Are we losing in Afghanistan?

[Combwork]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Age old story, the military always prepares themselves to win the last war. Trouble is that today the enemy does not wear uniforms and shields itself behind the civilian population. Frex, being able to see in the dark (nightglasses) is no advantage when the civilians and the fighters all look the same. Since we don't have straggly beards and normally bathe fairly often even dressing like them is not likely to work.

We went in there to get OBL, well Barack got him so lets just come home and save the $$$ we are wasting on the Pakis.

Whatever we do will be shown as wrong; tearful pictures of starving children caused by us leaving a screwed up system to get worse, or tearful pictures of another UK family mourning the loss of another son.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by Combwork

Whatever we do will be shown as wrong; tearful pictures of starving children caused by us leaving a screwed up system to get worse, or tearful pictures of another UK family mourning the loss of another son.

Fine, let the blleding hearts put up their sons and daughters and pay the bill. What we could do before leaving is equip all the womaen with one of these and lots of ammo.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Fine, let the blleding hearts put up their sons and daughters and pay the bill. What we could do before leaving is equip all the womaen with one of these and lots of ammo.

Isn't the muzzle supposed to be orange?

Chas

[Eliterg]

Originally Posted by epifanatic

Were we ever winning?

^ This..

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by Charles

Isn't the muzzle supposed to be orange?

Chas

Yeah but the pellets come out at 500 FPS, will draw blood.

[Combwork]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Fine, let the blleding hearts put up their sons and daughters and pay the bill. What we could do before leaving is equip all the womaen with one of these and lots of ammo.

That's an interesting thought. If I remember correctly, the Colt 45 was nicknamed "The Equalizer". Logical enough, it meant that physically weak people could defend themselves from the town bully but what happens if we give free weapons to a country that's already split up into factions that share nothing more than a common hatred of each other? Would the resulting civil war stay within its boundaries, or spread?

Lets take a more British example. If the UK government had supplied both the UDA and the IRA with weapons in equal number in the 1980's would the resulting carnage have stayed within Northern Ireland, or spilled over into London, Liverpool or anywhere with a mixed Irish population?

Unless Merrylander you're thinking of Fortress America; no imports, no exports (could the USA survive like this) how far would you go to protect your interests? Like it or not the USA has still got the largest highly trained armed forces in the world, and the pressure to use them to protect American interests such as oil would be intense.

Possible scenario. A terrorist group sees that the way to bring the West down is not to go head to head, but to shut off vital supplies. They plan to get hold of or make a crude nuclear weapon and detonate it upwind of a major oilfield. What do you do when your intelligence service gets vague but credible knowledge of this? Cross your fingers and hope or without warning land troops to protect the most productive oilfields?

Without oil imports from the middle east your country would quite literally grind to a halt.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by Combwork

That's an interesting thought. If I remember correctly, the Colt 45 was nicknamed "The Equalizer". Logical enough, it meant that physically weak people could defend themselves from the town bully but what happens if we give free weapons to a country that's already split up into factions that share nothing more than a common hatred of each other? Would the resulting civil war stay within its boundaries, or spread?

Lets take a more British example. If the UK government had supplied both the UDA and the IRA with weapons in equal number in the 1980's would the resulting carnage have stayed within Northern Ireland, or spilled over into London, Liverpool or anywhere with a mixed Irish population?

Unless Merrylander you're thinking of Fortress America; no imports, no exports (could the USA survive like this) how far would you go to protect your interests? Like it or not the USA has still got the largest highly trained armed forces in the world, and the pressure to use them to protect American interests such as oil would be intense.

Possible scenario. A terrorist group sees that the way to bring the West down is not to go head to head, but to shut off vital supplies. They plan to get hold of or make a crude nuclear weapon and detonate it upwind of a major oilfield. What do you do when your intelligence service gets vague but credible knowledge of this? Cross your fingers and hope or without warning land troops to protect the most productive oilfields?

Without oil imports from the middle east your country would quite literally grind to a halt.

This is the part I never quite understood about the whole energy thing. If we had spent the same amount as we spent on Iraq and Afghanistan on setting up alternative energy we could thumb our nose at the middle east. I guess Big Oil has too strong a lobby.

I was not really thinking "Fortress America" so much as the fact that the taliban and such like treat their women like dogs so maybe if they had a .38 or 9mm caliber version of the Colt 911 they could defend themselves.

For the same reason we should have left a load of armaments for the Kurds. Gotta love the way the Turks call them terrorists, after they stole half of Kurdistan while the Iraquis took another big chunk. They left the few bits for Iran and Syria.

[Oerets]

The darker sides of humanity have and will always be in how we view others different then yourself. Little understanding of an others way of life, thinking you are right and they are wrong. Back to the analogy that it would be a more civil society if all countries had nuclear weapons. Seriously does anyone really believe this? Understanding and compassion of others is what is needed. Education seems to me to be the place to start this process.

Then take humans inability to live with in their means throughout history. How many times in the past have humans used up the natural resources in an area laying waste then moving on to greener pastures. Displacing any locals that were not using the resources needed. But now the human race is at a point where the only greener pastures left will be the ones uncovered when the ice melts. What a boom that will be, bet there are those wringing their hand chomping at the bit waiting for this to happen.

I'm afraid unless or until something more drastic happens to force the issue oil will still remain the world fuel. But it will end the countries that prepare ahead of this will be the fortunate ones.


Barney