Pakistan just initiated a several month in the making plan to crack down on Al Qaeda. They launched aprox. 30,000 troops in a region controlled by Al Qaeda, including a large stronghold thought to be a possible Osama Bin Ladin hideout. The operation is going to last aprox. 2 months.
What do you guys think?
I personally think this is long over due. Now we won;t have to fight another country's war by ourselves.
I personally think this is long over due. Now we won;t have to fight another country's war by ourselves.
I think it's funny how, when the Sri Lankan government was initiating a military offensive against its insurgents, at the loss of thousands of civilian lives, the US and the UK condemned them. When the Pakistani government does the same thing, the US and the UK wholeheartedly supports them.
As for the operation itself, I am not sure if it will be a success. It's the most heavily mined region on the planet, with the most insurgents. They have had months to prepare. Even if the Pakistanis are victorious, they will pay a hefty price.
This seems to happen every year for Pakistan. Insurgents invade, hit hard, media talks like Pakistan is going to collapse, Pakistan starts offensive and wins.
Honestly, this is just a repeating occurence. Militia hit the Punjab, then Pakistan sents out a huge battalion of tanks, tons of infratry, and just enoguh supplies. Then the Militia run off, and they wait for the Pakistani military to come. The Militia let loose, and they ambush and basically massacare the Pakistani Military, or they hide well enough that only a few standups are left. Honestly it is a waste of time. And Al Qeuida is really a dead orgnization. Im not a USA hater, but I dont particulary like it either. But honestly, all these terroist attacks that hit your nation, you guys sort of had it coming. Your nation shouldnt meddle the affairs of other nations. That is just arrogant.
Sorry for bringing back the thread, i could not help myself.
I think it's funny how, when the Sri Lankan government was initiating a military offensive against its insurgents, at the loss of thousands of civilian lives, the US and the UK condemned them. When the Pakistani government does the same thing, the US and the UK wholeheartedly supports them.
We don't have an infinite amount of troops. we barely have enough o deal with the Middle East, and since more people are dieing in the Middle East and the terrorist organizations are bigger threats, that is where we have to concentrate our force.
I think you mean the taliban?
Um, no.
It is very very very hard to uproot entierly a terrorist organisation. The U.S. coudn't do it.
That is because Bush (I think over all he did the right thing invading) was the worst war strategist i have ever seen. His Generals sucked at planning, he sucked. He just went in there with the typical "charge" type of attack, and it did not work out with the militants using the terrain they knew to hide and attack without being seen.
That is because Bush (I think over all he did the right thing invading) was the worst war strategist i have ever seen. His Generals sucked at planning, he sucked. He just went in there with the typical "charge" type of attack, and it did not work out with the militants using the terrain they knew to hide and attack without being seen.
To add on that, occupying a country takes millions of troops. Bush thought that the initial invasion force of 200,000 or so could invade, conquer, and occupy Iraq. When Nazi Germany fell, there were a combined 10 million Allied troops stationed in Germany to control the population. We still have troops stationed there to this day. You can only win the hearts and minds of so many people before forcing them to obey.
That is because Bush (I think over all he did the right thing invading) was the worst war strategist i have ever seen. His Generals sucked at planning, he sucked. He just went in there with the typical "charge" type of attack, and it did not work out with the militants using the terrain they knew to hide and attack without being seen. Are you serious, it was the fastest takes of a capital in history, and brought one of the biggest war criminals of our time Saddam Hussein. Also, let me ask you, who do you think can stratagies against terrosit the best. If anything if we were to beat terroist, would have to lift many of the rules of the geneva convention.
We don't have an infinite amount of troops. we barely have enough o deal with the Middle East, and since more people are dieing in the Middle East and the terrorist organizations are bigger threats, that is where we have to concentrate our force.
You misinterpreted my point. In fact you pretty much proved it right. The only reason the US and UK support is cynicism - they know this offensive will help achieve their goals in the region. If it didn't, the massive amount of civialians dying and fleeing the area would be a human rights issue we would be condemning.
Um, no.
Um, yes. Although they are supported by them, the vast, vast majority of insurgents in the region are Taliban. Al Qaeda are a terrorist organisation. They don't specialise in warfighting, but kidnapping and bombing.
Now, just so you guys have a fact to the matter. Back in the Cold war, when the Soviet Union was invading Afghanistan, a group called the Maj Aden Freedom Fighters fought against them. A large majority of the group were actuaqlly children. And who did these children grow up to be? They turned into the Taliban. Even with the most high end equipment, best supplies, and good amount of troops, the USA won't be able to beat these cutthroats. They know their land too well, and they have fought and been beaten their entire lives. They don't care for anything but to kill whoever goes in afghanistan.
Not to mention, it was the AMERICANS That put the Taliban in power. In the 1980's, when Russia and the USa had their feud over Afghanistan, USA put the Taliban in power, a Muslim Insurgent group, over the Marxist groups the Soviets supported. Now the Taliban are still in power, thanks to the USA.
So it is your war, but you could've prevented it. But whatever the case, it is a futile attempt. Afghanistan will always be at war, and Cutthroats HAVE to rule the region. Democracy deos not work in all cases. Afghanistan is on the road of armies, and has been for thousands of years. They border so many nations, and have so many feuding tribes, they will always fight. I could again, as I've done before, give a long list of attackers. But that is my response.
In the 1980's, when Russia and the USa had their feud over Afghanistan, USA put the Taliban in power, a Muslim Insurgent group, over the Marxist groups the Soviets supported. Now the Taliban are still in power, thanks to the USA.
The USA put the Muhajadeen in power, not the Taliban. There was a civil war within Afghanistan between the warlords who made up the Muhajadeen and the Taliban, which the Taliban won, so no the US didn't install the Taliban.
you could've prevented it.
Now there I agree. If the US had invested in infrastructure after the war to help the Afghans develop, there needn't have been a civil war in the first place.
