Taliban not that strong: US ambassador

Taliban not that strong: US ambassador 50 minutes ago



KABUL (AFP) - The Taliban movement in Afghanistan will continue its attacks on Afghan and foreign troops in the coming months, but is "not that strong," the US ambassador said here Monday.

Outgoing US ambassador Ronald E. Neumann told reporters he expected fierce fighting in Afghanistan this year, especially in the southern provinces, but the country was increasingly able to cope.

"I still see Taliban as not that strong a movement when you compare ... to what you have going on in Iraq. They can bring a lot of terror and they brought a lot last year and they will probably bring some more.

"This does not tell me this is a 10-foot movement -- it's tough, it's resilient, it's dangerous ... I just don't see it as being that strong."

more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070312/pl_afp/afghanistanunrestus_070312155139

Good lets bring our troops home then.

..tell that to the guys dying in the field you prick....

tried to rule Afganistan? They may not have been fighting the Taliban, but it's the same principal, the same wild ass native population, fighting against the forgeigners that have come to occupy their country.

incredible propaganda of the days of Shock and Awe.

and we all know 'Murka can kick anybody's ass. History is for wimps. :sarcasm:

I'm certain similar statements were made during the reign of the Roman Empire and we all know hoe that turned out. Many Americans DO have this air of invincibility about them: that there always was and always will be an ultra-strong United States, unable to be bowed by any country on the planet. When one starts thinking like that is the exact time when one is at their most vulnerable. American uber-nationalists are usually extremely ignorant about history, or, to be more precise, extremely ignorant about history outside of that which supports their particular flawed ideology. In plain English....FReepers, and their ilk.

I suppose then they wouldn't be 'wild ass natives', right? What an arrogant, reactionary and borderline racist post.

shit that you say? Yep, wild assed natives. These people are rugged, sometimes nomadic people who do not fight war in the accepted manner (ala the way the west fights). Many live in the mountains in rustic or backward conditions. Whatever, yes I said wild. As the Russians (although a lot of Russia's problem was the US support we gave the Taliban and bin Laden).

And no, no where did I ever say they should have laid down to imperialist forces like the British. Ever. My point is that the British and the Russians have been through this experience and they failed.

I'll worry about what you think of my post when you learn how to read.

The Afghanis have been fighting off invaders since Alexander the Great. They haven't been bested yet. I say leave 'em to it, let them have their patch of scrubland.

and their determined resistance to foreign occupiers in the past. I objected to your offensive language and still do. Characterizing the 'natives' as 'wild' and 'uncivilized' was a common ploy of imperialists to dehumanize them and justify repressive measures against them. I consider myself an anti-imperialist and I couldn't let those adjectives go unchallenged. And why on earth did you feel the need to be so rude?

On edit, stay as rude as you are, but use some of your rudeness against AIPAC supporters. :evilgrin:

"What, Me Worry?"

Now he's all puffed up like a peacock.

that this will lead to another one of those "nobody could have predicted they were so strong" moments?

our heads are still spinning from the last time. :)

Famous last words.

Indians come from?" :)

If we'd had hate radio in those days, they'd have bashed the newspapers for not reporting all the good news from Little Bighorn.

that keeps on giving.

if they aren't strong as he says and we have the "stronger" force over there, logic would dictate that we should be "winning" however, it appears that the "not so strong" Taliban keep launching offensives and taking over towns in the south. So therefore, only one conclusion can be reached; our troops aren't so strong either.

I get so tired of living in an alternative universe.

for the taliban/al-qaeda how exactly are you measuring the number of enemy troops that are combat ready? Do you even have a clue as to how many Afghanis are under arms right now Mr. Ambassador? Or are you just blowing smoke like a good little kool aid drinker?