Off-Topic :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
a
Posted by:
inkahootz
()
Date: July 01, 2008 07:02PM
s
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 06/01/2010 02:35PM by inkahootz.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 06/01/2010 02:35PM by inkahootz.
Re: U.S. death toll in Afghanistan nears that of Iraq!
Posted by:
Mofo
()
Date: July 01, 2008 09:14PM
inkahootz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://news.aol.com/story/_a/us-toll-in-afghanista
> n-nears-that-in/20080701092009990001
>
>
> Who else decided to fight a war on two fronts and
> as a consequence had his attempt to control the
> world thwarted? HMMMM????
>
>
> It didn't work for Hitler. Afghanistan didn't work
> out for the USSR. Vietnam and the US...need I say
> more??? It always seems that the big player
> involved in a battle against a guerrilla warfaring
> nation always loses!
Hitler was the only one of that example that fought multiple fronts at the same time. Maybe Vietnam with the shit we were doing in Cambodia and Laos. The soviets would not have failed in Afghanistan had the CIA not given billions in training and arms (specifically stinger missiles to take out soviet air superiority). Yes one of them was called Bin Laden. Iraq is getting better because we have more men on the ground there and focus on it a lot more (and always have incorrectly). Afghanistan has always been a secondary priority in money and manpower to Iraq. We even have thousands of NATO troops in Afghanistan, all from countries (except the UK) that refused to get involved in Iraq.
We are now depending however on the very people who first fought us the hardest when we first went into Iraq to keep the peace of Iraq, mainly Sunnis loyal to Saddam who have now realized they are the minority out of power and in a Shiite dominated country next a Shiite dominated Iran and suddenly we are friends and they are given US weapons and money. Perhaps to use them against us again? All too likely.
A royal clusterfuck? Yes.
Thank Bush and especially thank Cheney and Rumsfeld.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/01/2008 09:16PM by Mofo.
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://news.aol.com/story/_a/us-toll-in-afghanista
> n-nears-that-in/20080701092009990001
>
>
> Who else decided to fight a war on two fronts and
> as a consequence had his attempt to control the
> world thwarted? HMMMM????
>
>
> It didn't work for Hitler. Afghanistan didn't work
> out for the USSR. Vietnam and the US...need I say
> more??? It always seems that the big player
> involved in a battle against a guerrilla warfaring
> nation always loses!
Hitler was the only one of that example that fought multiple fronts at the same time. Maybe Vietnam with the shit we were doing in Cambodia and Laos. The soviets would not have failed in Afghanistan had the CIA not given billions in training and arms (specifically stinger missiles to take out soviet air superiority). Yes one of them was called Bin Laden. Iraq is getting better because we have more men on the ground there and focus on it a lot more (and always have incorrectly). Afghanistan has always been a secondary priority in money and manpower to Iraq. We even have thousands of NATO troops in Afghanistan, all from countries (except the UK) that refused to get involved in Iraq.
We are now depending however on the very people who first fought us the hardest when we first went into Iraq to keep the peace of Iraq, mainly Sunnis loyal to Saddam who have now realized they are the minority out of power and in a Shiite dominated country next a Shiite dominated Iran and suddenly we are friends and they are given US weapons and money. Perhaps to use them against us again? All too likely.
A royal clusterfuck? Yes.
Thank Bush and especially thank Cheney and Rumsfeld.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/01/2008 09:16PM by Mofo.
s
Posted by:
inkahootz
()
Date: July 01, 2008 09:22PM
s
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/01/2010 02:37PM by inkahootz.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/01/2010 02:37PM by inkahootz.
Re: U.S. death toll in Afghanistan nears that of Iraq!
Posted by:
Radiophile
()
Date: July 01, 2008 11:29PM
I am sick and tired of you liberals, and especially that liberal report filed by that liberal organization which in part read:
In 2005, GAO recommended that Defense and State develop detailed plans for completing and sustaining the ANSF. In 2007, Defense provided a document in response to this recommendation. This 5-page document lacks sufficient detail for effective interagency planning and oversight. For example, while the document includes some broad objectives and performance measures, it identifies few long-term milestones and no intermediate milestones for assessing progress, and it lacks a sustainability strategy. Although Defense and State are partners in police training, the document does not include State’s input or describe State’s role. Further, State has not completed a plan of its own. In January 2008, CSTC-A completed a field-level plan to develop the ANSF that includes force goals, objectives, and performance measures. While this is an improvement over prior field-level planning, it is not a substitute for a coordinated, detailed Defense and State plan with near- and long-term resource requirements. In 2008, Congress mandated that the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, provide a long-term strategy and budget for strengthening the ANSF, and a long-term detailed plan for sustaining the ANSF. These have not been provided. Without a detailed plan, it is difficult to assess progress and conduct oversight of the cost of developing the ANSF. This is particularly important given the limited capacity of the Afghan government to fund the estimated $2 billion per year ANSF sustainment costs for years into the future.
The United States has invested over $10 billion to develop the ANA since 2002. However, only 2 of 105 army units are assessed as being fully capable of conducting their primary mission and efforts to develop the army continue to face challenges. First, while the army has grown to approximately 58,000 of an authorized force structure of 80,000, it has experienced difficulties finding qualified candidates for leadership positions and retaining personnel. Second, while trainers or mentors are present in every ANA combat unit, shortfalls exist in the number deployed to the field. Finally, ANA combat units report significant shortages in about 40 percent of equipment items Defense defines as critical, including vehicles, weapons, and radios. Some of these challenges are due in part to competing U.S. global priorities. Without resolving these challenges, the ability of the ANA to reach full capability may be delayed.
Although the ANP has reportedly grown in number since 2005, after an investment of over $6 billion, no police unit is fully capable and several challenges impede U.S. efforts to develop the police. First, less than one-quarter of the police have mentors present to provide training in the field and verify that police are on duty. Second, police units continue to face shortages in equipment items that Defense considers critical, such as vehicles, radios, and body armor. In addition, Afghanistan’s weak judicial system hinders effective policing and rule of law, and the ANP consistently experiences problems with pay, corruption, and attacks from insurgents. Defense began a new effort in November 2007 to address these challenges, but the continuing shortfall in police mentors may put this effort at risk.
In 2005, GAO recommended that Defense and State develop detailed plans for completing and sustaining the ANSF. In 2007, Defense provided a document in response to this recommendation. This 5-page document lacks sufficient detail for effective interagency planning and oversight. For example, while the document includes some broad objectives and performance measures, it identifies few long-term milestones and no intermediate milestones for assessing progress, and it lacks a sustainability strategy. Although Defense and State are partners in police training, the document does not include State’s input or describe State’s role. Further, State has not completed a plan of its own. In January 2008, CSTC-A completed a field-level plan to develop the ANSF that includes force goals, objectives, and performance measures. While this is an improvement over prior field-level planning, it is not a substitute for a coordinated, detailed Defense and State plan with near- and long-term resource requirements. In 2008, Congress mandated that the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, provide a long-term strategy and budget for strengthening the ANSF, and a long-term detailed plan for sustaining the ANSF. These have not been provided. Without a detailed plan, it is difficult to assess progress and conduct oversight of the cost of developing the ANSF. This is particularly important given the limited capacity of the Afghan government to fund the estimated $2 billion per year ANSF sustainment costs for years into the future.
The United States has invested over $10 billion to develop the ANA since 2002. However, only 2 of 105 army units are assessed as being fully capable of conducting their primary mission and efforts to develop the army continue to face challenges. First, while the army has grown to approximately 58,000 of an authorized force structure of 80,000, it has experienced difficulties finding qualified candidates for leadership positions and retaining personnel. Second, while trainers or mentors are present in every ANA combat unit, shortfalls exist in the number deployed to the field. Finally, ANA combat units report significant shortages in about 40 percent of equipment items Defense defines as critical, including vehicles, weapons, and radios. Some of these challenges are due in part to competing U.S. global priorities. Without resolving these challenges, the ability of the ANA to reach full capability may be delayed.
Although the ANP has reportedly grown in number since 2005, after an investment of over $6 billion, no police unit is fully capable and several challenges impede U.S. efforts to develop the police. First, less than one-quarter of the police have mentors present to provide training in the field and verify that police are on duty. Second, police units continue to face shortages in equipment items that Defense considers critical, such as vehicles, radios, and body armor. In addition, Afghanistan’s weak judicial system hinders effective policing and rule of law, and the ANP consistently experiences problems with pay, corruption, and attacks from insurgents. Defense began a new effort in November 2007 to address these challenges, but the continuing shortfall in police mentors may put this effort at risk.
Re: U.S. death toll in Afghanistan nears that of Iraq!
Posted by:
Historian
()
Date: July 01, 2008 11:42PM
Maybe you should look at the Pacific theater and the War in Europe during WWII. Who won those?
Re: U.S. death toll in Afghanistan nears that of Iraq!
Posted by:
USMC_Sniper
()
Date: July 02, 2008 10:48AM
inkahootz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://news.aol.com/story/_a/us-toll-in-afghanista
> n-nears-that-in/20080701092009990001
>
>
> Who else decided to fight a war on two fronts and
> as a consequence had his attempt to control the
> world thwarted? HMMMM????
>
> It didn't work for Hitler.
>
> Afghanistan didn't work out for the USSR. Vietnam
> and the US...need I say more??? It always seems
> that the big player involved in a battle against a
> guerrilla warfaring nation always loses!
Since when did Afghanistan become a guerrilla warfaring nation? You may want to take a closer look at the word guerrilla, warring and Nation. The pockets of cowards that are getting lucky enough to kill don't qualify under any three of those categories.
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://news.aol.com/story/_a/us-toll-in-afghanista
> n-nears-that-in/20080701092009990001
>
>
> Who else decided to fight a war on two fronts and
> as a consequence had his attempt to control the
> world thwarted? HMMMM????
>
> It didn't work for Hitler.
>
> Afghanistan didn't work out for the USSR. Vietnam
> and the US...need I say more??? It always seems
> that the big player involved in a battle against a
> guerrilla warfaring nation always loses!
Since when did Afghanistan become a guerrilla warfaring nation? You may want to take a closer look at the word guerrilla, warring and Nation. The pockets of cowards that are getting lucky enough to kill don't qualify under any three of those categories.
Re: U.S. death toll in Afghanistan nears that of Iraq!
Posted by:
WashingToneLocian
()
Date: July 02, 2008 11:50AM
inkahootz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hitler was the answer to the query posed. The
> others were examples of large nations losing
> conflicts against guerrilla fighters. The U.S. is
> involved in both types of situations; fighting a
> two front war against guerrilla fighters.
If Israel has its way, it will soon be a three front war. When the Israelis start bombing Iran on the eve of the 2008 election in a misguided effort to get McCain elected, oil will be $300 a barrel and our troops will be fighting hundreds of thousands of Iranian troops swarming across the border into southern Iraq.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hitler was the answer to the query posed. The
> others were examples of large nations losing
> conflicts against guerrilla fighters. The U.S. is
> involved in both types of situations; fighting a
> two front war against guerrilla fighters.
If Israel has its way, it will soon be a three front war. When the Israelis start bombing Iran on the eve of the 2008 election in a misguided effort to get McCain elected, oil will be $300 a barrel and our troops will be fighting hundreds of thousands of Iranian troops swarming across the border into southern Iraq.
s
Posted by:
inkahootz
()
Date: July 02, 2008 08:12PM
s
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/01/2010 07:05AM by inkahootz.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/01/2010 07:05AM by inkahootz.
Re: U.S. death toll in Afghanistan nears that of Iraq!
Posted by:
Art Bell
()
Date: July 02, 2008 08:14PM
WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> inkahootz Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Hitler was the answer to the query posed. The
> > others were examples of large nations losing
> > conflicts against guerrilla fighters. The U.S.
> is
> > involved in both types of situations; fighting
> a
> > two front war against guerrilla fighters.
>
>
> If Israel has its way, it will soon be a three
> front war. When the Israelis start bombing Iran on
> the eve of the 2008 election in a misguided effort
> to get McCain elected, oil will be $300 a barrel
> and our troops will be fighting hundreds of
> thousands of Iranian troops swarming across the
> border into southern Iraq.
And people say only far right wing nutjobs can come up with conspiracy theories. Looks like the loony left has its share of tin hatters as well. And will the Bilderburg finance the war?
-------------------------------------------------------
> inkahootz Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Hitler was the answer to the query posed. The
> > others were examples of large nations losing
> > conflicts against guerrilla fighters. The U.S.
> is
> > involved in both types of situations; fighting
> a
> > two front war against guerrilla fighters.
>
>
> If Israel has its way, it will soon be a three
> front war. When the Israelis start bombing Iran on
> the eve of the 2008 election in a misguided effort
> to get McCain elected, oil will be $300 a barrel
> and our troops will be fighting hundreds of
> thousands of Iranian troops swarming across the
> border into southern Iraq.
And people say only far right wing nutjobs can come up with conspiracy theories. Looks like the loony left has its share of tin hatters as well. And will the Bilderburg finance the war?
a
Posted by:
inkahootz
()
Date: July 03, 2008 12:03AM
a
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/01/2010 02:35PM by inkahootz.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/01/2010 02:35PM by inkahootz.
Re: U.S. death toll in Afghanistan nears that of Iraq!
Posted by:
Art Bell
()
Date: July 03, 2008 09:03AM
inkahootz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Art Bell Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > WashingToneLocian Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > inkahootz Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Hitler was the answer to the query posed.
> The
> > > > others were examples of large nations
> losing
> > > > conflicts against guerrilla fighters. The
> > U.S.
> > > is
> > > > involved in both types of situations;
> > fighting
> > > a
> > > > two front war against guerrilla fighters.
> > >
> > >
> > > If Israel has its way, it will soon be a
> three
> > > front war. When the Israelis start bombing
> Iran
> > on
> > > the eve of the 2008 election in a misguided
> > effort
> > > to get McCain elected, oil will be $300 a
> > barrel
> > > and our troops will be fighting hundreds of
> > > thousands of Iranian troops swarming across
> the
> > > border into southern Iraq.
> >
> > And people say only far right wing nutjobs can
> > come up with conspiracy theories. Looks like
> the
> > loony left has its share of tin hatters as well.
>
> > And will the Bilderburg finance the war?
>
>
> Not so far fetched, considering the Joint Chiefs
> of Staff were addressing members of the media in
> regards to this exact same scenario at the
> Penatagon today.
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic
> le/2008/07/02/AR2008070202798.html?hpid=topnews
So, the Joint Chiefs were addressing the notion that the motive to strike Iran would be to get John McCain elected? And I suppose they said Michael Riconosciuto would be leading the first airstrike?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Art Bell Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > WashingToneLocian Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > inkahootz Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Hitler was the answer to the query posed.
> The
> > > > others were examples of large nations
> losing
> > > > conflicts against guerrilla fighters. The
> > U.S.
> > > is
> > > > involved in both types of situations;
> > fighting
> > > a
> > > > two front war against guerrilla fighters.
> > >
> > >
> > > If Israel has its way, it will soon be a
> three
> > > front war. When the Israelis start bombing
> Iran
> > on
> > > the eve of the 2008 election in a misguided
> > effort
> > > to get McCain elected, oil will be $300 a
> > barrel
> > > and our troops will be fighting hundreds of
> > > thousands of Iranian troops swarming across
> the
> > > border into southern Iraq.
> >
> > And people say only far right wing nutjobs can
> > come up with conspiracy theories. Looks like
> the
> > loony left has its share of tin hatters as well.
>
> > And will the Bilderburg finance the war?
>
>
> Not so far fetched, considering the Joint Chiefs
> of Staff were addressing members of the media in
> regards to this exact same scenario at the
> Penatagon today.
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic
> le/2008/07/02/AR2008070202798.html?hpid=topnews
So, the Joint Chiefs were addressing the notion that the motive to strike Iran would be to get John McCain elected? And I suppose they said Michael Riconosciuto would be leading the first airstrike?
s
Posted by:
inkahootz
()
Date: July 03, 2008 09:26AM
s
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/01/2010 02:37PM by inkahootz.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/01/2010 02:37PM by inkahootz.