What's new

Nato troops get ‘nappy rash’Face the pain of blocked diapers

waraich66

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
-2
Country
Canada
Location
Canada
Nato troops get ‘nappy rash’Face the pain of blocked diapers:woot:


Ansar Abbasi
Friday, January 06, 2012


122


ISLAMABAD: Technologically well equipped and facility-wise pampered, the US-led Nato forces, which are already eating dust in Afghanistan at the hands of Taliban, are finding it impossible to fight as they don’t have “diapers to wear”.

A diplomatic source said that the Nato supply line cut by Pakistan has hurt the US-led Nato forces in many ways, including the severe shortage of diapers for the US-Nato soldiers.

Spokesman for the US Embassy in Islamabad when contacted referred this correspondent to the Isaf spokesman in Afghanistan, arguing that he is neither a soldier nor does know that the US Marines and Nato soldiers wear diapers while fighting their war against Taliban inside Afghanistan.

The Isaf spokesman Col Gary Kolb was also sent a question but no response came from his side till the filing of this report.

Col Gary was asked if it is a fact that the scarcity of goods faced by the US and Nato forces in Afghanistan (because of supply line cut by Pakistan) has caused severe shortage of diapers used by US troops in Afghanistan while fighting the Taliban fighters.

Although, the Isaf spokesman did not come up with his response, a Google search on the matter revealed that the diaper shortage crisis faced by the US-led Nato forces in Afghanistan was first reported by an Urdu daily early last month. In addition, a lot of discussion in different blogs is going on over the shortage of diapers, tissues and chicken in Afghanistan.

According to the newspaper report of last month, the US authorities had contacted the Pakistani authorities early last month for immediate provision of diapers.

The newspaper report had claimed that the report of the shortage of diapers first appeared in the US media but officially the report was never confirmed by the US administration or the Central Nato Command. It is said that during military operations and while fighting the Taliban inside Afghanistan, the US soldiers wear diapers to fight their enemies without unduly risking their lives.

According to one analyst, the well protected US-Nato forces riding armoured personnel carriers and other army vehicles, do not dare to get outside their vehicles to ease them for fear of attacks by the Taliban.

Despite their extreme technological superiority as well as huge number (more than 150,000 US-led Isaf-Nato forces) of deployment in Afghanistan over the Taliban fighters, the Americans have almost lost their war against a much smaller number of Taliban.

It was the shame of defeat to the US-led forces inside Afghanistan that Washington has now aggressively started pursuing a peace deal with Mulla Muhammad Omar, the Taliban leader and former head of Afghanistan.

Of late, it was no less than Vice President of the US Joe Biden, who surprised the whole world by stating that Taliban were not enemies of the United States.
 
funny how you guys seem to think they are weak but cant stop the drone attacks by them on your country.:)

Funny- but in context- stopping the drone attacks will not make the rash go away- :blink:
the strategy needs a serious re-think- on both sides- ;)
 
Nato troops get ‘nappy rash’Face the pain of blocked diapers:woot:


Ansar Abbasi
Friday, January 06, 2012


122


ISLAMABAD: Technologically well equipped and facility-wise pampered, the US-led Nato forces, which are already eating dust in Afghanistan at the hands of Taliban, are finding it impossible to fight as they don’t have “diapers to wear”.

A diplomatic source said that the Nato supply line cut by Pakistan has hurt the US-led Nato forces in many ways, including the severe shortage of diapers for the US-Nato soldiers.

Spokesman for the US Embassy in Islamabad when contacted referred this correspondent to the Isaf spokesman in Afghanistan, arguing that he is neither a soldier nor does know that the US Marines and Nato soldiers wear diapers while fighting their war against Taliban inside Afghanistan.

The Isaf spokesman Col Gary Kolb was also sent a question but no response came from his side till the filing of this report.

Col Gary was asked if it is a fact that the scarcity of goods faced by the US and Nato forces in Afghanistan (because of supply line cut by Pakistan) has caused severe shortage of diapers used by US troops in Afghanistan while fighting the Taliban fighters.

Although, the Isaf spokesman did not come up with his response, a Google search on the matter revealed that the diaper shortage crisis faced by the US-led Nato forces in Afghanistan was first reported by an Urdu daily early last month. In addition, a lot of discussion in different blogs is going on over the shortage of diapers, tissues and chicken in Afghanistan.

According to the newspaper report of last month, the US authorities had contacted the Pakistani authorities early last month for immediate provision of diapers.

The newspaper report had claimed that the report of the shortage of diapers first appeared in the US media but officially the report was never confirmed by the US administration or the Central Nato Command. It is said that during military operations and while fighting the Taliban inside Afghanistan, the US soldiers wear diapers to fight their enemies without unduly risking their lives.

According to one analyst, the well protected US-Nato forces riding armoured personnel carriers and other army vehicles, do not dare to get outside their vehicles to ease them for fear of attacks by the Taliban.

Despite their extreme technological superiority as well as huge number (more than 150,000 US-led Isaf-Nato forces) of deployment in Afghanistan over the Taliban fighters, the Americans have almost lost their war against a much smaller number of Taliban.

It was the shame of defeat to the US-led forces inside Afghanistan that Washington has now aggressively started pursuing a peace deal with Mulla Muhammad Omar, the Taliban leader and former head of Afghanistan.

Of late, it was no less than Vice President of the US Joe Biden, who surprised the whole world by stating that Taliban were not enemies of the United States.

Lemme make it pretty clear at the very onset of this thread that Americans are seemingly 'eating dust', assuming that they are, for they didn't go ahead and nuke Afghanistan. Pakistanis should also be thankful for the fallout wouldn't have spared Pakistan either.

The world should be thankful to America that 3000 people died and yet they didn't nuke the region.
 
Lemme make it pretty clear at the very onset of this thread that Americans are seemingly 'eating dust', assuming that they are, for they didn't go ahead and nuke Afghanistan. Pakistanis should also be thankful for the fallout wouldn't have spared Pakistan either.

The world should be thankful to America that 3000 people died and yet they didn't nuke the region.

Thats the boy- with slave/ humble/ appologetic attitude like this- you will not have any problem with the shuper powaaa for centuries-
 
Thats the boy- with slave/ humble/ appologetic attitude like this- you will not have any problem with the shuper powaaa for centuries-

Okay.. here's the flipside. What could you or any other country from the 'ummah' have done if they had launched even conventional Ballistic missiles? They have enough to flatten entire Afghanistan region easily and with FAE warheads, they really don't need nukes.

With a short-tempered President like Bush or even what Reagan was, what could you have done anything about a missile rain in that region?

Answer: Nothing.

What would China or Russia or France or UK do?

Answer: Nothing.

Why?

Answer: It is not their conflict, not their loss, no use of nukes so no threat to them.

_________________period___________________

Now coming back to the 'no problem' part you mentioned, we got this formula and it is radically opposite from yours. It is simple:

Don't bother anyone and don't get bothered by anyone.

Somehow you guys really don't consider it reasonable enough to even try.
 
Okay.. here's the flipside. What could you or any other country from the 'ummah' have done if they had launched even conventional Ballistic missiles? They have enough to flatten entire Afghanistan region easily and with FAE warheads, they really don't need nukes.

With a short-tempered President like Bush or even what Reagan was, what could you have done anything about a missile rain in that region?

Answer: Nothing.

What would China or Russia or France or UK do?

Answer: Nothing.

Why?

Answer: It is not their conflict, not their loss, no use of nukes so no threat to them.

_________________period___________________

Now coming back to the 'no problem' part you mentioned, we got this formula and it is radically opposite from yours. It is simple:

Don't bother anyone and don't get bothered by anyone.

Somehow you guys really don't consider it reasonable enough to even try.
You're so funny.
 
Okay.. here's the flipside. What could you or any other country from the 'ummah' have done if they had launched even conventional Ballistic missiles? They have enough to flatten entire Afghanistan region easily and with FAE warheads, they really don't need nukes.

With a short-tempered President like Bush or even what Reagan was, what could you have done anything about a missile rain in that region?

Answer: Nothing.

What would China or Russia or France or UK do?

Answer: Nothing.

Why?

Answer: It is not their conflict, not their loss, no use of nukes so no threat to them.
anther proof of
Thats the boy- with slave/ humble/ appologetic attitude like this- you will not have any problem with the shuper powaaa for centuries-
 
Okay.. here's the flipside. What could you or any other country from the 'ummah' have done if they had launched even conventional Ballistic missiles? They have enough to flatten entire Afghanistan region easily and with FAE warheads, they really don't need nukes.

Thanks for once against reminding us mate.
The Americans do have the power to kill most of the world without taking any damage.
But.... they wont, they can't, the implications are far worse for them....

I hate to break to you folks... this isn't some game where by country A nukes country B and country A lives happily ever after.

With a short-tempered President like Bush or even what Reagan was, what could you have done anything about a missile rain in that region?

Bush was a nut, but even he knew the basics of 'doggy can do' and 'doggy cannot'.

Answer: Nothing.

no we can only sit back and watch as the US with it's blood thirsty vengeance turns majority of the world against it and also alienates the rest of the world.

What would China or Russia or France or UK do?

Answer: Nothing.

Nopes... nothing.
No-one would do anything, a response doesn't need to be seen in order to happen.
Even if there's is no action by govts of the international community, such an effect would have quite an effect on the common man.

Why?

Answer: It is not their conflict, not their loss, no use of nukes so no threat to them.

wow.

You know what? Yourself and Captain Jack Sparrow, should go and start off a conspiracy theory somewhere.
Perhaps set up some sort of a blog.

_________________period___________________

Somehow you guys really don't consider it reasonable enough to even try.

Please do us all a favor mate.
keep such suggestions and tall tales where they belong... on youtube.

absurd for the guy to even bring up the topic, I don't see how you thought it would be wise to defend him.
 
Please provide nappies
bebe2.gif
 
Lemme make it pretty clear at the very onset of this thread that Americans are seemingly 'eating dust', assuming that they are, for they didn't go ahead and nuke Afghanistan. Pakistanis should also be thankful for the fallout wouldn't have spared Pakistan either.

The world should be thankful to America that 3000 people died and yet they didn't nuke the region.
Then you say that we are extremists.BTW the if US nukes Afghanistan then a whole bucket of Human Rights **** will be falling on it.
 
Back
Top Bottom