Thread: Failure Is Not An Option

^ Bet there'll be a run on white flags in France this year.

Yes, in Afghanistan there is a real coalition of the willing.

Is that because it's softer, and perhaps "winnable"? An easier, more clearly defined objective? Far smaller demand on resources? Not as politically charged?

Rhetorical of course, just thinking out loud.

^ I don't think I'd call it softer Tx, but In the Taliban & Al Qaeda parts of Afghanistan you have a clearly defined ruthless enemy that actually is attacking us and poses an ongoing threat, plus finances itself by flooding the world with heroin.

Al Qaeda must be ground into dust, nothing less- destroyed as an organisation. The Taliban are a bit more tricky. Probably some sort of awkward accomodation will be reached with them longer term, when it becomes clear to them that a united West will not tolerate them and will not relent.

Military adventurism like Iraq excepted, the West is still on the same side.

Al Qaeda and Taliban are in Iraq too. Whether they came to engage or were there already, it's still the same scourge. And it might be easier to fight them in Iraq than in Afghanistan, dunno.

From Asia Times Online:

"A key to the Taliban's revival has been the links it has forged with the resistance in Iraq, which has provided hundreds of Taliban with hands-on training in that country, as well as logistical and tactical support.

One such support device is a compact disc released by the Jaishul Islam al-Iraq (Islamic Army of Iraq) that shows how urban guerrilla warfare is being conducted in Iraq and how this can be adapted to the resistance in Afghanistan. The CD a copy of which has been obtained by Asia Times Online, is widely circulated among the rank and file of the Taliban.

The Jaishul Islam al-Iraq is an indigenous group commanded by many former top Iraqi generals and independent Islamists, and the CD therefore shows the very refined quality of their attacks. The group fully coordinates its activities with other groups, such as Ansarul Sunna, and it also has good ties with al-Qaeda."

Asia Times Online :: South Asia news, business and economy from India and Pakistan

The terrorist group named "Al Qaeda" doesn't exist, it's a term created by the DoJ during the Clinton Administration to "trial" without their presence those who did the first attack on WTC,

It's actually a web of smaller groups who share the same agenda, that is liberating the muslim worlds of their corrupt dictators to create immaculate islamic states.

The real danger are those Talibans, who incidently were invited to Texas by GW Bush, and "worshipped" by Americans as respectable men of Gods. Who said ignorance wasn't dangerous.

Sarko is doing the right thing, and this is the only battleground with a noble cause and a mandate from the UN.

Yes, Al Qaeda is a loose cell type organisation, deliberately so, to limit the damage caused by infiltration. Why do you say it doesn't exist BF? Osama certainly believes it does. It is a network organisation rather than a linear organisation, the disparate elements united by a common enemy (The West), a radical theology and their spiritual leadership, being Osama and a few other figureheads.

^^Ah, the knights in shining armor have arrived. Thank goodness. Better late than never, eh?

this is the only battleground with a noble cause

Is it the place or the fight thats noble? If Taliban sprouted up in Lyon or Bordeaux would that be a noble battlefield? It's ok to fight Taliban in Afghanistan but not in Iraq?

^ surely, you can't be that thick or clueless Texpat, try to think a bit harder, and you will see the light

Originally Posted by sabang

Why do you say it doesn't exist BF?

The name was invented by the DoJ, for the lack of a better term. So actually it became a "brand", all created by the Americans (marketing genius), and now Osama and all the small shitty terrorist groups are too happy to use that name and be associated with such an illustrous "brand".

It's all about advertising, on both sides.

^^ Taliban/AQ are only in Iraq because of an opportunist alliance of convenience, caused by a common enemy. The home of the Taliban is SW ghan, and probably the border regions of pakistan. Thats where they will be defeated. If and when Iraq returns to some semblance of normality, AQ and Taliban will evaporate from Iraq.

It seems that the various elements of the Iraqi resistance are being typecast into the radical islam mold in terms of popular opinion. This is not the case at all.

Originally Posted by Texpat

Whether they came to engage or were there already, it's still the same scourge.

the war in afghanistan has popular support because their country was being run by the taliban and AQ....you know, the people who actually had something to do with the attacks on september 11th.

iraq had nothing to do with september 11th.

it was an ill conceived invasion and it was incompetently managed.

Gotta love this new French King - from his taste in women to his foreign policy.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Heh...France led by a guy with balls for a change is going to be increasing their troop levels in Afghanistan...double heh

Boon-Mee-in-not-reading-his-own-quoted-source-non-shock.

Here are some of the relevant extracts:

KABUL, Dec 22 (Reuters) - French President Nicolas Sarkozy said France could boost its presence in Afghanistan...

... He said the French troops, currently 1,900, would help the Afghan army, police, administration and judiciary. Sarkozy said a decision on troop numbers was due in the next few weeks...

... Sarkozy held talks with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and the two leaders said Afghanistan's poor security and opium production were its major challenges, the Afghan presidential palace said in a statement.

It is Sarkozy's first trip to Afghanistan since he became president in May and coincides with an increase in violence in the country over the past two years, the bloodiest period since the Taliban's overthrow...

So basically we have a politician making, quelle surprise, comments to the effect troop levels may be increased. Not that they will, just that they may be.

And where in any of that does it say that even if they are they will be doubled!? Some people are just easily pleased I guess. Or desperate.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Sarko is doing the right thing, and this is the only battleground with a noble cause and a mandate from the UN.

Got that right.
But...there ain't no denyin' there was an Axis of Evil when Saddam was around & the NK's had their nuclear weapons program going full speed. Iran...we'll have to see but they can't be trusted either.

Interesting, appears I was bang on the money. Booners 'considered' response:

Failure Is Not An Option23-12-2007 06:15 PMBoon MeeBOHICA & a Merry Christmas!

I'll take that as a tacit admission you simply made up the facts to suit yourself in the OP then. Thanks.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Interesting, appears I was bang on the money. Booners 'considered' response:

Failure Is Not An Option23-12-2007 06:15 PMBoon MeeBOHICA & a Merry Christmas!

I'll take that as a tacit admission you simply made up the facts to suit yourself in the OP then. Thanks.

Wrong again but what's new, eh?

^ So please show me exactly where in that article you posted the link to that it states anything even remotely close to:

"France led by a guy with balls for a change is going to be increasing their troop levels in Afghanistan...double heh"

^
Hey!
We'll get to a century in no time at this rate!
Go change a nappie or two (or another Bong Hit) and re-read the article where Sarko says a decision on the new numbers of troops is due in a matter of weeks. The implicit intent is to increase the troop levels.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

re-read the article

I've read the article. Have you?

where Sarko says a decision on the new numbers of troops is due in a matter of weeks

Oh so the decision is due. Nothing has yet been decided, very different from what you claimed in the OP: "France is going to be increasing their troop levels in Afghanistan".

You were in fact quite specific about it:

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

double heh

So I ask again, did you read the article? And if you did why have you deliberately misrepresented what it actually states?

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

But...there ain't no denyin' there was an Axis of Evil when Saddam was around

Sorry, axis of what...? Is this the 'new' domino theorem or someit?

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Interesting, appears I was bang on the money. Booners 'considered' response:

Lil' one, let me explain it to you: repo comments is personal feedback which is not part of the on-topic discussion, and, hey, there is a thread in the teak-lounge to comment on the repos.

Originally Posted by stroller

Lil' one, let me explain it to you: repo comments is personal feedback which is not part of the on-topic discussion, and, hey, there is a thread in the teak-lounge to comment on the repos.

When I want your opinion I'll give it to you, boy.

So, Stroll, are you able to post here now unabatedly without some weird software glitch?

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

^ So please show me exactly where in that article you posted the link to that it states anything even remotely close to: "France led by a guy with balls for a change is going to be increasing their troop levels in Afghanistan...double heh"

booner?

heh

or should that be double heh?

^
Heh...got all the players on this thread now...should turn out to be a double-century eh ray?