Eric Joyce, a former soldier, said: I doubt whether the judge has the first idea of what it is like to be on the battlefield when bullets are flying around.
A 105 howitzer is a company level weapon which is of use in time critical engagements. Time enough to get the company commander's permission to use the 105 howitzer but of no use whatsoever if you are under orders to get Pentagon permission to use it every time because the target will be long gone before the Pentagon has had time to consider the matter. It makes no military sense.and artillery units have to get permission from the fat asses in the Pentagon before they can support the Troops with 105 rounds?
Well there's the tricky business of appointing the smartest, most able generals who can win the war. That's often not an easy issue for a commander in chief.It ain't a war, it's a political game that democrats have always played and the US is the loser.
Live Mint: There are no good Taliban and bad Taliban: Condoleezza Rice
by Elizabeth Roche
There are no good Taliban and bad Taliban: Condoleezza Rice
Pakistan is complicated, Iran is still a problem internationally, opines former US secretary of state
Former US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice has voiced doubts about the readiness of Taliban to join a reconciliation process.
Photo: Ramesh Pathania/Mint
As the US and the international community prepare to scale down their military involvement in Afghanistan in 2014 and the Obama administration seeks talks with the Taliban to stabilize the war-torn country, former US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice has voiced doubts about the readiness of the group to join a reconciliation process. In an interview, Rice said she was "sceptical whether the Taliban can be brought into a peace process". Rice, currently a professor of political science at Stanford University, was in New Delhi last week for the 11th Hindustan Times Leadership Summit. Edited excerpts:
This is a critical time for the US in Afghanistan in the context of the transition in 2014. How do you see US-Afghanistan and US-Pakistan relations against the backdrop of this?
The US-Afghan relations is difficult because it is a difficult set of circumstances. It's a relationship of partnership first of all. We have had to do a whole lot of hard things in Afghanistan. We had an apology from our military for innocent civilian deaths in Afghanistan. It's not like the American military would have it that way, but unfortunately it happens. We have pressed the Afghans on the drug trade, we have pressed them on corruption, sometimes the relationship can be difficult, but I think it's a long-term relationship and we will remain engaged there. I hope we will keep a military presence there. I think that would help. But we are in this relationship for the long term. We are not going to leave like we did after the Soviet Union was defeated there (in 1989), leaving then the kind of chaos that led to the Taliban and ultimately the Al Qaeda setting up home base there. With Pakistan again, it's not easy. It takes patience on our part just as it takes patience on the part of India.
If you were secretary of state, would you have thought of opening a line of communication with the Taliban given what happened on 9/11?
I guess you have to think about it and I am not on the inside, and I am always careful because I know that you don't always know all of the factors (involved). I think you have to be extremely careful. I don't think there are good Taliban and bad Taliban. I don't think there are Taliban who are in favour of the stability of Afghanistan. And so I am sceptical whether the Taliban can be brought into a peace process. Eventually there will have to be reconciliation of the Afghan people and I don't doubt there are some who were Afghan people who fought on the wrong side. Everybody has to have reconciliation at some point. But people have to be ready for reconciliation and I don't know the degree to which the Taliban is ready for reconciliation.
There was this recent agreement between the international community and Iran on its controversial nuclear programme. What are the opportunities that this deal throws up for the US in Afghanistan for example?
Well I don't know if it would open up opportunities in the geo-strategic issues. It seems sometimes to me that the Iranian government is in two minds - it wants to have a nuclear deal and it wants to have better relations with the United States, and it wants to reshape the Middle East in ways that are antithetical to our interests and I don't see that changing, frankly, in the short term. Now it may be on Afghanistan because to a certain extent terrorism in Afghanistan is a problem for the Iranians; there would be some small opening there. But I would not generalize from what happens in the nuclear deal to a stronger, better relationship with the Iranians. I think that takes work on other kinds of issues like Iran's interference in the Persian Gulf.
So Pakistan will still have primacy in any Afghan calculations?
Pakistan has to be part of the calculations. Instability in Pakistan is a problem for Afghanistan and instability in Afghanistan is a problem for Pakistan. So those two are forever linked in that way. And I do hope that the Pakistanis will recognize that the Taliban in Pakistan is a real problem for Pakistan, not just for Afghanistan. As long as you have extremism in Pakistan, Pakistan will be a large part of the equation. You will have to pay a lot of attention to it.
Read more in Rice for President Yahoo Group, message 2278
The White House said:Ambassador Rice's trip to Afghanistan
On her first foreign trip as National Security Advisor, Ambassador Susan Rice spent three and a half days in Afghanistan to thank our troops and civilians around the holidays, and assess the situation on the ground.
Stars and Stripes: In Pakistan, Hagel links protecting supply routes with continued aid
By Chris Carroll
Stars and Stripes
Published: December 9, 2013
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel arrived here Monday for talks with top Pakistani officials that touched on thorny issues, including differing views on how to fight terrorism and problems the United States has faced moving military shipments over Pakistani land routes.
...
Hagel told Pakistani officials that keeping open the supply lines known as ground lines of communication may be key to continued U.S. military aid to Pakistan.
Officials said it was not meant as a threat, but acknowledgement of the fact that continued supply route problems could make it politically difficult in Washington to continue supplying coalition support funds to support Pakistans operations against extremists. The payments total some $10 billion since 2001, officials said.
