Nato puzzled by Afghan army’s demands for tanks

[Hyperion]

Yara, sorry to bust your bubble. The US was not there for "Al-Kaida" "Taliban" etc etc. I'm sorry if you still believe the same. The West had certain containment roles to play, which they played brilliantly. The only thing you're going to see after they depart is their AirBases, for their own god damn personal use and leisure (FOREVER).

The story was something else, and you got all excited with the teaser.

Not only US but the world needs us more than we needs them, there would be some deal in near future or else we will be getting American weaponry! the aim is to start decreasing military aid from 2017 onwards and by filling the gap with mining sector income.

What I have noticed on this forum is, that NO one thinks out of the box. I had such high hopes for you, however, you always get stuck between semantics!

@Hyperion - What is this ?

 

[KingMamba]

It is imperative for ISAF to build a security infrastructure (with proper checks and balances) and to have command on its age old ally pakistan to abstain from weaponizing taliban as it has done in the past. As far as overrunning, the last time around it wasn't any military brilliance of taliban that took kabul but sheer numbers and pakistani military advisors embedded in them which led to a tactical retreat of Ahmed Shah Massoud's NA to panjshir valley. And do remember neither the soviets nor the pak backed taliban could ever win in Panshir. The regimental authority and tacticians come from the same camp of Ahmed Shah Massoud and Gen Fahim.

Ahmad Shah Massoud had better weapons and at that time most Afghans welcomed Taliban which is why there were able to overrun most of Afghanistan, do not forget before Ahmad Shah Massoud became leader of NA he was just another warlord trying to claim Kabul for himself and the soviets left many weapons in their hasty retreat which included tanks/ fighters. If the corrupt government in Kabul is not dealt with the support base for the Taliban may return, they still have a firm presence in both the south and east where people still sympathize with them which is why now negotiations are ongoing to have the Taliban become a political party of some sort. The honest truth is the US does not really care who is in charge as long as we get three things-

1. Pro-US government
2. Anti-Al qaeda government
3. Control on where those pipes are minerals are headed and some share of the pot.

We had no problems negotiating with the Taliban in the past before 9/11 and had it not have been for their horrible human rights abuses and the media backlash that came with it we may have recognized them as rulers.

 

[Hyperion]

We call it cost of buying our silence, nothing more, nothing less.

Facts are hard to digest, PA has taken more aid from USA to fight insurgents than ANA!

 

[Armstrong]

What I have noticed on this forum is, that NO one thinks out of the box. I had such high hopes for you, however, you always get stuck between semantics!

Don't I know what you're talking about but whats the point of mentioning that if theres nothing I can bring to substantiate that except what I know due to certain conversations !

 

[Hyperion]

Same here. I'm out to troll today!

Missing Razi

Don't I know what you're talking about but whats the point of mentioning that if theres nothing I can bring to substantiate that except what I know due to certain conversations !

 

[Armstrong]

Facts are hard to digest, PA has taken more aid from USA to fight insurgents than ANA!

Oh come on what more aid ?

Half of it was for services by the Pakistan Military to the US & ISAF forces there; everything from hauling their blasted equipment to Afghanistan to providing pampers for their GI Joes !

Had the Government of Pakistan had any sense any reasonable tariff imposed by Pakistan for the usage of our ports, our airspace & our land routes would easily off-set any of that so-called aid !

 

[KingMamba]

Same here. I'm out to troll today!

Missing Razi

Indians got him banned again.

 

[MilSpec]

Ahmad Shah Massoud had better weapons and at that time most Afghans welcomed Taliban which is why there were able to overrun most of Afghanistan, do not forget before Ahmad Shah Massoud became leader of NA he was just another warlord trying to claim Kabul for himself and the soviets left many weapons in their hasty retreat which included tanks/ fighters. If the corrupt government in Kabul is not dealt with the support base for the Taliban may return, they still have a firm presence in both the south and east where people still sympathize with them which is why now negotiations are ongoing to have the Taliban become a political party of some sort. The honest truth is the US does not really care who is in charge as long as we get three things-

1. Pro-US government
2. Anti-Al qaeda government
3. Control on where those pipes are minerals are headed and some share of the pot.

We had no problems negotiating with the Taliban in the past before 9/11 and had it not have been for their horrible human rights abuses and the media backlash that came with it we may have recognized them as rulers.

Sir,
I am not sure if you are aware of Ahmed Shah Massoud and his activities.. Please do check facts....Massoud was the defence minister, commander, leader and a true afghan Patriot. If he was just another warlord like hekmetyaar and co, i am sure he would have sold off to ISI and niether would ISI/AQ/Taliban been plotting his death.
As far as weapons grade are concerned, I am sure he didn't have them better than the soviets let alone the ones supplied by pakistan.

I dont think there is a need to maligh the great man,

1> Pro-development, democratic, peaceful government is the needed in afghanistan.
2>Taliban control will need further assistance from ISAF
3>As far as share of the pot is concerned, don't degrade yourself on an international platform as war profiteers, I am sure america can do just fine on the unparalleled immense resources both natural and human that it possesses.

 

[baajey]

pakistan got F-16 on they name of india loaded with amraams sniper pods CFTs and were was insurgency at the time we but total 111 f-16 ?

well...my bad....we indians are a misinformed lot .....

 

[KingMamba]

Sir,
I am not sure if you are aware of Ahmed Shah Massoud and his activities.. Please do check facts....Massoud was the defence minister, commander, leader and a true afghan Patriot. If he was just another warlord like hekmetyaar and co, i am sure he would have sold off to ISI and niether would ISI/AQ/Taliban been plotting his death.
As far as weapons grade are concerned, I am sure he didn't have them better than the soviets let alone the ones supplied by pakistan.

I dont think there is a need to maligh the great man,

1> Pro-development, democratic, peaceful government is the needed in afghanistan.
2>Taliban control will need further assistance from ISAF
3>As far as share of the pot is concerned, don't degrade yourself on an international platform as war profiteers, I am sure america can do just fine on the unparalleled immense resources both natural and human that it possesses.

Please watch this for some insight as to why I said what I did, before Taliban was created Ahmad Shah Massoud was one of the major warlords fighting for power.

Inside The Taliban [National Geographic] - YouTube

Do not be a fool, there is not a war we have engaged in that did not profit us. I was just being honest.

WW2- We became inheritors of the debt of nearly all major European powers which ended their global reach.
Vietnam- We wanted to stop the commies but we failed but we had our interests in mind.
Gulf war- Remove Saddam from Kuwait and gain favor in the middle east which allowed us to set up permanent bases in many parts of that region. Also the Saudis became very pro west and helped us with oil.
Invasion of Iraq 2003- Well everyone knows the wmd were bs reason, real reason was to take control of Iraqi oil fields which we still make profit off of and to remove Saddam permanently as he was a mad man. Permanent base in Iraq today as well.
Afghanistan 2001- Initial reason was revenge for 9/11 but we also wanted a place in Central Asia so we can spread our influence into the Stan countries who have developing resources in gas and the Afghanistan mineral wealth can be beneficial to both our countries.

So it is not belittling anything, it is simple geopolitics. Afghanistan presents us with a strategic position and we are going to help them build a prosperous nation in exchange for them allowing us to take advantage of that position. Trade off, investment, war profiteering call it whatever you want.

 

[Hyperion]

Yara, you speak Yankee so well. Mera Salam tujhey!

Please watch this for some insight as to why I said what I did, before Taliban was created Ahmad Shah Massoud was one of the major warlords fighting for power.

Inside The Taliban [National Geographic] - YouTube

Do not be a fool, there is not a war we have engaged in that did not profit us. I was just being honest.

WW2- We became inheritors of the debt of nearly all major European powers which ended their global reach.
Vietnam- We wanted to stop the commies but we failed but we had our interests in mind.
Gulf war- Remove Saddam from Kuwait and gain favor in the middle east which allowed us to set up permanent bases in many parts of that region. Also the Saudis became very pro west and helped us with oil.
Invasion of Iraq 2003- Well everyone knows the wmd were bs reason, real reason was to take control of Iraqi oil fields which we still make profit off of and to remove Saddam permanently as he was a mad man. Permanent base in Iraq today as well.
Afghanistan 2001- Initial reason was revenge for 9/11 but we also wanted a place in Central Asia so we can spread our influence into the Stan countries who have developing resources in gas and the Afghanistan mineral wealth can be beneficial to both our countries.

So it is not belittling anything, it is simple geopolitics. Afghanistan presents us with a strategic position and we are going to help them build a prosperous nation in exchange for them allowing us to take advantage of that position. Trade off, investment, war profiteering call it whatever you want.

 

[KingMamba]

Yara, you speak Yankee so well. Mera Salam tujhey!

Well I am a Yankee.

 

[MilSpec]

Please watch this for some insight as to why I said what I did, before Taliban was created Ahmad Shah Massoud was one of the major warlords fighting for power.

If that is your insight on Massoud, then a lot is left desired.

Do not be a fool, there is not a war we have engaged in that did not profit us. I was just being honest.

WW2- We became inheritors of the debt of nearly all major European powers which ended their global reach.
Vietnam- We wanted to stop the commies but we failed but we had our interests in mind.
Gulf war- Remove Saddam from Kuwait and gain favor in the middle east which allowed us to set up permanent bases in many parts of that region. Also the Saudis became very pro west and helped us with oil.
Invasion of Iraq 2003- Well everyone knows the wmd were bs reason, real reason was to take control of Iraqi oil fields which we still make profit off of and to remove Saddam permanently as he was a mad man. Permanent base in Iraq today as well.
Afghanistan 2001- Initial reason was revenge for 9/11 but we also wanted a place in Central Asia so we can spread our influence into the Stan countries who have developing resources in gas and the Afghanistan mineral wealth can be beneficial to both our countries.

So it is not belittling anything, it is simple geopolitics. Afghanistan presents us with a strategic position and we are going to help them build a prosperous nation in exchange for them allowing us to take advantage of that position. Trade off, investment, war profiteering call it whatever you want.

I live in US and I take extreme offense to what you are saying. There is no need to belittle american foreign policy which was aimed at decimating the taliban. As far as rest central asia is concerned, then the entire evacuation from afghanistan goes against your rhetoric. I hope @CENTCOM might have view on this.

 

[KingMamba]

If that is your insight on Massoud, then a lot is left desired.



I live in US and I take extreme offense to what you are saying. There is no need to belittle american foreign policy which was aimed at decimating the taliban. As far as rest central europe is concerned, then the entire evacuation from afghanistan goes against your rhetoric. I hope @CENTCOM might have view on this.

Central Europe.....

Sir I have been here my whole life and plenty of people agree with me, I am majoring in political science nobody takes offense to such talks it is geopolitics nothing else. If what I have written on an online forum gives you extreme offense you probably should not be posting on such a forum to begin with.

 

[MilSpec]

Central Europe.....

Sir I have been here my whole life and plenty of people agree with me, I am majoring in political science nobody takes offense to such talks it is geopolitics nothing else. If what I have written on an online forum gives you extreme offense you probably should not be posting on such a forum to begin with.

Typo: Asia.. fixed