Are the Taliban winning the war ?

DublinDes

Here's a report I seen on sky news. Looks to me that far from been anywhere beaten, they are getting stronger. To me it looks like the outcome is going to be similiar to the Soviet defeat over two decades ago.

" Pakistan No-Go Area As Taliban Take Control. The Taliban are now in control of the Swat Valley area of Pakistan. Stuart Ramsay is the only foreign TV journalist to have entered the region since the takeover. "

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/video/Taliban-take-control-of-Swat-Valley-Pakistan/Video/200903415247007?lpos=video_First_World_News_Article_Teaser_Region_0&lid=VIDEO_15247007_Taliban_take_control_of_Swat_Valley%2C_Pakistan

arybvtcw0eolkf

How many bombs would it take to carpet the Swat Valley?.

DublinDes

Mairt wrote: »

How many bombs would it take to carpet the Swat Valley?.

They have been carpeting many valleys and the Taliban are not anywhere close to defeat

Duffers

'Here's a report I seen'

Been to school lately?

DublinDes

Duffers wrote: »

'Here's a report I seen'

Been to school lately?

Your point ?

Fratton Fred

What do yousuggest then Des? give up and go home? The majority of people in Afghanistan want rid of the taliban (They want rid of all foreigners tbh, but ISAF is a better option for them).

How would you deal with the situation in Afghanistan?

rkeane

The Taliban are clearly winning at the moment, they have extended their influence to areas right across Afghanistan and now control large sections of Pakistan. They have also learned a lot from the war in Iraq, Al Qaeda militants with experience of Iraq have introduced a new generation of efps....these are effective against all ISAF vehicles.

DublinDes

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What do yousuggest then Des? give up and go home? The majority of people in Afghanistan want rid of the taliban (They want rid of all foreigners tbh, but ISAF is a better option for them).

How would you deal with the situation in Afghanistan?

Good question. I would see a way foward for Afghanistan and the middle east ( Palestine, Iraq etc) would lie with someone such as the Arab League and observers of the Arab League such as India, Venezuela other non aligned countries. I know it's a pretty general statement, but they certainly do not need the west to force 'peace' on them.

Fratton Fred

They do though. Peace keeping does not exist in Kandahar, it is peace enforcing. Do you really think the Taliban care if it is the Brits, Canadians, or Venezeulans they are fighting?

Manic Moran

DublinDes wrote: »

Good question. I would see a way foward for Afghanistan and the middle east ( Palestine, Iraq etc) would lie with someone such as the Arab League and observers of the Arab League such as India, Venezuela other non aligned countries. I know it's a pretty general statement, but they certainly do not need the west to force 'peace' on them.

As an organisation, the Arab League seems to have been even more unsuccessful than the UN. At least the UN occasionally does some good.(That said, on an individual level several middle-Eastern countries have sent troops to Afghanistan) I'm also not entirely sure that India would be the best option. There's talk of India providing some 100,000 soldiers to ISAF. That would make them the biggest contributors, twice as large as the US. Of course, this is mainly to do with the effect on Pakistan, so I don't really see that as being a stabilising influence.

Pakistan No-Go Area As Taliban Take Control[...]To me it looks like the outcome is going to be similiar to the Soviet defeat over two decades ago.

Just a note here, but ISAF doesn't have much say over what happens in Pakistan, you're effectively talking about a different conflict. To my knowledge there are no no-go areas for ISAF in Afghanistan, and I'm fairly well motivated to know if there are any.

NTM

diverdriver

The Taliban are not winning the war, certainly not militarily or hearts and minds of the people in Afghanistan. But Pakistan is different as MM points out. The Pakistan government needs to get it's own house in order.

As for Arab involvement, not a good idea. Arabs are not the most militarily efficient of peoples. Big on rhetoric, not so good on action. The average Afghan would wipe the floor with them. And that's where the solution lies. Getting Afghan forces up to speed with the people behind them.

Fratton Fred

Manic Moran wrote: »

There's talk of India providing some 100,000 soldiers to ISAF. That would make them the biggest contributors, twice as large as the US. Of course, this is mainly to do with the effect on Pakistan, so I don't really see that as being a stabilising influence.

100,000 mainly Hindu and Sikh troops put into a war with Muslim extremists, on a porous border with Pakistan.

That'll be fun.

Ping Chow Chi

yes I dont see the logic in this offer at all to be honest

piby

I don't think they're winning rather there is a stalemate with ISAF holding the major cities and the Taliban roaming free in the countryside. Anything is a victory of sorts for the Taliban save being completely annihilated which IMHO will never happen. Eventually I think the Western forces' public (perhaps less so the Americans) will grow tired of this conflict and demand their troops out. Granted I still think this won't happen for years but eventually it may be the case.

The problem is that with somewhere like Afghanistan the solution isn't a military one. For all the hard work and dogged fighting on the ground nothing will move forward until the politicians bring it forward. Until then we'll just see more of the same and with the summer coming and the rumoured build up of taliban forces coinciding with the US surge it's going to be a long couple of months.

On another note did anybidy see that episode of Dispatches on Channel 4 recently about Pakistan's Taliban. It was genuinely terrifying if I'm being honest particularly their strategy of recruiting and using children.

Riddle101

If they continue to extend their influence, i fear the Taliban might just win the war. It'll be Vietnam all over again, only this time the Americans won't be the ones to lose their heads over it.

BTW, has there ever been a situation where guerilla warfare hasn't worked. It seems, guerilla tactics are the only tactics that can win over a battlefield.

Fratton Fred

The people of Afghanistan don't want the Taliban though, they just want everyone to **** off and leave them alone. I get the impression the Afghan army will be taking an ever increasing role in the war.

Manic Moran

Riddle101 wrote: »

BTW, has there ever been a situation where guerilla warfare hasn't worked. It seems, guerilla tactics are the only tactics that can win over a battlefield.

Malaya?

Philippines?

I'm sure there are probably some others.

NTM

Fratton Fred

Manic Moran wrote: »

Malaya?

Philippines?

I'm sure there are probably some others.

NTM

i would suggest the Tamils in Sri Lanka would be a good example, no?

toomevara

This report (from an Irish journalist embedded with the USMC) doesn't exactly fill you with confidence concerning the fighting prowess of the ANA....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2009/mar/27/obama-afghanistan-military

Manic Moran

Got to feel for those jarheads.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Afghan Army reconstruction has been working on the same level as the Iraqi Army reconstruction. Some units are just plain wastes of space, some other units are really rather good. Eventually a process of rotation of good NCOs and officers will bring the poorer units up to an acceptable level.

NTM

Local-womanizer

toomevara wrote: »

This report (from an Irish journalist embedded with the USMC) doesn't exactly fill you with confidence concerning the fighting prowess of the ANA....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2009/mar/27/obama-afghanistan-military

Reading Ordinary Soilder by Doug Beattie he goes on about the ANA and the ANP have a total distrust of each other.He siad though that some of them are great fighters,most others just need the proper training.

Davey2

I think that the American will never win that war, and should never have started it either. The Afghans the same as the Iraqi's won't give up, why should they, their country is occupied. I however agree they don't want the taliban either, they just want their own country back. They will never accept the puppet state the yanks are trying to put in place either The War Against Terror (TWAT for short) was engineered to get american access to Oil fields, and the Brits went along with it for the cash. I personally hope that the yanks and Brits etc lose but I also hope the good people of Afghanistan can resist the Taliban also.

Fratton Fred

Davey2 wrote: »

I think that the American will never win that war, and should never have started it either. The Afghans the same as the Iraqi's won't give up, why should they, their country is occupied. I however agree they don't want the taliban either, they just want their own country back. They will never accept the puppet state the yanks are trying to put in place either The War Against Terror (TWAT for short) was engineered to get american access to Oil fields, and the Brits went along with it for the cash. I personally hope that the yanks and Brits etc lose but I also hope the good people of Afghanistan can resist the Taliban also.

I disagree, see my later post

(Sorry for the original one, OTT)

lazybhoy

Davey2 wrote: »

I think that the American will never win that war, and should never have started it either. The Afghans the same as the Iraqi's won't give up, why should they, their country is occupied. I however agree they don't want the taliban either, they just want their own country back. They will never accept the puppet state the yanks are trying to put in place either The War Against Terror (TWAT for short) was engineered to get american access to Oil fields, and the Brits went along with it for the cash. I personally hope that the yanks and Brits etc lose but I also hope the good people of Afghanistan can resist the Taliban also.

Sorry to disapoint you but the Iraqis voted in their President and officials and things have claimed down alot.

As for Afghanistan yes, they want their country back from the unelected Taliban most whom come from Pakistan.

To win in Afghanistan the Taliban must be defeated in Pakistan, thats the key.

More moderate Taliban must be divided from the hardline and compromise negotiated, but it will take time.

Black Swan

If I recall what I have read about the history of Afghanistan, no foreign power has maintained their hold on the nation, and were always forced to eventually leave? Control will probably go back to the warlords after the US and other foreign nations withdraw? Along with the reinitiation of their opium trade in non-Taliban controlled areas?

Will the Taliban regain control over parts of the country as before? If they are Afghan Taliban, then the odds are good? But I thought Al Qaeda was the reason for invading Afghanistan, not the Taliban? Did the US lose focus by targeting the Taliban rather than Al Qaeda? It was Al Qaeda that attacked the US, not the Taliban?

Now if the Taliban are being attacked by the US because they rendered aid to Al Qaeda, then there's a long list of Middle Eastern countries that also rendered aid to some extent? Will the US attack them also, or just single out the Taliban?

Iraq was not an Al Qaeda supporter under Saddam (before the 2nd Gulf War), although the Bush administration misinformed everyone about this, including the threat from the non-existent weapons of mass destruction?

Davey2

Fratton Fred wrote: »

you don't actually know what you are talking about do you? :rolleyes:

I admit the middle east is definitely not one of my strongest strings in my bow, but I honestly belief the yanks shouldn't have invaded either Iraq or Afghanistan.

Fratton Fred

Davey2 wrote: »

I admit the middle east is definitely not one of my strongest strings in my bow, but I honestly belief the yanks shouldn't have invaded either Iraq or Afghanistan.

OK, this is about Afghanistan, so we'll ignore Iraq shall we.

Afghanistan has no oil, zilch. It does have gas, but not much and very poor quality. it is currently not viable to extract it, it is that poor. The oil fields in that region are in Kazakhastan and Turkmenistan. Getting to either place via Afghanistan is a long way round, especially considering BP has built a bloody great big pipeline to get their oil out (did you neet see "The World is Not Enough?" So we can ignore the usual reason given for invading countries.

The US and the "Brits" are not the only two countries there, they are just the two major contributors. This shows a full list of who is there and if you scroll down to Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, you will see a Green White and Orange flag down there as well.

Now then, The Taliban are/were a very nasty bunch, they literally treated women as second class citizens for example. Women caught out of their home without a male chaperone who was a close relative, were stoned to death in the streets, or hung for adultery. you see, they practiced extreme Sharia law. They also supported Al Qeada and trained their supporters in training camps based in Afghanistan. All the time the Taliban were in charge of Afghanistan, Al Qeada had a base, a safe haven where they could openly train and plot against the west.

The war in Afghanistan is going to be a long hard bloody war and it will be won by the people of Afdghanistan, because that is what they want. Currently more support needs to go into reconstruction and development in the country, however, everything built by the west or anyone supporting them is a target of the Taliban, which is why they have to go.

This is not comparable to Iraq, it is fully supported by pretty much everyone except the Taliban and the usual bleeding heart liberals (The same nes that were urging the west to do something about women's rights in Afghanistan btw) and it has to succeed.

There you go, I'm sure the lads can correct my cock ups:D

Black Swan

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Now then, The Taliban are/were a very nasty bunch, they literally treated women as second class citizens for example. Women caught out of their home without a male chaperone who was a close relative, were stoned to death in the streets, or hung for adultery. you see, they practiced extreme Sharia law.

You cannot use the treatment of women as part of the justification for war. Yes, the Taliban treated women harshly, but there are other countries that also do the same using their religion or cultural norms as justification, like the prevailing wasabi law of Saudi Arabia? I don't see the US and its partners attacking Saudi Arabia for their mistreatment of women. Rather, to what extent does the USA subtly support the Saudi Royal family and their mistreatment of women, while maintaining military bases in Arabia and trading heavily for their oil?

Manic Moran

The Afghan invasion cause was simple.

"You are providing sanctuary to Bin Laden. Hand him over. Failure to comply will result in our coming in and making life very miserable for you."

Give or take.

Now, it's an interesting point that Afghan culture is such that if anyone is in your care, even if it's your enemy, you protect them. So it was to be expected that the Taliban would refuse to hand him over. However, given that the Taliban were quite a piece of work anyway, I'm sure that the pre-determinedness of the situation didn't cause anyone any lost sleep.

NTM

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

The Afghan invasion cause was simple.

"You are providing sanctuary to Bin Laden. Hand him over. Failure to comply will result in our coming in and making life very miserable for you."

Now will the USA use this as a pretext to invade Pakistan? And if he escapes to Iran or Syria?

Fratton Fred

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

You cannot use the treatment of women as part of the justification for war. Yes, the Taliban treated women harshly, but there are other countries that also do the same using their religion or cultural norms as justification, like the prevailing wasabi law of Saudi Arabia? I don't see the US and its partners attacking Saudi Arabia for their mistreatment of women. Rather, to what extent does the USA subtly support the Saudi Royal family and their mistreatment of women, while maintaining military bases in Arabia and trading heavily for their oil?

I use it only to demonstrate their adherence to strict sharia law and the hypocricy of a lot of people who oppose the war there. The Taliban's biggest crime, as Mr Moran points out, is offering a safe haven for Mr Bin Laden

Manic Moran

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Now will the USA use this as a pretext to invade Pakistan? And if he escapes to Iran or Syria?

I don't think I would go as far as to say that Pakistan is refusing to hand over OBL. If they could I'm fairly sure they would.

Syria and Iran will have to be taken on their merits. I'm sure some sort of military action would be on the tables.

NTM

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

I don't think I would go as far as to say that Pakistan is refusing to hand over OBL. If they could I'm fairly sure they would.

Syria and Iran will have to be taken on their merits. I'm sure some sort of military action would be on the tables.

This suggests that the USA would be willing to attack and violate international law and the principle of sovereignty of over 50 nations that it lacks an extradition treaty, if any one of them had OBL but were unwilling to surrender him? Would USA attack a strong nation (that also has the bomb) like PRC, or just weak nations like Syria or Iran? Does this imply a double standard?

The consensus in international law is that a state does not have any obligation to surrender an alleged criminal to a foreign state as one principle of sovereignty is that every state has legal authority over the people within its borders. Such absence of international obligation and the desire of the right to demand such criminals of other countries have caused a web of extradition treaties or agreements to evolve; most countries in the world have signed bilateral extradition treaties with most other countries. No country in the world has an extradition treaty with all other countries; for example, the United States lacks extradition treaties with over fifty nations, including the People's Republic of China, Namibia, and North Korea.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition

Fratton Fred

We're not talking about an "Alledged Criminal" here though are we, or a nation that refuses to hand him over because they believe his cock and bull story.

This isn't some guy travelling on dodgy passports and claiming to monitor elections, this is the most wanted person in the world, the man responsible for the New York, Madrid, Bali and London bombings.

Anyone who refuses to hand him over does so in the knowledge they leave themselves open to attack.

I don't see what the problem is.

Manic Moran

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Would USA attack a strong nation (that also has the bomb) like PRC, or just weak nations like Syria or Iran? Does this imply a double standard?

For OBL? They'll take action against anyone, to include China. It may take the form of a deniable commando raid instead of an airstrike, and they may or may not issue an ultimatum beforehand, but some form of action will always be an option. What's the worst that happens in retaliation? Punitive airstrikes by the PLAAF against Hawaii?

NTM

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

For OBL? They'll take action against anyone, to include China.

USA attack PRC over OBL? This only happens in a Tom Clancy fiction. I find it completely incomprehensible that the USA would risk its vast economic investment relationship with one of its largest trading partners, and use its military, overtly or covertly, to attack the PRC if they have OBL and refuse to give him up.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

We're not talking about an "Alledged Criminal" here though are we, or a nation that refuses to hand him over because they believe his cock and bull story.

I don't see what the problem is.

I don't think it's all that simple. In politics today's war enemy often becomes tomorrow's bedfellow, and vis-a-versa?

The PRC was yesteryear's communist threat for the USA, especially during the McCarthy Era, and today's communist PRC is one of USA's largest trading partners? Communist Hanoi was the enemy of USA during the Viet Nam War, and today's communist Hanoi is a USA trading partner?

What nation originally trained OBL in Afghanistan, and to fight whom? What was he called then by his trainers and the people he was attempting to liberate from occupation?

Is there a chance that a large segment of the population in the Middle East does not like the predominately Christian USA, or their war-forced occupation of two Islamic countries, and that they may harbour or otherwise render aid to OBL? Maybe that's a major reason why the USA can't catch him after how many years of trying? Do these people who dislike the USA call OBL a terrorist, or freedom fighter (or defender of Islam)?

One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter? For example, Jonathan Swift had a bounty on his head by the Brits after he wrote "A Modest Proposal," but was a hero to the Irish that hid him? The "Swamp Fox" Francis Marion of the US war for independence was considered a criminal to be hanged by the Brits, and a freedom fighter by the colonists for independence. Irony?

Anyone read about the scandal that arose when it was discovered General Patton used former Nazis to run the US occupied part of WWII defeated Germany? Irony?

Does anyone remember the Iran-Contra Arms Scandal, where the USA, Israel and Iran were to collaborate and supply Ronald Reagan's "freedom fighters" in Central America? Iran is now one of the Axis of Evil proclaimed by Bush, and is a bitter enemy of Israel? Irony?

What world renowned terrorist founder of the PLO was given a Nobel Peace Prize? Does anyone see the craic?

In the real world it's not all that simple!

I don't condone the killing of innocent people by anyone, OBL in NYC, the Taliban in Afghanistan, or the good ole USA when they invaded Iraq during the 2nd Gulf War under the false pretexts of Saddam supporting OBL, and the non-existent weapons of mass destruction. Thousands of innocent men, women, and children died during the US invasion and the post-war mess, so why wouldn't many of the surviving relatives hate the US occupiers and render aid to OBL, or the Taliban in Afghanistan?

Manic Moran

I find it completely incomprehensible that the USA would risk its vast economic investment relationship with one of its largest trading partners, and use its military, overtly or covertly, to attack the PRC if they have OBL and refuse to give him up.

The co-dependence is mutual. The US is one of China's largest trading partners as well. A low-key strike or raid may very well cause a few diplomatic ruffles internally, but neither country is going to sever ties over it.

What happened when the Israelis attacked a US Naval vessel? Blatant attack, killed a number of US Sailors, yet the US did not take any public punitive actions because it was not in the greater national interest for America to do so.

NTM

Ping Chow Chi

Manic Moran wrote: »

The co-dependence is mutual. The US is one of China's largest trading partners as well. A low-key strike or raid may very well cause a few diplomatic ruffles internally, but neither country is going to sever ties over it.

What happened when the Israelis attacked a US Naval vessel? Blatant attack, killed a number of US Sailors, yet the US did not take any public punitive actions because it was not in the greater national interest for America to do so.

NTM

I think I would expect a big response from China if they where attacked on their own soil (their own soil being the key, I seem to remember that the US ship was attacked sitting off the coast of Israel when it was attacked), but why on earth would they ever hide OBL .. or why would Iran for that matter they are enemies after all.

Riddle101

Ping Chow Chi wrote: »

I think I would expect a big response from China if they where attacked on their own soil (their own soil being the key, I seem to remember that the US ship was attacked sitting off the coast of Israel when it was attacked), but why on earth would they ever hide OBL .. or why would Iran for that matter they are enemies after all.

Politics is a very complicated matter in terms of who's friends/eneimes with who. As pointed out already, USA sold weapons to Iraq to fight Iran, then of course the Gulf War happened. Same thing could happen again with OBL and Iran, If Iran feel that they have a common enemy with OBL in either America or Isreal who OBL has denounced in the past, then they may very well ally or become friends. Hell OBL offered to aid Saudi Arabia against the Iraqis when they invaded Kuwait, now he's enemies with Saudi Arabia and i'm pretty certain that he had links with Saddam Hussein during the second Gulf War. My point is, things change.

mysterious

I read the first headline, I deliberately NOT read the rest of the three pages:rolleyes:


Can I ask a question here to all of you. Since it's 2009 (or so I think)

What does it "mean" to win the war? What does it "mean" to win if Taliban win. What does it "mean" if America win.

What does it "mean" to "win a war"


This kind of thinking is very stuck to me:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: To be quite blunt. Even stupid to me.


Can anyone, I mean just answer this question for pure curosity sake, I have a real issue tryingt to understand this nonsense. I really have alot of trouble, believing word for word of Rupurt Murdock bull**** new station says too.

mysterious

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

USA attack PRC over OBL? This only happens in a Tom Clancy fiction. I find it completely incomprehensible that the USA would risk its vast economic investment relationship with one of its largest trading partners, and use its military, overtly or covertly, to attack the PRC if they have OBL and refuse to give him up.

They could of cot OBL years ago, Heck at this retardness that we have been fed with the government incmopetence to catch him. It's kinda odd, that the government could make such a **** up, but still create a false flag operation within their own country, blame OBL but go after Saddam and manipulate their own people to going to Iraq.I swear I'm sure I was retarded for many years, listening to the nonsense the media show us. Luckily enough I've copped on thankfully. Please read this paragraph twice with an open mind. You will come to understand there is no logic whatsover in the way events turned out.

It's ironic, they never found him even after all these years, but manage kill Saddam and sushi another soveriegn nation. They never found him, but CIA manage to get tapes and show us, the people? Why videos? not OBL?

It's so ironic, They could have used google street map since it's a pretty amazing tool to find things. You can see everything on that literally. But then again, the government are 50 years a head of us even. It's pretty unlimitied to what they could and can do. They could of beamed their **** from space and take OBL anyway they liked literally, like scotty on Star trek can achieve.

Really this is utter crap. I'm tired of it. Bush practically sang songs with OBL ffs. They have alliances and ties ffs from Saudi Arabia. Obama is a CIA head ffs. Is it any wonder he wasn't cot.:P

I don't think it's all that simple. In politics today's war enemy often becomes tomorrow's bedfellow, and vis-a-versa?

The "enemy". Oh that one. The axis of evil, the terrorists are out to get us and take our freedom.

Anymore on the nonsense list?

Is there a chance that a large segment of the population in the Middle East does not like the predominately Christian USA, or their war-forced occupation of two Islamic countries, and that they may harbour or otherwise render aid to OBL? Maybe that's a major reason why the USA can't catch him after how many years of trying? Do these people who dislike the USA call OBL a terrorist, or freedom fighter (or defender of Islam)?

Cant touch him lol, do you believe everything you read and see on T.V. 90% of it is utter bullsh!t. OBL sat in hospital apparently and had a kidney operation. CIA agent went to visit him. But oh well I'm just saying.

How come they never shown videos of CIA agents meeting up with OBL, post 9/11.:D sure why would we think that.


I heard these back in 2002, from certain people;) It's ironic that I got to hear such simple statements from simple people. You know, they were even muslim.;)

I don't condone the killing of innocent people by anyone, OBL in NYC, the Taliban in Afghanistan, or the good ole USA when they invaded Iraq during the 2nd Gulf War under the false pretexts of Saddam supporting OBL, and the non-existent weapons of mass destruction. Thousands of innocent men, women, and children died during the US invasion and the post-war mess, so why wouldn't many of the surviving relatives hate the US occupiers and render aid to OBL, or the Taliban in Afghanistan?

This is why, nobody should ever believe the crap we are fed on t.v.

If they really wanted OBL, they would of got him, not go to IRAQ.

It's about MONEY. The American elite don't give a damn about the war on terror or defeating terrorism. Anyone with enough cop on would know that and even they know that. They are interesting in making money out of it. They don't give a flying bejesus about the 6,000 American's that died in this war. If logic was the case, then it's showing up. They went to Iraq and the focus was Iraq. Why Iraq, because that's where the money business was.

mysterious

Riddle101 wrote: »

Politics is a very complicated matter in terms of who's friends/eneimes with who. As pointed out already, USA sold weapons to Iraq to fight Iran, then of course the Gulf War happened. Same thing could happen again with OBL and Iran, If Iran feel that they have a common enemy with OBL in either America or Isreal who OBL has denounced in the past, then they may very well ally or become friends. Hell OBL offered to aid Saudi Arabia against the Iraqis when they invaded Kuwait, now he's enemies with Saudi Arabia and i'm pretty certain that he had links with Saddam Hussein during the second Gulf War. My point is, things change.

It's not complicated.

The idea of they are the enemy, is to get us people to go fight this "enemy". The only complicated thing, is the enemy list changes alot, pretty much like who has the money too.

Who has the most guns and most money, is a friend. Who ever has the least now see them as an enemy.

It's this equation - MONEY.

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

What happened when the Israelis attacked a US Naval vessel? Blatant attack, killed a number of US Sailors, yet the US did not take any public punitive actions because it was not in the greater national interest for America to do so.

Not comparable. A very different situation from a Tom Clancy fictional military attack on PRC soil to obtain OBL. The Isrealis did not intentionally attack the USS Liberty during the Six Day War, but were mistaken when IDing the ship as an enemy vessel, just like when a US submarine mistakenly torpedoed the Ark Royal British aircraft carrier during WWII. Plus, the USA was considered negligent by not informing the Israelis that their spy ship was within the war zone.
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/12/us.israel.ussliberty/index.html

Ping Chow Chi wrote: »

I think I would expect a big response from China if they where attacked on their own soil (their own soil being the key...

Indeed! It would be an act of war. Perhaps the pretext PRC is looking for to take back Taiwan?

Manic Moran

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Not comparable. A very different situation from a Tom Clancy fictional military attack on PRC soil to obtain OBL. The Isrealis did not intentionally attack the USS Liberty during the Six Day War, but were mistaken when IDing the ship as an enemy vessel, just like when a US submarine mistakenly torpedoed the Ark Royal British aircraft carrier during WWII.

? She was sunk by a U-Boat.
I think there are very few people who believe that the Liberty incident was not an accident. I don't blame the Israelis for it, mind.

Indeed! It would be an act of war. Perhaps the pretext PRC is looking for to take back Taiwan?

The Chinese military is not in a position to do that. It simply lacks the transport assets. There would be official protests, unofficial acknowledgement of a fair cop, but no WWIII.

NTM

Riddle101

mysterious wrote: »

It's not complicated.

The idea of they are the enemy, is to get us people to go fight this "enemy". The only complicated thing, is the enemy list changes alot, pretty much like who has the money too.

Who has the most guns and most money, is a friend. Who ever has the least now see them as an enemy.

It's this equation - MONEY.

Money's not the only equation though. Sure if that were the case then why does Iran treat America with disrespect when they know they could be easily crushed if America tried to invade them. Surely Iran would try to ally themselves with America rather then be on their bad side. Unless Isreal is the problem but then again. America have always been hostile to the Iranians and vise versa. My Point is some people have other agenda on mind. Take the Taliban, they're agenda is pretty much built on their own religon, they hardly care enough for money, considering the economic turmoil Afghanistan are under what with wars being fought all the time. They fight not for the money but because they feel they are right and we are wrong, and they must punish those who have done wrong. Al Queda's agenda is to rid the Middle East of Foreign Influence and implement their religous Ideals onto the Middle-East. The only country that's really doing it for the money is proberly America.

mysterious

Riddle101 wrote: »

Money's not the only equation though. Sure if that were the case then why does Iran treat America with disrespect when they know they could be easily crushed if America tried to invade them. Surely Iran would try to ally themselves with America rather then be on their bad side. Unless Isreal is the problem but then again. America have always been hostile to the Iranians and vise versa. My Point is some people have other agenda on mind.

Oh christ can't belieeeeeve you said that.:eek:

It's the other way around. America is disrespecting Iran. Please please please stop watching the crap on T.V for the love of god.


The reason and i'm going to tell you exactly what the problem is all joking and bull**** aside. Ok.

Is because Iran dumped or is threatening to dump the dollar. LIke Iraq did in 2000. America wants the oil trading within in OPEC under the dollar. Iran suddenly got on the "axis of evil " list just like Iraq.

Pleaes please try and do more research. If anyone is disrespecting it's good ol America. They are using the nucs as another a load of balony just like the W.M.Ds in Iraq. It just can't get any more simpeler than that.

America and Israel has been threatening and provoking Iran since Jan O7. The Iranian leader has shown nothing but respect, paitence and diplomacy despite the level of taunts it has been recieving on their end. Iran is a soveriegn democratic nation. An democratic elected government. A peaceful rich cultural nation. It does not need to disrepect America it doesn't have any agenda in doing so either.

You really need to lay off the propaganda that we are spoon fed.:rolleyes:

Take the Taliban, they're agenda is pretty much built on their own religon, they hardly care enough for money, considering the economic turmoil Afghanistan are under what with wars being fought all the time.

Oh god.:rolleyes:

Can't comment to this, hurts my head.

They fight not for the money but because they feel they are right and we are wrong, and they must punish those who have done wrong. Al Queda's agenda is to rid the Middle East of Foreign Influence and implement their religous Ideals onto the Middle-East. The only country that's really doing it for the money is proberly America.

Oh yeah, who said this.:rolleyes:

Oh this is screaming bull**** to me. Can't handle it nor can I respond to it.

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

? She was sunk by a U-Boat.

EDIT: Just looked it up... Ark Royal was sunk by a U-Boat in 1941.

Before the HMS Ark Royal was sunk by the Germans, a US submarine mistakenly thought her a German battleship in a fog and torpedoed her. I have a relative that worked on the Ark Royal when she limped into Canada after she had taken a torpedo hit during WWII from the US submarine in the Atlantic. It was a closely guarded secret during the war (for obvious reasons!), especially between USA and British allies. To make it up to the Brits, the USA installed new catapults on the Ark Royal, in addition to patching her up. My relative was an engineer that had been involved in the design, development, and installation of catapults on aircraft carriers during WWII.

mysterious wrote: »

This is why, nobody should ever believe the crap we are fed on t.v.

News content is not as important as the entertainment factor. Witness the splash they try to make of any event. If they fail to capture your attention and entertain you with their version of the news, then their ratings fall, and advertisers leave them for their competitors with better ratings. The entertainment emphasis can produce huge errors in news content, just like the heavy news focus on the non-existent weapons of mass destruction as justification for the Second Gulf War.

Gross errors in news content are not new to our age. One only has to reflect on the pretext for the USA entry into the Spanish-American War, where the news media reported that the battleship USS Maine was sunk in Havana harbour by the Spanish, when it was later considered an accident (There is good reason to suspect that the explosion had been caused by a spark to coal dust suspended in air within a confined space below decks). The news media fanned the popular flames (just like the non-existent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq), selling a lot of papers and advertising, and US went to war against Spain as a result, with the battle cry "Remember the Maine!"

Poccington

This is the Military forum, not the Conspiracy Theories forum.

Get back on topic and less of the "It's what they want you think, it's all about the money" ****e.

Latest News re: Afghanistan:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hvWEqwq3CrRvaQCmt21MfoYhjZJQD9792FRO1

Afghan and foreign troops killed 30 Taliban fighters and wounded 17 others during a series of clashes in southern Afghanistan, while a roadside bomb Tuesday killed the mayor of an eastern capital, officials said.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/31/mccain.afghanistan/

en. John McCain said Tuesday that the problems in that country are not as thorny as those in Iraq.
Sen. John McCain says he supports President Obama's efforts in Afghanistan.
"It's [Afghanistan's] not as tough as Iraq, and don't let anyone tell you that it is, because when we started the [2007] surge, Iraq was virtually in a state of collapse," McCain said during a

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE52T7MH20090331

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Monday the Obama administration had dropped "war on terror" from its lexicon

http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSN01500351

U.S. Army General David McKiernan, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, has asked for an additional 10,000 troops to be deployed to the country next year

http://www.reuters.com/article/asiaCrisis/idUSLV949613

NATO member Turkey hopes to boost cooperation between Afghanistan and Pakistan in the fight against al Qaeda and Taliban militants when the presidents of the two countries meet in Ankara on Wednesday, officials said.

Afghanistan has accused Pakistan of not doing enough to stop militants crossing the border to carry out deadly attacks, but ties between Kabul and Islamabad have started to improve after Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari came to power last year.

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE5306LY20090401

U.S. officials are studying whether a Pakistani Taliban leader blamed for the assassination of Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto poses a credible threat to the United States, a top U.S. military official said on Wednesday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/world/asia/02pstan.html?ref=world

Missiles fired from a suspected American drone struck a militant training camp in northwest Pakistan on Wednesday, killing at least 10 people in an attack apparently aimed at one of the area’s most important Taliban leaders, Hakimullah Mehsud,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/5090448/US-widens-missile-strikes-in-Pakistan-to-Tribal-Areas.html

US widens missile strikes in Pakistan to Tribal Areas

Is the US considering or trying to put pressure on Pakistan by hinting at some sort of limited invasion? The country has nuclear weapons I dont think anyone will disagree that they cant be allowed fall into the wrong hands(or even wronger hands!".

Riddle101

mysterious wrote: »

Oh christ can't belieeeeeve you said that.:eek:

It's the other way around. America is disrespecting Iran. Please please please stop watching the crap on T.V for the love of god.


The reason and i'm going to tell you exactly what the problem is all joking and bull**** aside. Ok.

Is because Iran dumped or is threatening to dump the dollar. LIke Iraq did in 2000. America wants the oil trading within in OPEC under the dollar. Iran suddenly got on the "axis of evil " list just like Iraq.

Pleaes please try and do more research. If anyone is disrespecting it's good ol America. They are using the nucs as another a load of balony just like the W.M.Ds in Iraq. It just can't get any more simpeler than that.

America and Israel has been threatening and provoking Iran since Jan O7. The Iranian leader has shown nothing but respect, paitence and diplomacy despite the level of taunts it has been recieving on their end. Iran is a soveriegn democratic nation. An democratic elected government. A peaceful rich cultural nation. It does not need to disrepect America it doesn't have any agenda in doing so either.

You really need to lay off the propaganda that we are spoon fed.:rolleyes:


Oh god.:rolleyes:

Can't comment to this, hurts my head.



Oh yeah, who said this.:rolleyes:

Oh this is screaming bull**** to me. Can't handle it nor can I respond to it.

(1)The cookoos nest is That way >>>> I don't know what you're sniffing but it sure ain't good. Do you have any facts to support your theory, do you have spies in the CIA or the American government? because you sound like one of those conspiracy type guys who thinks the World Trade Centres was a plot by the Americans to invade the Middle-East or the whole Grassy Knoll thing.

(2)That being said, Iran threatening to dump the dollar being a catalyst is hardly the problem here. Iran has always had problem with the Americans in the past, Iran is anti American and America is always getting involved in Middle-Eastern affairs, which funny enough always seem to have the American on the side opposing the Iranians. Iran dumping the dollar is merely just another one of those mini wars with America, nothing else.

(3)The only reason America is threatening Iran is because of the whole controversary surrounding the Iranian president and his comments on Isreal being wiped off the map, not to mention the tentions betwee Iran and Isreal are at an alarming level. The Americans who are allies with Isreal, are supporting Isreal and therfore are threatening Iran, however it's not the first time in history America has helped Iran's enemies, I.E Iraq. And Iran respecting and having patience is totally bulls**t simply because they've been outspoken against the Americans and Isrealis, and besides do you honestly expect the Iranians to be all that goodie goodie. The only reason Iran hasn't openly threatened America is because they are afraid of American and simply so, do not want a war with them. America are acting are just using the bullying card against them.

(4)Propganda is hardly the problem here. There's plenty of other sources then the places you're talking about. Hell I don't even believe the newstations myself, but I still have a fair idea about the on goings in the Midde-East. My point is propaganda me arse.

mysterious

Riddle101 wrote: »

(1)The cookoos nest is That way >>>> I don't know what you're sniffing but it sure ain't good. Do you have any facts to support your theory, do you have spies in the CIA or the American government? because you sound like one of those conspiracy type guys who thinks the World Trade Centres was a plot by the Americans to invade the Middle-East or the whole Grassy Knoll thing.

And you believe what you hear. I Think my stance in the world on these issue is far more thought out, because I question reality.:p

Conspiracy type guys. I get banned from those websites. Cus I'm to informing and straight to the point on it. The government create those websites. I can see through all of that jazz, So to be quite frank im well ahead of you;)

Why can you prove us wrong about the American elite plotting 9/11 to start wars. Cus that's exactly what happened. duh.

(2)That being said, Iran threatening to dump the dollar being a catalyst is hardly the problem here. Iran has always had problem with the Americans in the past, Iran is anti American and America is always getting involved in Middle-Eastern affairs, which funny enough always seem to have the American on the side opposing the Iranians. Iran dumping the dollar is merely just another one of those mini wars with America, nothing else.

ROFL....................................................................:pac:
anti American. give me a break. Do you really think the Iranian people get up every day and sprout this crap, like you just said. Do you actually know this, do you go out and ask these people.

Or wait you drule at the telly and lap up to everything the elites and medai say. Oh yes good god.


Can you explain what you mean by "mni wars"

(3)The only reason America is threatening Iran is because of the whole controversary surrounding the Iranian president and his comments on Isreal being wiped off the map, not to mention the tentions betwee Iran and Isreal are at an alarming level.

You seriously watch to much television. OH MY GOD. That has been debunked two years ago. You know where these statements came from right wing new groups such as fox news within America. This is called propaganda. The Iranian leader did not state these things. The Iranian leader has publically stated on several news stations, at several mettings, one in particular with the Russian president last year and finally he even went to a UN meeting around this time last year stating

He does not want to go to war with Israel. he does need to go to war with Israel. But he does dissagree with Israel policy and behaviour in the ME. He did state he will protect his country by all means. But he has no interest in going to war with Israel or America. If he did would know the faith of his own country.

You seriously fall for propaganda. This claim of inciting israel of the map has been widely debunked well over a year ago. He has debunked that himself ffs.

Of course you can prove us all here that he did say that.

The tensions are there, because Israel wants Iraq and Iran depleted and under zionism control. Like America has Iraq now as it's pernament base within the ME.

The Americans who are allies with Isreal, are supporting Isreal and therfore are threatening Iran, however it's not the first time in history America has helped Iran's enemies, I.E Iraq. And Iran respecting and having patience is totally bulls**t simply because they've been outspoken against the Americans and Isrealis, and besides do you honestly expect the Iranians to be all that goodie goodie. The only reason Iran hasn't openly threatened America is because they are afraid of American and simply so, do not want a war with them. America are acting are just using the bullying card against them.

No it's not bull****, you might actually want to take a deep breath and study body language. Seriously try it:rolleyes:

For two years America and Israel have been provoking Iran since Jan 07 precisely. This was the time when Bush wanted a no diplomacy policy in the ME. bomb and destroy even if it meant WW3. Bush said these words. This was the goal of zionism in the ME. That was the goal of America, since America is vested after oil and money interests.

Iran has even more oil than Iraq. That is the reality here. Not this crapoloy you repeat from those crappy cable newshows:rolleyes:

Iranians are people, it's not about been goodie goodie. Americans have no right to invade or put its mouth in front of this case. If anyone is not behaving appropriately it's Israel and America.

Sorry to burst your marbles.

(4)Propganda is hardly the problem here. There's plenty of other sources then the places you're talking about. Hell I don't even believe the newstations myself, but I still have a fair idea about the on goings in the Midde-East. My point is propaganda me arse.

Oh yes you do, you replicate exactly what they say. So please don't defend youself, I can see exactly where your coming from and where you get this ****e from.

NO you don't.......

Okay put it this way. I'm on many millitary/war/politics forums including boards. And your the first person I've met on boards. who clearly knows very little on what's really going on within the ME

I have to say that some American's even know more about this than you.

Seriously.