It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is the US military being led into a trap?

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 05:40 AM
link   
I was just doing a little bit of Surfing around the web tonight when I came across a headline
"China hails Kyrgyz decision on US airbase "


China has welcomed a recent decision by Kyrgyz government to shut a US airbase in the country, saying that Beijing respects the decision.

"Kyrgyzstan is a sovereign state. We respect its decision and are willing to see peace, stability and development in Central Asia." Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said Thursday.

Kyrgyzstan has confirmed that it will close a US air base on its soil, cutting a main supply route to US-led forces in Afghanistan.
www.presstv.ir...§ionid=351020406


now that in itself isn't that much of a blow until you see what is happening in Pakistan

"Pakistan blocks U.S. convoy route"

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (CNN) -- Pakistan has indefinitely blocked travel for convoys, carrying food and military supplies to U.S. troops in Afghanistan, through a key mountain pass
edition.cnn.com...


"U.S. Seeks New Supply Routes Into Afghanistan"

Supplying troops in landlocked Afghanistan has long been the Achilles' heel of foreign armies here, most recently the Soviets, whose forces were nearly crippled by Islamist insurgent attacks on vulnerable supply lines.

About 75 percent of NATO and U.S. supplies bound for Afghanistan -- including gas, food and military equipment -- are transported over land through Pakistan. The journey begins in the southern Pakistani port city of Karachi and continues north through Pakistan's volatile North-West Frontier Province and tribal areas before supplies arrive at the Afghan border. The convoys then press forward along mountain hairpin turns through areas of Afghanistan that are known as havens for insurgents.
www.washingtonpost.com...


and then we have Russia coming to the rescue up to a point.

"Russia allows US supplies transit "

Moscow says it has agreed to a US request to ship non-military supplies for its troops in Afghanistan across Russian territory.

Foreign minister Sergei Lavrov said Russia was waiting for the US to provide details of the shipments before giving specific permission.
news.bbc.co.uk...


So the question being asked here.
Is the US being led into a trap?
With other bases closing and now Russia saying that you can get non military supples through, basically food and medicines allowed through.

Now what would happen if the US agreed to go through Russia?
the US sets up a supply route through Russia and all of a sudden Israel hits Iran, the US gets implicated due to it's close ties to Israel that now the US is involves.
Russia then says that it does not agree with Iran being attacked and closes the Russsian route cutting off the food supply to the growing US soldiers in Afghanistan, the US can get a few munitions through but no food or medical supplies.
The Pakistan route gets totally blocked and nothing gets through.

So in reality with Obamas surge in to Afghanistan, you have your troops surrounded and unable to get supplies.

Are the US soldiers being sent into Afghanistan to fail or is this just me getting a little bit to much into conspiracy theories?




posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 05:52 AM
link   
I think its just you gettting too much into conspiracy theories.

The US can airlift supplies directly to where its needed. Any supplies they need can get where its needed.

There are always alternatives.


Cheers!!!!



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
I think its just you gettting too much into conspiracy theories.

The US can airlift supplies directly to where its needed. Any supplies they need can get where its needed.

There are always alternatives.


Cheers!!!!

What route would be taken to airlift the supplies?
And you would need an awful lot of air drops in order to not only supply food but also amunition.

We are looking at Iran to the west, Pakistan to the south and Russia to the north and then China to the east.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 06:03 AM
link   
reply to post by munkey66
 


The only nations that could pose any real threat to our airlifts would be Russia and China, so the south and west routes would be easy to get through.

Set up airstrips in the field, C-5's and C-130's escorted by fighters and they can get stuff in. Regular air patrols to clear the flight paths and establish zone parameters.

When it comes right down to it, logistics is the priorty before fighting the enemy.


Cheers!!!!



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 06:25 AM
link   
I was talking with a friend of mine about them cutting off supply routes.
We talked about the idea that maybe other nations aren't going to give much of a crap about helping them because they are losing their status as a superpower.
America was able to get people who hate them to help them out of fear of pissing off the Americans.
For me I see America losing their superpower status and that is the conclusion I have made.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrumsRfun
I was talking with a friend of mine about them cutting off supply routes.
We talked about the idea that maybe other nations aren't going to give much of a crap about helping them because they are losing their status as a superpower.
America was able to get people who hate them to help them out of fear of pissing off the Americans.
For me I see America losing their superpower status and that is the conclusion I have made.


Well it doesnt matter what the viewpoint of the world is about America's status. The world could say all it wants to that America is no longer viewed as a superpower, but thats all it is..hear say.

When it gets down to business...we have the hardware, we have the men and women, and we have the capabilities. Superpower is just a label, nothing more. A label can change on a box but unless you change the contents of that box, the box of contents is still the same.



Cheers!!!!

[edit on 7-2-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 06:43 AM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


So you think that the US will just be able to fly directly over Iran to bring in supplies?
and also think that you can just fly over Pakistan?

I will have to say that in the US has a very impressive fighting force, but I don't think it will be just a case of flying over a couple of countries

You will have to fuel your vehicles, feed a growing troop population, arm and resupply the military with munitions.
The troops themselves would be targets in Afghanistan as well as the bases.
We would not be talking just Taliban anymore, we would be talking about nearly every muslim in the region hunting down anything with a US flag on it.
I really don't think they will be sitting in the middle of the country waiting for supplies without a few casualties along the way.

Now I know how impressive the aircraft carriers are, but they will be busy trying to defend themselves to worry about trying to escort a sitting duck delivering supplies.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 06:45 AM
link   
See: Berlin Airlift. End of discussion.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 06:47 AM
link   
america and its allies defeated the berlin blocade at the height of the cold war - afghanistan is easy

EDIT : bugger - beaten to the punchline - hey have a star

[edit on 7-2-2009 by ignorant_ape]



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 06:51 AM
link   
reply to post by munkey66
 


Never underestimate the ability of the US Air Force. Especially now that we have all these UAV's with formidable weapons capability that can be sent ahead of any air supply convoy and take out any ground SAM threat, not to mention the manned fighters that have weapons that can take out targets in the air from miles out.

Im not saying it would be a walk in the park. But what I am saying is that the problem of logistics would be well thought out and planned ahead of time, and any contingency they can dream of that might happen, they will have a means to deal with it before even the first supply convoy is sent up.

As far as fuel, every air transport we have is capable of in-flight refueling. All the fighters are also capable of in-flight re-fueling. To put fuel on the ground where needed, you send those with the other supply flights.

Also you can clear a zone through a territory and occupy that zone that allows for a path for ground transport, protected by the UAV's and other patrol flights. The AH-64's and A-10's and their arsenal of Hellfire's and anti-tank missiles are quite capable of keeping pathways clear for ground transport routes.



Cheers!!!!



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns

Never underestimate the ability of the US Air Force. Especially now that we have all these UAV's with formidable weapons capability that can be sent ahead of any air supply convoy and take out any ground SAM threat, not to mention the manned fighters that have weapons that can take out targets in the air from miles out.

Im not saying it would be a walk in the park. But what I am saying is that the problem of logistics would be well thought out and planned ahead of time, and any contingency they can dream of that might happen, they will have a means to deal with it before even the first supply convoy is sent up.

Is that why you are still in Iraq and Afghanistan?
because everything was thought out before hand?



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zenagain
See: Berlin Airlift. End of discussion.

Wasn't the Berlin airdrop during the cold war period?

There is a little difference when you are being fired at rather than harsh words spoken.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by munkey66
Is that why you are still in Iraq and Afghanistan?
because everything was thought out before hand?


NO, the reason why we are still there is because we went there under false pretenses and lies, and to protect big oil interests and rebuilding interests by former members of the previous administration.

Oh ya we took out big bad Taliban and Al-Quada...wow..major threat there...yet still no public enemy #1 ever caught, and then invade another country that had nothing to do with 9/11 or had any WMD or means for WMD...all lies...and since we started a mess, we have to clean up that mess and fix the things we broke.

In short, we created the next generation of enemies to fight. It is the only way to keep the military industrial complex chugging away at inventing new weapons of mass distruction, inventions of devistation, and devices of death.

I dont support that kind of military or leadership. Unfortunately, the last 8 years is what brought it upon us..and the world. Some of us tried to change that in 2004, but were overrun by the manipulated sheeple who bought into the lie and let the lie continue.

Now its up to the new admin to deal with it, as it will be for the next 20 or more years to come.

The only real benefit from it all, is the fact that the military has gained quite a few new toys to play with, and those toys are the most destructive toys on the planet.



Cheers



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


I do agree with you on the reasons ect.
And yes the US has developed some very nasty weapons to use.
Currently the US economy is not what you would call healthy.
Obama wants to send more troops to Afghanistan thinking that a surge is going to win the war.

I am personally of the belief that the idea behind this is to create a state of emergency and have the US military taken down.
As stupid as that sounds, it will open up an oportunity to make the UN a much bigger, badder military unit.
As long as there is a large powerful US military, the chance of the UN taking over as world police is limited.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by munkey66
reply to post by RFBurns
 


I do agree with you on the reasons ect.
And yes the US has developed some very nasty weapons to use.
Currently the US economy is not what you would call healthy.
Obama wants to send more troops to Afghanistan thinking that a surge is going to win the war.

I am personally of the belief that the idea behind this is to create a state of emergency and have the US military taken down.
As stupid as that sounds, it will open up an oportunity to make the UN a much bigger, badder military unit.
As long as there is a large powerful US military, the chance of the UN taking over as world police is limited.


Either that or the US military becomes a part of the UN..and form the UN military..at which point is the begining of the one world government movement..ie NWO.

But keep in mind that there are enough people within the US military that wont just bow down if something like that happens. There could be a division, from the low levels of field troops all the way up into the highest levels of command, even into the halls of the DOD and Pentagon.

In essence...a coup.

But I dont think it will go that far. Im not sure Obama really wants to push into Afghanistan again. There is nothing really to be gained by doing that, not anything for America or the world in general. It would however open up the door to another major war. But they know that the world cannot survive a WWIII, too many weapons that would devistate the entire planet. And both sides know this. The "MAD" agreement is still active and still quite capable of assuring equal mass devistation, anywhere and everywhere.



Cheers!!!!



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


"Barack Obama plans 20,000 troop surge to boost Afghan effort "


The President-Elect's intention to shift the focus of the fight against terrorism to Afghanistan has been bolstered by Robert Gates agreement to stay on as Defence Secretary.

Mr Gates is a strong believer in an Afghan surge, which would not only put thousands more boots on the ground but involve negotiations with malleable branches of the Taliban.

It would also aim to boost co-operation with Iran and Pakistan where some elements have supported the anti-Western insurgency.

The need for more US troops in addition to the 32,000 already serving, has been accelerated by the Afghan presidential election in September 2009, and the voter registration process that begins in the New Year, Mr Gates said.
www.telegraph.co.uk...[/quote ]

It does look like Obama wants to push in again.

[edit on 7-2-2009 by munkey66]



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by munkey66
 


While it is good not to be paranoid or overly-critical, it is also good to pay attention to the signs indicated around us. Afghanistan DOES in fact have a historical reputation for destroying foreign militaries there. We owe it to our soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen to provide nothing less than the absolute best in intelligence and battle preparation...even if that intelligence comes outside of official military channels.

Never be afraid to voice your concerns if it involves the safety and wellfare of our nation's warriors. The U.S. Armed Forces lead the way when it comes to the global military community. As you spread the word, sooner or later someone in a position to make a bigger difference will hear the message. Sometimes one person's message can have a valuable ripple effect, and the end state is that lives can be saved.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns

Originally posted by DrumsRfun
I was talking with a friend of mine about them cutting off supply routes.
We talked about the idea that maybe other nations aren't going to give much of a crap about helping them because they are losing their status as a superpower.
America was able to get people who hate them to help them out of fear of pissing off the Americans.
For me I see America losing their superpower status and that is the conclusion I have made.


Well it doesnt matter what the viewpoint of the world is about America's status. The world could say all it wants to that America is no longer viewed as a superpower, but thats all it is..hear say.

When it gets down to business...we have the hardware, we have the men and women, and we have the capabilities. Superpower is just a label, nothing more. A label can change on a box but unless you change the contents of that box, the box of contents is still the same.



Cheers!!!!

[edit on 7-2-2009 by RFBurns]


No. It does matter. I'm usually not one to let what the world says about the U.S. interfere but in this case it really does matter. Superpower status is not only physical but perception. In fact, it probably is MORE perception than anything. Do you honestly think that if the U.S. loses the perception of being a superpower that we will still BE a superpower? In the case of Afghanastan, we need ground routes to succeed.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by munkey66
 


As far as being led into a trap... Being led into a trap implies that the group of people being led is doing so without their knowledge. I honestly believe that if you can see this then our military leaders can too. We are not being led into a trap. They may be trying to trap us but we won't be trapped.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Afghanistan is not winnable, if for no other reason than...... there's nothing to WIN. At least in Iraq, there's oil. There is jack and # in Afghanistan but Poppies, which were it up to me, would all be napalmed tomorrow. # Osama Bin ladin. He would be just a PUNK but for our medias love affair with him. The only power he has is that which we GIVE him. But for that? He's just an old crippled Saudi bastard. Ask me? Invade Saudi Arabia. I'll HAPPILY ride a bike for a couple years......



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join