Skip to comments.
Nato kills 150 Taleban fighters
BBC News ^
| January 11 2007
Posted on 01/11/2007 12:00:40 AM PST by jmc1969
Nato says as many as 150 Taleban militants have been killed in a battle in eastern Afghanistan.
An Afghan military commander said the battle was sparked when fighters crossed from Pakistan into Afghanistan's Paktika province.
The army responded with artillery and Nato forces with air strikes, he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...
TOPICS: Breaking News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: afghanistan; afghansitan; nato; taleban; taliban; terrorism; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-72 next last
To: Rummenigge
God bless the German people. We hope we will always remain friends.
41
posted on
01/11/2007 10:20:37 AM PST
by
tjd1454
To: Rummenigge
Saw KHR play for Bayern-Munich against HSV in the Olympic Stadium in Munich way back when.... the game finished in a tie.
42
posted on
01/11/2007 10:22:06 AM PST
by
Rummyfan
(Iraq: Give therapeutic violence a chance!)
To: SeaBiscuit
Wonder what Grandma ("It's for the CHILDREN") Pelosi would say about that picture.
May God bless that little boy.
To: SeaBiscuit
"As an Army convoy prepared to depart after dropping off blankets, an Iraqi boy came out to say goodbye clutching a stuffed toy--and an American flag." I don't think the New York Times could print that unless they also included ominous comparisons to American Indians and smallpox-inflected blankets.
44
posted on
01/11/2007 11:51:21 AM PST
by
Kenton
(All vices in moderation. I don't want to overdo any but I don't want to skip any either.)
To: jackv
To: Abigail Adams
46
posted on
01/11/2007 1:30:07 PM PST
by
jackv
(just shakin' my head)
To: mad_as_he$$
I don't believe the statement that no insurgency was ever put down with conventional means. The Romans were very good at stomping insurgency.The British put down the Malaysian communist insurgency. It took 12 years, but it was done.
47
posted on
01/11/2007 1:33:24 PM PST
by
kabar
To: killjoy
The common problem in both VN and Iraq is the politicians are determining (and the lawyers) how the war is fought. Bush's speech last night was just plain limp and not convincing. We could easily STILL "win" in Iraq. I have a 60 day plan that would bring the country to complete peace and quite. It would even solve the Iran problem. If I started today all of our troops would be home well before the 4th of July.
48
posted on
01/11/2007 1:34:11 PM PST
by
mad_as_he$$
(Never corner anything meaner than you. NSDQ)
Comment #49 Removed by Moderator
To: killjoy
There are no hearts and minds to be won in the Afghan badlands, just Taliban and jihadists to be crushed and our guys and the NATO guys, backed by our air support, have been doing just that, killing them by the hundreds every time they find them.
50
posted on
01/11/2007 2:14:51 PM PST
by
jwalsh07
(Duncan Hunter for President)
To: killjoy
If we were fighting a regular war after Tet, why was a lot of energy being spent into pacification programs using combined US/Vietnamese forces? Those certainly were not implemented to go after an 'Army' in the conventional sense of the word. Maybe if Abrams would have replaced Westmoreland a few years before Tet the war would have had a different outcome.... with or without the support of the American public.Pacification worked well, Abrams was doing a good job.
Unfortunately General Giap had won the "hearts and minds" of the left and the MSM. Fifth columns are way tougher to beat than insurgents.
51
posted on
01/11/2007 2:18:08 PM PST
by
jwalsh07
(Duncan Hunter for President)
To: mad_as_he$$
"If we had Roman rules from the start of this there would be NO "civil war" in Iraq." In their time -- "Roman rules" were very efficient....
In our era --- I prefer "Chicago rules".. more brutal and faster.
For the uneducated: Chicago Rule #7:
You wanna know how you do it?
Here's how, they pull a knife, you pull a gun.
He sends one of yours to the hospital,
you send one of his to the morgue.
Chicago Rule #1 -- Most favored by Democrats.
Vote early, and vote often.
Semper Fi
52
posted on
01/11/2007 3:36:12 PM PST
by
river rat
(You may turn the other cheek, but I prefer to look into my enemy's vacant dead eyes.)
To: river rat
Yea the good old Chi-town Rules. How appropriate.
53
posted on
01/11/2007 4:34:32 PM PST
by
mad_as_he$$
(Never corner anything meaner than you. NSDQ)
To: mad_as_he$$
Now that is what I call "border patrol".
To: jwalsh07
There are no hearts and minds to be won in the Afghan badlands, just Taliban and jihadists to be crushed and our guys and the NATO guys, backed by our air support, have been doing just that, killing them by the hundreds every time they find them. Yea, that strategy worked very well in the past for both the British and Soviets.
55
posted on
01/11/2007 5:53:44 PM PST
by
killjoy
(Life sucks, wear a helmet.)
To: killjoy
Yea, that strategy worked very well in the past for both the British and Soviets.Now where have I heard this before? Oh yeah, right before we crushed the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Iraq when the naysayers kept brining up the Britsh and the Soviets.
Hearts and minds are won when women get to vote, little girls get to go to school and men can live free while those who would ban women from voting, keep little girls out of school and hang men for bowing in the wrong direction are crushed in the badlands like the cockroaches they are.
Comprende?
56
posted on
01/11/2007 5:58:13 PM PST
by
jwalsh07
(Duncan Hunter for President)
To: jwalsh07
Make that Afghanistan instead of Iraq. But I'm sure he got the drift.
57
posted on
01/11/2007 5:59:00 PM PST
by
jwalsh07
(Duncan Hunter for President)
To: jmc1969
Well done! Very well done, indeed!
58
posted on
01/11/2007 6:00:23 PM PST
by
LibKill
(ENOUGH! Take the warning labels off everything and let Saint Darwin do his job.)
To: killjoy
Perhaps a more conventional approach would work. Such as bombing the major cities of any country who harbors these folks. Bombing in WWII didn't have much effect until we started on population centers.
59
posted on
01/11/2007 6:06:12 PM PST
by
Steamburg
(If we don't want our nation bad enough to protect it, it won't be ours long.)
To: jwalsh07
Now where have I heard this before? Oh yeah, right before we crushed the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan when the naysayers kept brining up the Britsh and the Soviets. If we 'crushed the Taliban' so effectively, why are we still debating this topic? The problem is not in invading Afghanistan, both the British and Soviets were able to do that. The problem is holding the country. Something the British and Soviets were not able to do. Saying that the US/NATO is somehow immune to the lessons of history is rather naive. If the same policies are followed, the same outcome will occur. Force alone didn't work in Afghanistan in the past and will not work now.
Hearts and minds are won when women get to vote, little girls get to go to school and men can live free while those who would ban women from voting, keep little girls out of school and hang men for bowing in the wrong direction are crushed in the badlands like the cockroaches they are.
Yes, I am in complete agreement.
60
posted on
01/11/2007 6:14:51 PM PST
by
killjoy
(Life sucks, wear a helmet.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-72 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson