Mace MacLeod Posted December 8, 2006 Share Posted December 8, 2006 ^^Also, there's a lot more regulars in here than the Senate. More diversity, more moderating influences. Less pressure to be opnionated as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 This is a horrible...horrible event. Something, that I fear, will change the tide of battle in Afghanistan forever. The Taliban defeated Britian in pitched battle. They claim victory, but they did flee from the Taliban. Possibly, the fleeing was done because it was not the point of the mission they are serving...but I still fear. Just one battle, just one victory, serves as a rallying point, and may lead to future victories. For the future, prehaps, this may be an omen. Your thoughts? I'm worried of the gains fought in the Afghanistan War be rolled back... I'm surprised there hasn't been a loss yet, to be honest. The Allies lost plenty of battles in WWI and WWII and still won the wars. If the Brits achieved their objective, then it was a win, regardless of how the actual fighting went. This wasn't a huge battle, actually--I'd call it a small skirmish, and I'm not worried in the least. The UN has superiority in numbers and equipment. I don't know if it has good strategists/tacticians leading the forces--if the leaders are bad, they'll have trouble, but it won't take long for UN generals to figure out they have a complete idiot in the hot seat and fire that person. The Taliban fighters, who say they have the expertise to defeat the strongest army Humor mode way on: The Talibani have expertise in what? Growing poppies? Yeah, that'll defeat the Russians, Chinese, NATO or other major force. They'll bomb the forces with opium packets and make everyone stoned. /humor] @Mace--the moderating philosophy is more laissez-faire in the Senate, more strict (in a good sense) here. That may have an influence to a small degree on how things are said/done there vs. here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 Sounds more like a setback than a big defeat. Now that the allied troops have a better appreciation for what they're up against there, it should allow them to devise better battle plans. Much remains to be seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anakin Skywalker Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 I have honestly heared this for the past 5 years. Loosing one battle doesnt mean the worlds going to end. Sheesh. Ahhh...... looks like a Stratigest needs to educate you.... No, one battle will not mean losing the War, but if we keep losing, then the War will go to them. Off Topic, but relates to this: Revan, realizing this in the Jedi Civil War, tried to capture Bastila. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vaelastraz Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 C'mon guys... one loss. And I don't know anything about that battle in particular but I doubt the primary objective of the British was to eliminate all Taliban in that region... That only thing that is clear to me is, that the Taliban fight until they've lost. And they will loose, because it is impossible for them to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentScope001 Posted December 9, 2006 Author Share Posted December 9, 2006 The UN has superiority in numbers and equipment. I don't know if it has good strategists/tacticians leading the forces--if the leaders are bad, they'll have trouble, but it won't take long for UN generals to figure out they have a complete idiot in the hot seat and fire that person. It's NATO that is fighting. Not UN. That only thing that is clear to me is, that the Taliban fight until they've lost. And they will loose, because it is impossible for them to win. How come? I mean, defining victory is important. Can the Taliban march up and take back Kabul? Nope. But can the Taliban remain alive and take over the outlying provinces in Afghanistan (if they haven't already), acting as a gurellia force that may get popularity with the ethic Pasthuns and becoming a state-in-a-state? In other words, suriving, but never returning to its past glory? Prehaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth InSidious Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 Ahhh...... looks like a Stratigest needs to educate you.... No, one battle will not mean losing the War Ever heard of the Austro-Prussian War? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mur'phon Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 I agre with silentscope. While it might be possible to defeat the taliban, defeating them is not going to change much. Warlords control a lot of Afghanistan, and with their own private armies and icreasing suport for their methods, they are begining to take their toll on the occupation. And, fighting them is like fighting wack-a-mole. You kill one, and another one pops up. Also, the warlords and the talibans way of fighting is a fight to gather suport (something they are sucsessfull at) as much as it is a fight to kill enemy troops. And, while the suport for war in NATO countries dwindle, the main adwantage the taliban and warlords becomes clear. It is not numbers, weapons or money, but time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.