That's certainly interesting, as it seems to go against everything they're fighting for. I guess the lives of their soldiers actually mean quite a lot to them, even if it comes at the price of paying off the enemy. Curious.
Paying the Taleban
- Thread starter Sulu
- Start date
Recommended Videos
lol, good to know.UltraParanoia said:
Seriously it seems like the jury's still out on this but if the rumours ARE true that means Italy has been funding the people killing British soldiers and that is most certainly not cool.
I don't really like Italy. It stemmed from when I went on holiday with my family and we met this Italian woman with a young daughter who befriended my sister. She said she wasn't allowed outside to go shopping or anything when at home because where she was from was so mafia run. Extreme case maybe but it's still true.
Certainly sir! What would you like us to employ first, the napalm, white phosphorous, sarin, or the tactical nuclear device?MaxTheReaper said:They're not under your command, they're not your problem.Wadders said:
That's pretty much exactly what I'm saying!Wadders said:Well what use are principles if you cant abandon them at a moment's notice?
But more.
Don't even bother with principles.
Actually, all those weapons would be pretty good against the Taliban. Except possibly the nuclear weaponry (mountains tend to absord a lot of the energy and radiation.).
I hereby nominate MaxTheReaper for supreme commander, Escapist Expeditionary Force.
I just have one question: What is a Taleban?
And no, I don't think Italy will turn on the rest of Europe and the USA to joing forces with the Talibans.
(Every time Italy changed sides in wars were when they realized the other side was the stronger one. They are/were pretty much cowards like that, so I'm not saying what OP stated is false.)
And no, I don't think Italy will turn on the rest of Europe and the USA to joing forces with the Talibans.
(Every time Italy changed sides in wars were when they realized the other side was the stronger one. They are/were pretty much cowards like that, so I'm not saying what OP stated is false.)
Veylon, meet SteelfistsVeylon said:
Steelfists, meet Veylon.Steelfists said:
EDIT:
Except that didn't really happen. Having your dictator deposed by an anti-government group who never wanted a war in the first place doesn't really count as changing sides.The Hairminator said:
It can be spelt either way, check the wiki article.Maraveno said:
Bet you feel like an asshole now, eh?
The Italians would not give them such a huge amount of money that they would be able to buy such sophisticated weapons as to seriously increase the threat level to NATO troops. I mean, they can make IEDs out of shitty 1960s vintage Soviet mines that can remove the turret from an M1A1 Abrams. Anyhow, they get all the monies they need from heroin, much more than the Italians would ever give them.Veylon said:
One disadvantage is that they do have a safe area. However, giving them some barren countryside, even large tracts of it, does not help them at all. Surveillance can keep tabs on them without killing them, and if the Italians and Afghan government control the INHABITED areas, they can influence the population, which is really all that matters in a counter insurgency war.
Like I said before, the Taliban may beleive they have won a victory by "intimidating" the NATO forces, but in reality, they are losing out, as when the NATO forces stop paying, they will go out and find a hostile population and well established government, and will bleed to death in the following months.
MaxTheReaper said:
No, but like I said, they are still on your side, still fighting for the same things as you are. So in the bigger picture, they really are your problem.
Sounds like a good planMaxTheReaper said:That's pretty much exactly what I'm saying!Wadders said:Well what use are principles if you cant abandon them at a moment's notice?
But more.
Don't even bother with principles.
If we had just abandoned our principles at the start of the war, we'd probably have won it already. Just those pesky Human Rights laws that get in the way...
And that's the problem: the Taliban really don't care for Human Rights laws, which gives them a major advantage. They will use civilians as meatshields and cover without hesitation. Rules of war are all nice and dandy, but useless and a burden when the enemy ignores them. Sure you can talk about honour and all that, but does honour win you a guerilla war? No it doesn't, honour isn't part of the modern day's battlefield.Wadders said:Sounds like a good planMaxTheReaper said:
In the end it'll be your problem again. When you pay them off, you give them the funds and peace to prepare for a comeback. It's the Taliban, you better be ready for them stabbing your back, it's not like they care about our principles anyway.MaxTheReaper said:
Certainly sir. In any particular order of firing? We can do patterns, you know.MaxTheReaper said:
But, sureley they HAVE to reduce their presence if they can't attack the Italians.stinkychops said:
True, true. Political correctness comes from culture rather than reason, personally i follow reason.Jim Grim said:
On topic, whilst paying of the Taliban may work so far in keeping the area quiet while you can get the population on your side there must be a better way, like perhaps fighting an aggressive war to keep them in the rural unpopulated areas away from centered of population, then, if the fighting is sucessful, schools and hospitals can be built in the population centers anyway.
I think the trick is to have regular NATO troops and Afgan soldiers protecting the town's and population centers, whilst NATO special forces, marines, para's and commando's etc to the aggressive fighting hunting the Taliban, heavily supported by the airforce. Any towns and villages that the NATO special forces may capture can be consolidated by the regular troop's and Afghan army that follows in their wake.
Certainly, you do have end up negotiating to end the war, but paying out danegeld is counterproductive. When you pay to avoid attacks, it's on the basis that the attacker is fully capable of resuming them at any time, and only accepts payment in lieu of attacking right now. I hope that, if the Italians are paying, that they are, indeed, doing as you say and building up in the hopes that the benefits they gain are greater than the cost of the eventual reckoning when pay time is over. That's a gamble I can respect.Steelfists said:
But if they are paying only to avoid attacks, then I would condemn them.
Also, surveillance works very poorly in the mountainous stronghold of the Taliban. Spies are difficult to sneak in, satelites and aircraft cannot monitor tunnels. The point of a safe haven isn't to be valuable in and of itself, but to basically be a place to put stuff. As long as the Taliban has such a place, they can have a command center, R&R for troops, extensive storage, etc. Every insurgency needs such places to succeed. Denying them to the Taliban is vital to ultimately breaking them up. Without safe haven, they have to be constantly on the move, limiting their ability to organize, preventing them from building up supplies, forcing them to spend their manpower simply to survive.
I'm not saying that the Italians are, by their bribery, allowing the Taliban their last remaining position. But I hope that there is a master plan that makes this alleged paying-off pay off.
I am not saying that the safe havens will denied to them. That is a disadvantage. However, the Italian's reconstruction efforts will be a greater benefit. If they are actually doing them and not just going through the motions.Veylon said:
The point is the Italians would establish their prescence, and thereby denying the Taliban access to the areas they are in, along with the Afghan Army (not the Police, they are corrupt as fuck).stinkychops said: