V-Twin Forum banner

1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,049 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
It's my opinion that we have been involved in WW3 for a few years. Long before the current administration came to power.

Alqueda is active in about 40 countries at last I heard.
They are multiplying fast and instilling that hate mentality in their children.

They are trying to gain major influence in all these countries and including several pockets of them in the USA. Most Major countries seem to be fed up with them but afraid of them and afraid to take a stand.

The war is global and it's against a group of people with a particular mindset, not a particular country, even though we just happen to have a front in Iraq and Aphganestan right now which is drawing many of that Alqueda mindset to that region to fight us and the people there to try to maintain their stronghold and have bases of operation.

That's a good thing because we can kill them there and make a stand there.


If we don't fight them, they can move about freely plan, train, gather weapons, accumulate hardware, and money and recruit more people to do their dirty deeds.

And if we don't fight them, who will.

This war will continue and have peaks and valleys in many countries over time. I suspect it may take 2-3 more generation of them dying before they realize thee is a better way.

SO what do you think..??? Please keep the discussion as from this day forward.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,083 Posts
World War One Total Deaths (Cvilian and Mlitary): about 20 million.

World War Two Total Deaths (Civilian and Military): about 70 million.

At that rate of growth WW3 should produce about 250 million deaths. I don't think that Al queda has that ability. It will take the US, China, and Russia to pull that feat off.

Unfortunately we have the weapons and leadership to actually pull it off. :(
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
17,245 Posts
VIP, you are absolutely right. We should have gone into Afghanistan full force and confronted al Queda there. But our leader is a moron and couldn't figure out who the enemy was. He has done more for recruiting new members into al Queda than OBL ever could.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,710 Posts
what is this ? rocket science

If you don't fight to win.

You will lose.

We aren't fighting to win.


Do any of you know when we start fighting to win?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,820 Posts
fight to win

knuckleheader said:
If you don't fight to win.

You will lose.

We aren't fighting to win.


Do any of you know when we start fighting to win?
About the time the profit motive gets taken out of some political contributions by oil companies, private contractors, munitions builders, military supply contractors and the rest of the profits supporting the war.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,049 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
It's possible that this long war may be more about financial impact than the number of people killed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,083 Posts
Fred1369 said:
VIP, you are absolutely right. We should have gone into Afghanistan full force and confronted al Queda there. But our leader is a moron and couldn't figure out who the enemy was. He has done more for recruiting new members into al Queda than OBL ever could.
? You're kidding right? We did in months, with the locals, what Russia couldn't do in 10 years of full-scale war. We continue to puruse them on the borders of Pakistan everyday. In the last major confrontation we wiped them out..! We installed the goverment that we wanted, and in return (IMO) we protect the local chieften's poppy fields.

The dems would love to make this an either/or scenario, but it's b.s. We are militarily involved in about a dozen wars simultaneously, Afghanistan and Iraq are just the two of them that make the papers.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,710 Posts
profits schmoffits

toybox99615 said:
About the time the profit motive gets taken out of some political contributions by oil companies, private contractors, munitions builders, military supply contractors and the rest of the profits supporting the war.
who cares about the profit? well some politicians might prolong a war to let

some friends profit.

butwhat kinda profits from the S P P are we after also?


no one wants to get our troops out of harms way more than I do.

I've stated my dissapointment in W's approach, again I don't like it!

If hillary gets in there, she'll make sure her pal (D.cal. feinstein's)makes

money for her husbands companies. As you know, feinstein resigned from

that commitee which the drive by media has chosen to ignore.

For my money the lesser of two evils is a republican.
 

·
Live Free or Die
Joined
·
8,686 Posts
Fred1369 said:
VIP, you are absolutely right. We should have gone into Afghanistan full force and confronted al Queda there. But our leader is a moron and couldn't figure out who the enemy was. He has done more for recruiting new members into al Queda than OBL ever could.

Fred,

Afghanistan is not just about mud stomping every Taliban or foreign fighter. In fact, every day we are there, there will be somebody to fight. In addition to US forces, there are also Canadians, French, Brits, UAE, Australians, New Zealanders, etc that are out there fighting. I also missed several countries. But the ones I did mention don't have some ridiculous set of rules they must follow to keep their government happy. So that means, they will not avoid fighting-- that includes the UAE special forces unit that's there.

Fighting in Afghanistan is also standing up their Amy and police force. Challenging? You bet. Do those forces have the same "Sunni/Shite" issue the IA or IP has, nope.

Fighting in Afghanistan is also about extening the reach of their government. The country hasn't had a functioning government for quite a while so this is a foregin concept to them. There's also large areas of Afghanistan that live like nomads and they could care less about a government and they are skeptical of it.

Fighting in Afghanistan is also standing up infrastructure. The Flintstones are more advanced than the average Afghan. Their average life expectancy is somewhere around 47 years of age. Less than 1% of the roads are paved, most don't have electricity (because they live in the middle of nowhere), and most don't go to school (though that's changing).

The Taliban and their band of "buddies" get their a$$ kicked every time they come into contact with US and coalition forces. Hence, they resort to IED attacks, which are nothing more than unsupported ambushes. IED attacks also include VBIEDs, Suicide Vest IEDs, etc. Regardless, every day they have to spend avoiding massing their forces and every day they are unable to effectively mass against coalition or Afghan forces only means their ability to ever regain that country becomes more of a pipe dream than it was the day before.

You probably don't have a great appreciation of what's going on in Afghanistan because reporters come in for a few days and only focus on the negatives.
 

·
natural-born world-shaker
Joined
·
2,978 Posts
HiAngle said:
Fred,

Afghanistan is not just about mud stomping every Taliban or foreign fighter. In fact, every day we are there, there will be somebody to fight. In addition to US forces, there are also Canadians, French, Brits, UAE, Australians, New Zealanders, etc that are out there fighting. I also missed several countries. But the ones I did mention don't have some ridiculous set of rules they must follow to keep their government happy. So that means, they will not avoid fighting-- that includes the UAE special forces unit that's there.

Fighting in Afghanistan is also standing up their Amy and police force. Challenging? You bet. Do those forces have the same "Sunni/Shite" issue the IA or IP has, nope.

Fighting in Afghanistan is also about extening the reach of their government. The country hasn't had a functioning government for quite a while so this is a foregin concept to them. There's also large areas of Afghanistan that live like nomads and they could care less about a government and they are skeptical of it.

Fighting in Afghanistan is also standing up infrastructure. The Flintstones are more advanced than the average Afghan. Their average life expectancy is somewhere around 47 years of age. Less than 1% of the roads are paved, most don't have electricity (because they live in the middle of nowhere), and most don't go to school (though that's changing).

The Taliban and their band of "buddies" get their a$$ kicked every time they come into contact with US and coalition forces. Hence, they resort to IED attacks, which are nothing more than unsupported ambushes. IED attacks also include VBIEDs, Suicide Vest IEDs, etc. Regardless, every day they have to spend avoiding massing their forces and every day they are unable to effectively mass against coalition or Afghan forces only means their ability to ever regain that country becomes more of a pipe dream than it was the day before.

You probably don't have a great appreciation of what's going on in Afghanistan because reporters come in for a few days and only focus on the negatives.
very good post, thanks for the insight - especially about the Sunni/Shia non-issue and the UAE (Arab) presence in a non-Arab country

with respect to the UAE, are they learning?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
17,245 Posts
Thanx HiAngle for the insight. I did not know there were that many other countries still in Afghanistan. This just brings up more questions. What would have happened if, when we first chased the Taliban out of office, 130,000 US troops had been sent in as quickly as logistically possible? Would we have had better luck catching the bad guys? It appears, and I could be wrong, that the new recruits into al Queda seem to be heading for Iraq. Why aren't they going to fight us in Afghanistan? Or is this just another example of the media not getting the full story? From your experience, if this Iraq thing had never started, would Afghanistan be in a much better position now?

FWIW, I heard an analysis on the radio the other day. Considering that Iran and Iraq had a needless 8 year war, Iran today does not want Iraq to be unstable. It is in Iran's best interests for a peacefull solution to the formation of a new Iraqi state. Therefore, it would be counterproductive for Iran to keep a guerilla war going.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,064 Posts
Most of the recruits for Al Queida are trained and sent back to their own country to start movements there. Education is the answer, and would be best done from within the Muslim community. I think that the majority of Muslim clerics are opposed to the Al Queida approach, but have some sympathies there. The best that we can do is to show Muslims around the world that we are not against Islam, just the terrorists.

I am sure that we could, with some mainstream clerics' help, turn the Muslim world completely against Al Queida the same as most Christian groups in this country are against militias that misuse Christianity to spread thier hatred.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,083 Posts
Fred1369 said:
...Considering that Iran and Iraq had a needless 8 year war, Iran today does not want Iraq to be unstable. It is in Iran's best interests for a peacefull solution to the formation of a new Iraqi state. Therefore, it would be counterproductive for Iran to keep a guerilla war going.
It depends on how you define stable. Iran would like to control the Iraqi oil fields and extend the shiite hold on the south as far as possible. Not something the US or the surrounding arab (sunni) nations are willing to accept. Henceforth: we can't pull out. (sad but true).
 

·
natural-born world-shaker
Joined
·
2,978 Posts
Fred1369 said:
FWIW, I heard an analysis on the radio the other day. Considering that Iran and Iraq had a needless 8 year war, Iran today does not want Iraq to be unstable. It is in Iran's best interests for a peacefull solution to the formation of a new Iraqi state. Therefore, it would be counterproductive for Iran to keep a guerilla war going.
My take on that:

Iranian military advisers, operatives, and weapons are directly influencing the stability in Iraq now. Stability in Iraq, and the U.S. leaving Iraq, will never happen as long as Iran stir the pot.

Saddam wanted to control the oil; he saw Iran being weak after their revolution and he tried to edge them out of the way, in part with our assistance. That didn't work so he moved on Kuwait (and he could have swept through S.A. before we could have stepped in). We couldn't let him do that so we punted him back. He wouldn't play nice so we eliminated him. Saddam kept religion out of the equation unless it helped him achieve his goals.

Iran is different, they are a theocracy. Iran battled Saddam to a draw - when Saddam had an army. Iraq has no effective army now and I doubt Iran have forgotten that payback is a bit(h. Shia Iran want to dominate the Horn of Africa and the Peninsula and, to accomplish that, they have to gain power by controlling the oil and politics. They finance instability in the region - Lebanon, Palestine, Afghanistan, Somalia, etc. - and it is in Iran's interest for any stability in the region to be re-gained only with Iranian assistance; in other words, by calling off their dogs. For example, Iraq's instability is to be solved by Iranian influence indirectly, at first, with guidance and protection coming from Al Sadr. They're doing the same thing in Lebanon, indirectly employing Syria in an alliance. And they're supplying weapons to Taliban fighters.

Iran want as many factions outside Iran fighting US troops as possible so fewer can be massed against them. It is NOT counterproductive for Iran to keep guerrilla war(s) going.
 

·
Live Free or Die
Joined
·
8,686 Posts
thedog said:
with respect to the UAE, are they learning?

Well their Soldiers are fighting. They have experienced casualties, and I never heard a bad thing said about them. Every now and then we would go to their compound to eat and we were always treated very well. While I have no doubt money from the UAE is filtered into the hands of Taliban, I don't believe it's an official government position.
 

·
Live Free or Die
Joined
·
8,686 Posts
Fred1369 said:
Thanx HiAngle for the insight. I did not know there were that many other countries still in Afghanistan. This just brings up more questions. What would have happened if, when we first chased the Taliban out of office, 130,000 US troops had been sent in as quickly as logistically possible? Would we have had better luck catching the bad guys? It appears, and I could be wrong, that the new recruits into al Queda seem to be heading for Iraq. Why aren't they going to fight us in Afghanistan? Or is this just another example of the media not getting the full story? From your experience, if this Iraq thing had never started, would Afghanistan be in a much better position now?
130,000 troops on the ground :hmmm: :hmmm: . I think that could have gone bad, initially. What we wanted to do was NOT look like another Soviet occupation and we certainy would have looked that way with 130K. But I also don't think that would have met one of our war principle- economy of force. Would we have caught OBL if we had more? Maybe, maybe not. Even if we did catch/kill him we'd still be there. I will also tell you that the terrain along the Afghan/Pak border is so rugged it would take millions of Soldiers to seal it.

I certainly believe that had we not gone into Iraq AND we decided to have a larger troop presence in Afghanistan, we would be further along. But it is what it is. In Afghanistan, almost all U.S. forces fall under NATO. The current NATO commander is a U.S. Army 4-star General, but it does mean that we have to play by NATO rules unless we are going after certain targets (people). THen we revert to U.S. national interests. When I first went to Afghanistan, we weren't under NATO, but that changed during my last few months. There was no change in how we did business. We never felt constrained by being under NATO control.

There are plenty of foreign fighters in Afghanistan. A lot of Chechynans, Uzbeks, Arabs, Pakistanis, some Asian muslims, etc. I do think that most AQ folks head to Iraq because that's their center of gravity. They aren't strong enough to be relevant on two fronts. They can't mass in Afghanistan, unless they have a death wish. They spend most of their time in Pakistan preying on poor, young men telling them lies to make them believers. A lot of the guys we'd take into our control would state they were lied to by AQ. AQ "recruiters" tell them we're killing the Afghan Army, etc. These guys get fired up and then they find themselves engaging U.S. forces and can't believe they see Afghan Soldiers fighting with U.S. units.

There remain pockets of resistance in Afghanistan, especially in the south. But for the most part, they are completely incapable of holding terrain nor can they mount an effective offensive against NATO forces.


Edit.. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21169571/

Not too bad of an article (by the way, Bagram airbase isn't "sprawling"). I don't agree with the comment the Taliban is winning on the strategic level. I do agree if we had a larger troop presence there we'd be much further along than we are today. However, that country is predominantly pre-stone age and even with a large troop force, we would be there for a very long time.
 

·
Live Free or Die
Joined
·
8,686 Posts
thedog said:
Iranian military advisers, operatives, and weapons are directly influencing the stability in Iraq now. Stability in Iraq, and the U.S. leaving Iraq, will never happen as long as Iran stir the pot.


Iran want as many factions outside Iran fighting US troops as possible so fewer can be massed against them. It is NOT counterproductive for Iran to keep guerrilla war(s) going.

Some good points and I hadn't thought of Iran's motive from that angle. Now I have been back from Afghanistan for just over 8 months and things may have changed, but there was almost no talk of Iran meddling in Afghanistan. I think once or twice there was talk of weapons (IED making material) coming out of Iran. But I don't remember anything about the Iranian military or government being involved in that.

In fact, the region along the Iranian border is generally stable. The bad guys in the south would always turn tail to Pakistan when the heat was on them. So I assume there isn't a support structure for them in Iran.


On a side note-- I have seen many around here post about all of the U.S. weapons we supplied folks that are now being used against us-- never saw evidence of that. Heck, they still use RPGs to shoot at helicopters, not Stingers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,083 Posts
HiAngle said:
Some good points and I hadn't thought of Iran's motive from that angle. Now I have been back from Afghanistan for just over 8 months and things may have changed, but there was almost no talk of Iran meddling in Afghanistan. I think once or twice there was talk of weapons (IED making material) coming out of Iran. But I don't remember anything about the Iranian military or government being involved in that.

In fact, the region along the Iranian border is generally stable. The bad guys in the south would always turn tail to Pakistan when the heat was on them. So I assume there isn't a support structure for them in Iran.


On a side note-- I have seen many around here post about all of the U.S. weapons we supplied folks that are now being used against us-- never saw evidence of that. Heck, they still use RPGs to shoot at helicopters, not Stingers.
It is my understanding that Iran prevented the Taliban in Afghanistan from crossing the border in 2001. Sunni/ Shi'ite thing doncha' know.
 

·
Live Free or Die
Joined
·
8,686 Posts
DJW said:
It is my understanding that Iran prevented the Taliban in Afghanistan from crossing the border in 2001. Sunni/ Shi'ite thing doncha' know.
I wouldn't doubt that.

I know the Karzai is friendly towards Iran and he isn't all that friendly towards Pakistan for some obvious reasons. That said, Musharraf is in a very tough position. However, a complete failure in judgement and policy was the "peace agreement" he laid on with the leadership in Quetta. That has not only worked against our efforts in Afghanistan, it has also worked against him. President Karzai probably said it best- "If you let snakes sleep in your bed, don't be surprised when they bite you".
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top