RE: 34,000 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Moonhead -> RE: 34,000 (11/27/2009 1:23:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: blacksword404

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Forgive me if I'm just having a senior moment here...but in the final analyisis did any U.S.S.R. nukes go missing?


I remember that being the news then. Did they all end up accounted for?

I think so. There might be a few components still unaccounted for, though.



slvemike4u -> RE: 34,000 (11/27/2009 1:26:54 PM)

Conflicting reports abound...depending on which you beleive....there would seem to be some concern over whether or not all of the so-called "suitcase nukes" are accounted for.



Moonhead -> RE: 34,000 (11/27/2009 1:32:35 PM)

That said, there's also doubt as to whether those ever existed in the first place, isn't there?



slvemike4u -> RE: 34,000 (11/27/2009 1:41:12 PM)

I don't think there's any doubt that both the US and the USSR were heavily involved in developing the so called "suitcase bomb"(small enough to fit in a suitcase...)whether or not either country succeeded in this quest is open for debate.Wikkipedia contains information that the US actually got one to the size of a footlocker...whereas the Soviet version was supposed to be the size of a refrigerator.
Sounds like a backpack size nuke is still merely a figment of Hollywood's imagination(The Peacemaker?)



Moonhead -> RE: 34,000 (11/27/2009 1:43:41 PM)

Yep.



InvisibleBlack -> RE: 34,000 (11/27/2009 2:20:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
quote:

ORIGINAL: InvisibleBlack
Since then - well - Al Qaeda no longer operates in Afghanistan (nor Pakistan, really) ...



Al Jazeera English - Focus - 'Al-Qaeda facilitates insurgency'
Oct 7, 2009

Some analysts believe that not only has Washington failed to curb al-Qaeda's influence, but the presence of US troops in Afghanistan has simply served to export al-Qaeda ideology to other groups – including the Pakistan Taliban.

"We have not only been unable to defeat al-Qaeda ... [but] we have taken them from Afghanistan to the FATA area [Pakistan's northern tribal areas) where their key leadership resides and now have a serious role in Afghanistan," says Hekmat Karzai, a regional security analyst.


McChrystal: No Major Al-Qaida Signs in Afghanistan

My understanding is that currently al-Qaeda isn't operating in the region. The fear that prompts the current U. S. effort is that they might return if the Taliban retakes control of Afghanistan and/or Pakistan.

The problem is, being a terrorist organization, they can set up bases and train people almost anywhere. If they're currently operating in Somalia and Darfur, as is suspected, then keeping them out of Afghanistan is rather pointless. Invading Somalia would be equally pointless, since they'd just relocate somewhere else.



Moonhead -> RE: 34,000 (11/27/2009 2:33:46 PM)

The Taliban don't get on with Al Queda since bin Laden defected, though. That could even be more of a deterrent than the US presence.
And really, the Taliban have never lost control of most of Afghanistan. That's what's causing most of the trouble, isn't it? And now they've got a big chunk of Pakistan as well.



Lorsan -> RE: 34,000 (11/28/2009 2:29:41 PM)

I wonder if they're not just trying to brace in Afghanistan for the time being at this point.  What with the very large specter of a possible (perhaps inevitable) war with Iran looming.  Either Israel or Iran will have to back down soon to avoid it.  And if Israel goes into Iran, all hell and a half will break loose.  I don't think that Israel has the ability to effectively take out Iran's nuke programs and Iran would have Hezbollah and god knows who else have at them with all abandon in retaliation.  Then Iran would use that as an excuse to make our lives hell in both Iraq and Afghanistan too.  If we go into Iran, same thing.  Heck if they can ever get Russia to deliver that air defense system, I don't know how effective we'd be at taking out their nuke program.  I don't foresee any kind of good outcome in the near future.  I think we are looking at a good many years of war ahead unfortunately.  But I do hope I'm wrong.



Brain -> RE: 34,000 (11/28/2009 8:04:10 PM)

All I know is we need to get out of both countries and stop wasting money because it's bankrupting the country. We need to take a deep breath and rethink this entire strategy on fighting terrorism. And we need to get value for money for a change. $1 trillion wasted on this stupidity and we could have paid for healthcare. Not to mention the thousands of soldiers dead and probably 100,000 Iraqis. Besides, neither country wants foreign troops on their soil.



OrionTheWolf -> RE: 34,000 (11/28/2009 8:35:52 PM)

There was an excellent essay written by a retired Admiral on the most effective ways to fight an insurgency or terrorist organization. It involved more high tech stuff, drones, and special ops, rather than troops on the ground. It focused on the elimination of targets, and not capturing territory. It focused on intelligence gatherings that was confirmed, and not just supported. I would have to do some web searching to find it, but it would cost much less than now, and could all be run from a Carrier group. Will post the link if I can find it again.



Moonhead -> RE: 34,000 (11/29/2009 5:20:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

There was an excellent essay written by a retired Admiral on the most effective ways to fight an insurgency or terrorist organization. It involved more high tech stuff, drones, and special ops, rather than troops on the ground. It focused on the elimination of targets, and not capturing territory. It focused on intelligence gatherings that was confirmed, and not just supported. I would have to do some web searching to find it, but it would cost much less than now, and could all be run from a Carrier group. Will post the link if I can find it again.

I'd be interested in seeing that. It does sound like pretty much the opposite of the longest running counter terrorist operation in recent history, though. (Of course, that said times have moved on and the middle east is a very different area to Northern Ireland.)



Brain -> RE: 34,000 (12/1/2009 1:29:43 AM)

Iraq War Veterans bring scenes of occupation to unsuspecting shoppers at Seattle's Westlake Center.

YouTube - Iraq War Veterans Demonstrate Against Obama Surge

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-WrTD4zuS4&feature=sub


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Thats how many more are being sent to Afghanistan.

Barack Obama is expected to send 34,000 more US troops to Afghanistan when he unveils his long-awaited strategy for the Afghan conflict next Tuesday, US media reports said today.

The Politico website said the US president would make a prime time address to the American people to announce his plans for what he has described as "a war of necessity".

Just as significant as the number of troops, however, will be pointers to a US exit strategy – something that will be closely watched by the British government, which is under public pressure to withdraw 9,000 UK troops from Afghanistan

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/24/barack-obama-us-troops-afghanistan

Thoughts?




jackod -> RE: 34,000 (12/1/2009 2:53:17 PM)

No the soldiers will not come home ,any time soon,it  all deapends on the international bankers,not husein obama,bush,etc. They will be harmed,dead,sick,and when they return clasify as a terrorist(in practise now) The bankers are giving Taliban one billion$$$$ to keep the perpetual war going on and sucking the working people of the last cent(war tax),jack



mnottertail -> RE: 34,000 (12/1/2009 3:05:44 PM)

you having a little trouble with the 'cogency' thing?

Ron



tazzygirl -> RE: 34,000 (12/1/2009 4:02:56 PM)

Im still trying to piece all this together.

CNN did a report today on the address tonight. Part of what was discussed was how Iran is funding the Afghanistan Taliban. Now Iran is talking about increasing ...

quote:

its existing stockpile of nuclear fuel for use in a medical reactor — rather than rely on Russia or another nation, as agreed to in an earlier tentative deal.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/world/middleeast/01iran.html

Am i the only one worried about all this?



SpinnerofTales -> RE: 34,000 (12/1/2009 4:12:24 PM)

I can't help but note that the timing in this matter. 34,000 troops will be sent to Afghanistan, with the plan to start withdrawing them in nineteen months with almost all of our troops out within three years.

Now this may be just a coincidence, but doesn't that allow Obama to send the troops to the surge and so silence any possible claims that he's "weak" or "soft on terrorism' while allowing him, during the next campaign to not only claim but demonstrate that he's ending the war?

Interesting bit of timing, that.



OrionTheWolf -> RE: 34,000 (12/1/2009 4:13:17 PM)

I posted about the Iran threat several months ago, and I was discounted by my prediction that Iran wanted to become the Middle East Hedgmony.

I have been doing some reading on the Afghanistan thing. The areas that we are having problems with, are the same areas the Russians did. These areas are controlled by the tribes and Warlords. Whatever those Warlords say, is what goes. If they say no Taliban, then there will be no Taliban. Does anyone else see how the dots should connect?

We are sending 34,000 more troops into what will end up being a meat grinder.



tazzygirl -> RE: 34,000 (12/1/2009 4:16:14 PM)

But can we afford to pull out? Or is it like my boss said today....

This is what they want us to believe.



mnottertail -> RE: 34,000 (12/1/2009 4:32:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

I posted about the Iran threat several months ago, and I was discounted by my prediction that Iran wanted to become the Middle East Hedgmony.

I have been doing some reading on the Afghanistan thing. The areas that we are having problems with, are the same areas the Russians did. These areas are controlled by the tribes and Warlords. Whatever those Warlords say, is what goes. If they say no Taliban, then there will be no Taliban. Does anyone else see how the dots should connect?

We are sending 34,000 more troops into what will end up being a meat grinder.



I said Iran was gonna cause us big fucking problems in the hedgemony 'thingie' when we went into Iraq, they were fighting that in the '80's and they are the reason that Hussein was spouting his WMD bullshit after we quit backing him, Iran is not their or our freind. And we also got the fucking beef with Turkey and the Kurds and Iraq and Iran to swim thru.

I can imagine we are going to get no help from the Russians even though this is in their back yard, after we fucked em in afghanistan and created these fucksticks.... they are laughing up their sleeves in the oniondome.

Maybe the chinese can slip us some bucks to defray costs, their back yard too, and you cant milk cash outta a cakked cow. But I doubt that, they can just walk in whenever.

Ron



Lorsan -> RE: 34,000 (12/1/2009 4:36:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

But can we afford to pull out? Or is it like my boss said today....

This is what they want us to believe.


That's the $10,000 question tazzy.  If we do pull out, Just about everything we've accomplished so far will probably fall apart.  The Taliban will be right back in there and Iran will be doing it's best to turn Iraq into a puppet state.  If we stay, the possible (quickly becoming probable) war with Iran could turn into WW3.  Even if we leave that could still happen.  I'm not sure there is a good answer anymore.  I'm afraid we are only still at the top of a long deep spiral of horrible conflict. 



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875