1
   

Afghanistan... Still?... Again?...

 
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2003 05:42 pm
tartarin : if you are interested in finding out more about hans massaquoi, go to : www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&q=%2Bauthor%2Bhans+j+massaquoi i've read his book in the original english edition and in the german translation; both are fascinating(the original is the better of the two !). ... as i said to walter in a p.m. : "beg, borrow or steal it ! NOW . hbg
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Dec, 2003 08:05 am
As I said in my earlier post, there were numerous incidents in post WW2 Germany of 'events' that we would call terrorist type attacks in this day and age.

I am still trying to get the scans of the reports from the '46 records and find a way to upload them.

But in a freaky coincidence, The History Channel last night had a one hour historical special on the attacks that were made by die-hard SS soldiers on the allies even as late as '47.

The records I have only cover '46 but it is frightening that there were still Nazis that wouldn't give up 2 years after the surrender.

Shows that history repeats itself more than we think.

Perhaps in the future, Iraq will be as good a friend as the Germans were for all the years past.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Dec, 2003 10:23 am
Fedral, the History Channel is entertainment, and has quite the reputation for playing fast and loose with accuracy. "Werewolf" has been well and thoroughly debunked. Sorry.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Dec, 2003 10:44 am
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) - The United Nations may be forced to abandon its two-year effort to stabilize Afghanistan because of rising violence blamed on the resurgent Taliban, its top official here warned Friday in an interview with The Associated Press.

Lakhdar Brahimi said his team could not continue its work unless security improves. He called for more foreign troops to halt attacks that have killed at least 11 aid workers across the south and east since March.

``Countries that are committed to supporting Afghanistan cannot kid themselves and cannot go on expecting us to work in unacceptable security conditions,'' Brahimi said.

``They seem to think that our presence is important here. Well, if they do, they have got to make sure that the conditions for us to be here are there,'' he said. ``If not, we will go away.''

U.N. calls for international troops to fan out across Afghanistan's troubled provinces have grown shrill since a French U.N. refugee worker was gunned down in the eastern city of Ghazni in October.

The world body has suspended some operations in regions along the border, where Taliban militants and their allies have been most active, including help to thousands of refugees returning from Pakistan.

NATO, which commands a 5,500-strong peacekeeping force in the Afghan capital, Kabul, has agreed in principle to expand into the provinces. But nations have been slow to come forward with pledges of troops
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-3497154,00.html
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Dec, 2003 11:05 am
NATO and the UN have failed? Nuts. I hope they can recover because I don't want any more american soldiers in Afghanistan than necessary.

NATO and the UN...What a bunch of clowns...
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Dec, 2003 11:14 am
McGentrix wrote:


NATO and the UN...What a bunch of clowns...



Where are the clowns? Here are some pics of them:
NATO: Supreme Allied Powers Europe

Nota bene: It wasn't me, who entitled those honourable soldiers 'clowns'!
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Dec, 2003 11:19 am
On 11 August 2003, NATO took over command and coordination of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan.
NATO had already played a significant role in support of ISAF, with NATO member countries contributing more than 90% of the troops involved at any time.

The North Atlantic Council, the Alliance's top decision-making body, agreed on 16 April 2003 to significantly expand NATO's support to the international peacekeeping force in Afghanistan, paving the way for NATO's first mission beyond the Euro-Atlantic area.

The current United Nations mandate limits the 5,500-strong force to providing security in and around Kabul. On 14 October, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution authorising the expansion of ISAF's operations. Now that NATO exercises the leadership of ISAF, a decision by the North Atlantic Council, the Alliance's highest decision-making body, will be needed for any expansion.

NATO is currently examining military options for expanding the force.

Oddly enough, the Taliban are trying to make a re-appearance...huh.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Dec, 2003 11:20 am
Oh, and from what I saw on the daily Show, The guy below is somewhat of a clown.

http://www.nato.int/shape/graphics/saceur/clark.jpg
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.22 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 12:45:06