- Joined
- Dec 5, 2009
- Messages
- 23,595
- Reaction score
- 18,063
- Location
- Indiana
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Where have you been? Outrageous bills like this have been common place for years! That's why we need reform. Get it "reform"?
And you "left wingers" will soon realize that Health Care Reform is not too much different from the $400 gallon of gas when you start seeing bills for $200 syringes and $500 cases of gauze. Corruption by any other name is just as ****ed up.
Well, not really.
Actually, not at all.
They don't lethally target. Their only kinetic action is defensive. And they usually shoot the wrong people.
If anything, they are a major detriment to U.S. led operations in theater.
And you "left wingers" will soon realize that Health Care Reform is not too much different from the $400 gallon of gas when you start seeing bills for $200 syringes and $500 cases of gauze. Corruption by any other name is just as ****ed up.
Where have you been? Outrageous bills like this have been common place for years! That's why we need reform. Get it "reform"?
Yup, they've never been used ever, until Bush, right? :roll:
Showing you have no clue as to why the fuel cost in Afghanistan is so high. Hint: it has to do with the fact the region is at war, and is not transportation friendly.
Wait for it!
*** it's Bush's fault***
Yeah, but that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
You don't join the invading side to play defender. Their PR may say that they only play defense-tackle, but there's substantial evidence that they've run a few plays of their own, or two, or three.
they've run a few plays of their own, or two, or three.
That sound a little different than this case. Essentially, as I understand it, the contractors are paying protection money to the enemy, and essentially billing us for it.
I'm surprised that people are pretty quiet about this. Their tax dollars are indirectly funding the enemy.
I thought it was a big deal when I saw it. I think the quietness has to do with the fact it's not really a debate topic. Who is going to come out in favor of paying protection money to the enemy?
AMERICAN forces are paying Sunni insurgents hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash to switch sides and help them to defeat Al-Qaeda in Iraq.
The tactic has boosted the efforts of American forces to restore some order to war-torn provinces around Baghdad in the run-up to a report by General David Petraeus, the US commander, to Congress tomorrow.
Petraeus will tell Congress that there has been great progress at a local level in Iraq following a surge in the number of troops this year, but little sign of political reconciliation.
In a letter to US troops, the general wrote that “local Iraqi leaders are coming forward, opposing extremists and establishing provisional units of neighbourhood security volunteers”.
The Sunday Times has witnessed at first hand the enormous sums of cash changing hands. One sheikh in a town south of Baghdad was given $38,000 (£19,000) and promised a further $189,000 over three months to drive Al-Qaeda fighters from a nearby camp.
British forces should buy off potential Taleban recruits with “bags of gold”, according to a new army field manual published yesterday.
Army commanders should also talk to insurgent leaders with “blood on their hands” in order to hasten the end of the conflict in Afghanistan.
The edicts, which are contained in rewritten counter-insurgency guidelines, will be taught to all new army officers. They mark a strategic rethink after three years in which British and Nato forces have failed to defeat the Taleban. The manual is also a recognition that the Army’s previous doctrine for success against insurgents, which was based on the experience in Northern Ireland, is now out of date.
The new instructions came on the day that Gordon Brown went farther than before in setting out Britain’s exit strategy from Afghanistan. The Prime Minister stated explicitly last night that he wanted troops to begin handing over districts to Afghan authorities during next year — a general election year in Britain.
Addressing the issue of paying off the locals, the new manual states that army commanders should give away enough money to dissuade them from joining the enemy. The Taleban is known to pay about $10 (£5.95) a day to recruit local fighters.
Nice to see you RightInNYC, you have not been around enough lately.
I think there is a difference between paying people to fight for us, and paying the enemy not to attack us. One works us closer to success, one only delays the fighting, and adds resources to the enemy.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?