news Canadian News
Good Evening Guest | login or register
  • Home
    • Canadian News
    • Popular News
    • News Voting Log
    • News Images
  • Forums
    • Recent Topics Scroll
    •  
    • Politics Forums
    • Sports Forums
    • Regional Forums
  • Content
    • Achievements
    • Canadian Content
    • Famous Canadians
    • Famous Quotes
    • Jokes
    • Canadian Maps
  • Photos
    • Picture Gallery
    • Wallpapers
    • Recent Activity
  • About
    • About
    • Contact
    • Link to Us
    • Points
    • Statistics
  • Shop
  • Register
    • Gold Membership
  • Archive
    • Canadian TV
    • Canadian Webcams
    • Groups
    • Links
    • Top 10's
    • Reviews
    • CKA Radio
    • Video
    • Weather

Will the war in Afghanistan bring down NATO?

Canadian Content
20674news upnews down
Link Related to Canada in some say

Will the war in Afghanistan bring down NATO?


World | 206739 hits | Nov 01 8:29 am | Posted by: Hyack
8 Comment

Next week in Washington, U.S. President Barack Obama will host a summit of European Union leaders to discuss a number of issues, including what to do next in Afghanistan.

Comments

  1. by avatar Bacardi4206
    Mon Nov 02, 2009 10:18 am
    If only we never adopted rules of engagement. Back to what it was in WW2. I garantee the Taliban would think twice before expressing extreme violence.

    It's hard to fight something you cannot find unti'll it finds you. If WW2 nations were in the same conflict. They would have just bombarded the entire country and anybody left alive is considered lucky and would be too afraid to step up.

    Despite that being a in-humane war tactic. Just saying the only way to win this war as fast as everybody would like is just to bomb all the shitholes known to spawn Taliban recruits.

    The way we are doing it which is a credit to modern rules of engagement that tries it's best to put civilian lives first over all else.

    With that in mind, it is going to be very difficult and time consuming. IMO they should just shut off all cell phones and radios, etc that doesn't belong to military personel. Deny the enemy communication. Get the ANA to setup stronger border patrols and get the new Afghan Air Force to base all there air power on Pakistan/Afghanistan patrols. Get a NATO troops surge and go to village to village and just take out all taliban resisters.

    Use the whole Medieval management method of like having Castles surounded by villages. The castles being the stronghold of troops that get send out to defend the villages or keep order, etc.

    Take one village and garrison it for example that is surrounded by other villages and use the garisson in that village to defend reconstruction projects for that whole model village thing and use the garrison to do patrols only in the surrounding villages.

    It splits up the troops but it allows a wider range of village control and defense. Denying the Taliban villages to recruit from, get arms, hide arms or just hide in general.

    That is how I would do it because simple patrolling the same areas over and over again waiting for the Taliban to regroup, rearm and find you and attack you is horrible.

  2. by Canadian_Mind
    Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:03 pm
    Bacardi you really have no idea what they are doing over there do you?

  3. by avatar Guy_Fawkes
    Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:43 pm
    What you mean its not like that?! But but but, thats whats its like in the video games and the dudes I play with are thats what its like for reals! :lol:

  4. by avatar PENATRATOR
    Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:22 pm
    "Bacardi4206" said
    If only we never adopted rules of engagement. Back to what it was in WW2. I garantee the Taliban would think twice before expressing extreme violence.

    .



    This from an NDP supporter? Interesting indeed.

  5. by ASLplease
    Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:30 pm
    You can't stop the NATO conferences from happening. There are too many politicians that love their expense paid trips and $10 per cup coffee.

  6. by avatar Akhenaten
    Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:38 pm
    I would like to see NATO get together and redefine or reinterate exactly what will define victory in Afghanistan for the public. This latest election screw up has really hurt any sense of legitimacy the mission had. I support the mission and always have but there have been some serious PR blows to it lately and right now sustaining collective political will of the member states to see this to the end is the Achilles heel of the mission.

  7. by ASLplease
    Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:46 pm
    I apreciate that you support the mission, but who says that continued occupation has anything to do with victory? why can't it just be security for the civilians?

  8. by avatar Akhenaten
    Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:51 pm
    Probably answer your question if I understood it.



view comments in forum
Page 1

You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news.

  • Login
  • Register (free)
 Share  Digg It Bookmark to del.icio.us Share on Facebook


Share on Facebook Submit page to Reddit
CKA About |  Legal |  Advertise |  Sitemap |  Contact   canadian mobile newsMobile

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net