quote:

Originally posted by CHRles "We Want Your Soul" is a great track by Adam Freeland. Love the kinda stuff that he releases, or guys like Rennie Pilgrim, Krafty Kutz, Hyper, and Soul of Man. I remember living in Tampa at the time "We Want Your Soul" was released, and some of the Breakbeat DJs in Tampa just didn't get it. Then again some of them were making some of the cheesiest funky Breaks tracks ever. Even though Tampa is big on Breaks, there aren't that many great Breakbeat DJs in the Bay Area. Good ones include Rick West, Malicious Mike, DJ Apple, Sharaz, and a few others. Orlando on the other hand, even the DJs that play a lot of cheese all know and respect the good stuff. Heard some pretty good sets from DJ Sandy, Jimmy Joslin, Magic Mike, Knightlife (who also used to spin some awesome Trance sets) as well as of course Icey and Baby Anne.

I figured that you'd hate Freeland's politics so much that you'd refuse to listen to him. If you've ever heard his Essential Mix from 2003, you'd know what I was talking about. Incredibly timely, too, considering that the US and Freeland's native UK had just invaded Iraq.

___________________
"Go back to bed america your government is in control
Here's American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it,
Watch these picturary retards bang their fuckin' skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom,
Here you go America you are free to do as we tell you
We want your soul
Your cash, your house, your phone, your cash, your house, your life" -Adam Freeland - We Want Your Soul

quote:

Originally posted by EvilTree It's tactical goal is by fear and intimidation to draw local support away from Karzai govt.

terror is illegitamate. all Karzai has to do show that he can crack down on offenders and be successful at stopping some not all terror. the people will do the rest.

quote:

Its strategic goal is to cause enough bloodshed both military and civillian to make it not worth for NATO nations to continue to support Karzai govt.

NATO was in Bosnia for 9 years. in those 9 years over 500,000 served from 41 countries. NATO is not going anywhere.

quote:

Shows how much you know about Afghanistan internal politics.

shows how much your reading comprehension lacks. i said sectarian. sectarian divides do not exist like they do in Iraq. if there is a "bit of Shia vs Sunni thing in Afghanistan " then it's nothing like Iraq. the Taliban is not going to pit a million Sunni against 3 million Shia in the same 50 sq. mi. like Iraq.

quote:

Actually, it's only few NATO nations that do the most of the fighting. Others have strict instructions from their govts preventing them from taking the fight to Taliban, so actual number of troops NATO commanders have available to do the serious fighting is quite limited.

it certainly isn't "a few" countries that are only capable of fighting. not including the big 3 US, UK and the Canucks, theres Romanians, Dutch, Danes, Estonians, Italians, Germans, Norweigians all fighting in one capacity or anther as combatants.


in 2006 alone you had four major operations, Operation Medusa, Mountain Thrust, Mountain Fury, Falon Summit all multiple brigade and battalion level strength all with multinational air and intelligence superiorty all with ridiculously lopsided engagements resulting in thousands of Taliqueer casualties with minimal Allied casualties.

the argument for more troops sounds great to the layman who has no clue what exactly those troop numbers have been capable of, but to a field commander who can come away with a 100 to 1 kill ratio and train 50,000 Afghan troops in the process doesn't make much sense.

i will agree that if the Taliban start fermenting something successfull in their new civilian terror program then those commanders are gonna have to start rethinking a few things. ( i have no doubt they already have) but to use the Iraq comparison like some of the idiots on this board and in the media do IMO is intellectually lazy.

Last edited by Q5echo on Oct-06-2007 at 02:51

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo not including the big 3 US, UK and the Canucks, theres Romanians, Dutch, Danes, Estonians, Italians, Germans, Norweigians all fighting in one capacity or another as combatants.

*ahem* forgetting anyone??

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Thats the problem - US and allies have resources. They just use most of them to keep the warlords happy (which is not good for average Afghani people). Which, often enough, misses many democratic components and includes such rights as grow and export drugs, and self-control ...US and allies are not concerned with Afghani democracy, thats just talk, and not implemented in most of the country outside of Kabul and Kandahar. Americans are just concerned with stability so that they can carry out their agenda. They dont want to implement big changes in Afghanistan, mainly fearing that they'll lose the support of warlords. Its sort of "voluntary" progress in Afghanistan on behalf of warlords in their controlled areas.

Taliban is the number one priority. Yeah, the warlords gotta go, but upsetting them right now is only going to create problems that whatever NATO has on the ground cannot handle with its current resources.

quote:

Saying that Americans wanted nothing from Afghanistan after 1989 is like giving up a free opportunity to establish yourself closer and push back Russian influence. Just ... do ... some ... research!

Huh? Soviets left, therefore Afghanistan became useless strategically for US. Hence why US did nothing when Taliban started to grow in power.

quote:

Dont you get it? Karzai means shit to Afghanistan. His actual authority outside the capital city of Kabul has been said to be so limited that he had often been derided as the "Mayor of Kabul."

So what, the elections were fake? (And if you're going to refute that, you better be able to back it up with legit sources)

quote:

I praise your optimism despite the clear indication of the growing Afghanistan violence. Afghani people want quick changes, but they're not going to get it because the main concern of the coalition is hold the country's warlords together, which means closing your eyes to many human rights violations and problems.

Exactly where did you get this idea from?

These people have been living in poverty since the days of Soviet invasion. That's a pretty long time.

quote:

You're right, its not the same. It would be the same situation, however, if Soviet Union or its former was still around and supplying arms to Taliban to undermine NATO control in Afghanistan ... or maybe its Iran's job now?

No, because NATO is not an occupying force like the Soviets were. Unless you want to ignore all the UN resolutions.

quote:

Bullshit. Salang Tunnel alone is the greatest contribution by Soviet Union to Afghanistan. Kabul airport. Factories, power plants, smelters .. you are quite naive for believing that Soviets just sat there and did nothing. Some research, please!

I admit that I don't know enough about Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and I will be doing some reading on this.

Soviets weren't really known for knowing how to conduct hearts and minds operations however

quote:

Hasnt it occured to you that the reason for increasing Taliban activity is perhaps due to the local support and co-operation with Taliban fighters? It might have "little public support", but given the nature of the warlords who have switched power many times (and have learned how to "pretend" to be friends with occupation, dating back to Soviet times) but Taliban has many sympathizers among Afghans who hate Americans ... too many Afghanis have died at the hands of "friendly fires" and "accidents". Some Afghani people are also aware of the whole Iraq thing ;-)

I'm curious to where you get your sources.

___________________
Latest mix: Yohan - Full Spectrum (Fall 14 promo)
Like my stuff? Join my FB group here!

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon not true. i say "ugh" but i am a tranny.

quote:

Originally posted by kotsy lol colour me retarded

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo terror is illegitamate.

Huh? So what?

Just because it's an immoral tactic, that doesn't mean it's any less effective form of warfare.

quote:

all Karzai has to do show that he can crack down on offenders and be successful at stopping some not all terror. the people will do the rest.

Karzai does not have the means to effectively stop Taliban. He can't do anything without massive NATO support. In future, when ANA gets trained up and ANP gets rid of all the corruption and be effective police force, Karzai then has the means to take on Taliban

quote:

NATO was in Bosnia for 9 years. in those 9 years over 500,000 served from 41 countries. NATO is not going anywhere.

NATO also didn't face suicide bombers and terrorists and take the casualties they are taking fighting in Afghanistan.
Two completely different operations

quote:

shows how much your reading comprehension lacks. i said sectarian. sectarian divides do not exist like they do in Iraq. if there is a "bit of Shia vs Sunni thing in Afghanistan " then it's nothing like Iraq. the Taliban is not going to pit a million Sunni against 3 million Shia in the same 50 sq. mi. like Iraq.

The Taliban would, if they had the resources to take on NATO, Karzai and the Shias in one shot.

They have a history of sectarian conflict during their civil war era.

quote:

it certainly isn't "a few" countries that are only capable of fighting. not including the big 3 US, UK and the Canucks, theres Romanians, Dutch, Danes, Estonians, Italians, Germans, Norweigians all fighting in one capacity or anther as combatants.

The Germans won't move from their current position, because that's only what their govt would do and shitstorm would be caused in political scene in Germany.

I believe same goes for Italians.

NATO needs help in southern Afghanistan and less troops in more stable areas where Italians and Germans are based off of. But due to restrictions, they are not being used.

quote:

the argument for more troops sounds great to the layman who has no clue what exactly those troop numbers have been capable of, but to a field commander who can come away with a 100 to 1 kill ratio and train 50,000 Afghan troops in the process doesn't make much sense. i will agree that if the Taliban start fermenting something successfull in their new civilian terror program then those commanders are gonna have to start rethinking a few things. ( i have no doubt they already have) but to use the Iraq comparison like some of the idiots on this board and in the media do IMO is intellectually lazy.

The problem in Afghanistan is not winning pitched battles. The problem is having enough troops available to do basic things like patrolling, setting up forward bases and whatnot and these things aren't done generally less than platoon level. Considering that the number of infantry soldiers is only few companies strong for example in the Canadian contingent, hence why the Taliban can infiltrate areas and such, because there is not enough NATO presence to deter the Taliban from taking back the ground that NATO gained in battles.

___________________
Latest mix: Yohan - Full Spectrum (Fall 14 promo)
Like my stuff? Join my FB group here!

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon not true. i say "ugh" but i am a tranny.

quote:

Originally posted by kotsy lol colour me retarded