Heavy US losses in Afghan battle

[Loki]

Heavy US losses in Afghan battle (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8289200.stm)

Eight American soldiers and two Afghan troops have been killed in the deadliest attack on coalition troops for more than a year, officials say.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46491000/gif/_46491551_afghan_nuristan_oct09.gif

The battle happened in Nuristan province in the remote east of the country when military outposts were attacked, a Nato statement said.

The Taliban said it carried out the attack, and had captured local police.
Violence has escalated in eastern Afghanistan as insurgents have relocated from the south.

In a statement, Nato's International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) said that tribal militia launched attacks on foreign and Afghan military outposts from a mosque and a nearby village.

The attack is thought to have taken place in the Kamdesh district of Nuristan, and lasted several hours.

"Coalition forces effectively repelled the attack and inflicted heavy enemy casualties while eight Isaf and two ANSF [Afghan National Security Forces] members were killed," the statement said.

The US area commander, Col Randy George, said his heart went out to the bereaved families, adding that US and Afghan soldiers had "fought bravely together".

It was the worst loss coalition troops have suffered since August 2008, when 10 French troops were killed in an ambush in Kabul province.

A Taliban spokesman, Zabihullah Mujahid, said the movement was behind the attack.

According to AP news agency, Mr Mujahid also said some 35 Afghan police officers had been taken into Taliban custody, and their fate would be decided by a council.

A local deputy police chief is reported to have said contact had been lost with 19 police officers, though the provincial governor is quoted as denying any such development.

Dangerous province

It is not the first time coalition forces have suffered damaging attacks in this region, says the BBC's Martin Patience in Kabul.

Nine US soldiers were killed in a single incident last year when more than 100 fighters breached a US outpost in the village of Wanat on the border of Nuristan and Kunar provinces.

The incident, which is still being investigated, was the biggest American loss of life in battle in Afghanistan since operations began in 2001, and forced US and Afghan soldiers to abandon the village.

The province's mountainous terrain makes it easier for insurgents to sneak up and launch attacks, but more difficult for military forces to access the area, our correspondent says.

Nuristan has been for decades been a crossing point for fighters entering the country from Pakistan, he adds.

US anxiety

The security situation in northern and eastern Afghanistan has deteriorated since the beginning of the year.

The instability has been exacerbated by political uncertainty created by August's presidential poll, which has been marred by widespread fraud allegations.

The commander of the more than 100,000 Nato and US forces in the country, US Gen Stanley McChrystal, has described the situation as "serious" and is believed to have requested up to 40,000 additional troops.

But US President Barack Obama - who has already sent thousands of extra troops to the country - says strategy in Afghanistan must be agreed before a decision can be made on whether to bolster military forces further.

[Loki]

It's interesting that, in three days' time, the US-Afghan war would be 8 years old ... and as yet, there is no decisive victory. If anything, it now seems that the Soviets were more effective in subjugating the hardy Afghans than the Americans were -- despite initial boisterous claims to the contrary. The Afghans are kicking American arse, no matter how you look at it. And it's embarrassing.

[RoyBatty]

It's interesting that, in three days' time, the US-Afghan war would be 8 years old ... and as yet, there is no decisive victory. If anything, it now seems that the Soviets were more effective in subjugating the hardy Afghans than the Americans were -- despite initial boisterous claims to the contrary. The Afghans are kicking American arse, no matter how you look at it. And it's embarrassing.

The Soviets were certainly more effective.

The Soviets also did much more than NATO to help educate the Afghans, build schools, roads, dams and hospitals (which the US then had the Mujaheddeen go blow up).

Another critical difference is that this time around NATO has it much easier than the Soviets ever did. Russia isn't supplying the Taleban with any weaponry, particularly anti-aircraft and anti-tank types as the US used to do. Therefore the Talibs have to make do with RPG's and heavy machineguns against mostly rotorcraft. This gives a major advantage to US / NATO which places their constant Afghan failures into a whole new context.

Imo the war would be over within a year or two if the Taleban had anti-aircraft weaponry. It would be a bit like the way the war ended with the Soviet withdrawal from it in the late 1980's.

[Sol Invictus]

Russia isn't supplying the Taleban with any weaponry, particularly anti-aircraft and anti-tank types as the US used to do.

Nope, they aren't. The Afghans and the Pentagon does that just fine themselves (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/world/asia/20ammo.html?_r=1&hp).

[Poltergeist]

The Taliban are brave fighters fighting against American occupiers and their satellite Zeropean troops, just like their predecessors, the Mujahedeen of the 80ies, fought against another variety of Zeropeanism (Soviet Communism). These are real military operations and they cannot be considered "terrorists" in any true sense, except in case one accepts the American-Zeropean propagandistic vocabulary in which anyone opposing the Western alliance is automatically designated as "terrorist".

[Loki]

The Taliban are brave fighters fighting against American occupiers ...

Yes they are brave. This doesn't mean I value the Taliban way of living at all, or have respect for them. But the American invasion of Afghanistan had nothing to do with saving the local people from religious extremism. One sure way to know this, is American support for even more extreme Wahhabi rule in Saudi Arabia. Hypocrisy if ever there was such a thing. The Americans don't give a fuck about Afghan women suffering under the Taliban. It's all just a geopolitical game, in which humans are mere worthless sacrificial pawns.

[RoyBatty]

The Americans don't give a fuck about Afghan women suffering under the Taliban.

Forget the Afghan women, save the white, hetero, taxpaying male! :lightbul: :D

[Nationalitist]

I support Taliban freedom fighters.


Yes they are brave. This doesn't mean I value the Taliban way of living at all, or have respect for them. But the American invasion of Afghanistan had nothing to do with saving the local people from religious extremism.

There's nothing wrong with Taliban way of living. Their country, their rules.

Religious exstremism? who cares really (besides atheist Zeropeans)?


The Americans don't give a fuck about Afghan women suffering under the Taliban.

Feminism did more damage to women in the west than 'religious extremism' in Afghanistan IMO.

[Loki]

There's nothing wrong with Taliban way of living. Their country, their rules.

Religious exstremism? who cares really (besides atheist Zeropeans)?



Feminism did more damage to women in the west than 'religious extremism' in Afghanistan IMO.

Easy for a Slovenian to say, though. I don't think your mother would have liked living under the Taliban.

[RoyBatty]

Easy for a Slovenian to say, though. I don't think your mother would have liked living under the Taliban.

I'm sceptical about whether it really matters that much to Afghan females. It's a different type of society where different rules apply. One can't apply a Western model on them and expect it to fit. It only becomes an issue when people already know about an "easier deal" and then decide that they want this.

*Meanwhile back at the ranch Roy ducks missiles hurled in his direction from the pink corner :D

My reasons for stating the above are that issues like "equal treatment", liberalised values and morals, freedom, "it's my body" arguments etc would be much more dear to women who come from an emancipated upbringing and civilisation. In Afghanistan the way of life is just different. Probably not that different to what it had been a few centuries ago throughout much of Europe, in fact.

[Loki]

I'm sceptical about whether it really matters that much to Afghan females.

Only because ignorance is bliss. If abuse is all you are used to all your life, you would think it is normal and there is no alternative. A bit like Fritzl's daughter's life in the dungeon.

[Nationalitist]

One can't apply a Western model on them and expect it to fit.

True, only Zeropeans want that. Good post.

[Loki]

True, only Zeropeans want that. Good post.

Keep the Zeropean one-liners to the FUCK YOU social group. Please.

[Nationalitist]

Why? It's the term that describes the character of many Europeans perfectly.

[Loki]

Why? It's the term that describes the character of many Europeans perfectly.

Alright but you've made your point and this level of intellectual expression doesn't add much value to threads in the highbrow sections.

[Nationalitist]

Alright but you've made your point and this level of intellectual expression doesn't add much value to threads in the highbrow sections.

I agree with RoyBatty's post, I wrote a one-liner so that everyone knows where I stand.

[RoyBatty]

Only because ignorance is bliss. If abuse is all you are used to all your life, you would think it is normal and there is no alternative. A bit like Fritzl's daughter's life in the dungeon.

Sure, ignorance is bliss but all things considered, are Afghan women really that unhappy with their overall quality of life vs say, emancipated New York or Swedish man hating liberal feminazis?

Which of those two polar opposite groups are the more neurotic, depressed and / or filled with rage and insanity?

Imo societies need to evolve their own rules. Imposing supposedly "better" or "superior" social engineering from outside isn't necessarily the answer. One size doesn't fit all imo.

[Nationalitist]

Only because ignorance is bliss. If abuse is all you are used to all your life, you would think it is normal and there is no alternative. A bit like Fritzl's daughter's life in the dungeon.

The same argument can be used to defend US agression in Iraq and that democracy is the best system ever.

[Loki]

The same argument can be used to defend US agression in Iraq and that democracy is the best system ever.

And they are actually using that argument ... which I don't support. American-style aggressive "democratization" of the world is fake at best, and malicious at worst.

[Loki]

Sure, ignorance is bliss but all things considered, are Afghan women really that unhappy with their overall quality of life vs say, emancipated New York or Swedish man hating liberal feminazis?


Are slaves really that unhappy? Nope. Human beings can survive and be happy with little, even in torturous conditions. Doesn't mean there isn't anything better out there.

[Nationalitist]

And they are actually using that argument ... which I don't support.

Then stop using the same arguments as Americunts.


American-style aggressive "democratization" of the world is fake at best, and malicious at worst.

Human rightsism sucks.

[Loki]

Then stop using the same arguments as Americunts.


It's not my problem if you are unable to comprehend my posts.

[RoyBatty]

Are slaves really that unhappy? Nope. Human beings can survive and be happy with little, even in torturous conditions. Doesn't mean there isn't anything better out there.

Indeed, there are certainly better things out there. I just don't believe that in this particular case life really is that unbearable for the subjects. It obviously isn't "fair" or "equal" but then again... is life that fair or equal for anybody? :)

[Loki]

Indeed, there are certainly better things out there. I just don't believe that in this particular case life really is that unbearable for the subjects. It obviously isn't "fair" or "equal" but then again... is life that fair or equal for anybody? :)

It's not normal for humans to be suffocated in this way:

http://forladiesbyladies.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/pack-o-burqas.jpg

That just can't be healthy to the body. :(

[Nationalitist]

It's not my problem if you are unable to comprehend my posts.

LOL. Obviously you didn't understand my point.

[Sol Invictus]

No westerner has any right to tell anyone, anywhere what's right and what's wrong. We've got too many things wrong about our own countries that it seems rather silly to think we have any right sticking our noses anywhere it shouldn't be.

[RoyBatty]

It's not normal for humans to be suffocated in this way:

http://forladiesbyladies.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/pack-o-burqas.jpg

That just can't be healthy to the body. :(

I doubt that there are physical health risks to wearing a burqa but from a mental wellbeing / social adjustment viewpoint I don't think it is healthy.

[Hors]

It's interesting that, in three days' time, the US-Afghan war would be 8 years old ... and as yet, there is no decisive victory. If anything, it now seems that the Soviets were more effective in subjugating the hardy Afghans than the Americans were -- despite initial boisterous claims to the contrary. The Afghans are kicking American arse, no matter how you look at it. And it's embarrassing.

And note that the Afghans do not get state-of-the-art weapons, training, intelligence and financial support from Russia. Imagine if they get several dozens of "IGLA" mobile anti-aircraft missile launchers... the Allies are pinched down to ground and causalties grow tenfold, the controlled territory shrink to surroundings of major cities and roadways.

Not that the Allies control much of Afghanistan anyway...

[Hors]

Nope, they aren't. The Afghans and the Pentagon does that just fine themselves (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/world/asia/20ammo.html?_r=1&hp).

For those who did not care to read the article I can tell that it does not back the idea that the Afghans get anything more serious than rifles and ammo for them via corrupted Afghan officials.

So they are fighting the US almost with bare hands... and yet seems to be winning.

[Sol Invictus]

For those who did not care to read the article I can tell that it does not back the idea that the Afghans get anything more serious than rifles and ammo for them via corrupted Afghan officials.

So they are fighting the US almost with bare hands... and yet seems to be winning.

That's not why I posted the article. It shows the U.S inability, or desire to stop the Taliban from getting a constant stream of supplies to prolong the conflict, you see, Afghanistan is big business. Why do you think they haven't found Bin Laden?

1) He's a CIA agent
2) His capture would destroy any reason for being in Afghanistan
3) He's probably already dead

And let's remember, the whole reason for invading Afghanistan wasn't to 'liberate' the people. It was to capture Bin Laden. But since they know they won't find Bin Laden, they tweaked their story to make their invasion look more credible and humanitarian. Just like they did with Iraq. It was all because of weapons of mass destruction which didn't exist, and now it's been tweaked to 'liberate' the people of Iraq and make the invasion look more humanitarian, hoping that the people will forget the whole reason for invasion in the first place with a clever mix of fake terrorist fear-mongering and media brainwashing.

And yes, the Taliban will win. Good always triumphs over evil. And I know the troops there aren't evil, but they're being sacrificed by evil people for an evil cause. It's not those brave men and women's faults. They were tricked just like the rest of us and their bravery is taken advantage of by thugs.

[Murphy]

Not heavy enough.

Regards,
Eóin.

[Liffrea]

It’s pretty much unwinnable, the Americans would need a strong enough puppet in place to quell all other would be rulers, they don’t have one and it’s general opinion that American control doesn’t extend much out of Kabul, it’s not a country that is easy to control. Ask the British.

I think US led forces will be involved long term, the Americans can’t win but then neither can the Taliban. Afghanistan is a strategically valuable, on the border of the former Soviet Central Asia and with China it’s a dagger pointed at Russia’s soft underbelly and at China’s weaker western flank, lot’s of opportunity to stir up China’s discontented Muslim population….

It’s also going to be vital in the coming war with Iran that Washington is trying it’s hardest to start, the casus belli is Iran’s alleged development of nuclear weapons (probably true), if Ahmadinejad is smart he’ll realise the best thing he can do is make sure he has those nukes as soon as possible, Israeli and American threats will evaporate overnight, just ask North Korea….

Of course the creation of either an American controlled and/or an American influenced block from Egypt to Afghanistan and into the Central Asian gas and oil fields will be vital for America’s economy in the coming post “peak oil” conflicts likely to grip the globe.

[RoyBatty]

Pretty much agree with everything you said Liffrea. One thing I'm less certain about is "Peak Oil". There is no conclusive info in the public domain which would seem to prove the theory as it has been put across in the early 2000's.

The people and organisations who do know (Aramco, Cheney Mob, Seven Sisters etc) routinely distort true known reserves figures.