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.

 

USA vrs Afghanistan (Round 1)

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 02:00 AM
link   
Ding - Ding

Weighing in on the left, with 307 Million people, a 5% unemployement rate, a literacy rate of 99% and a GDP of $14.44 Trilion is the USA.
Ref: www.cia.gov...

Weighing in on the right, with 28 million people (11X < USA), a 40% unemployment rate (8X > USA), a literacy rate of 28% (4X < USA) and a GDP of $22.32 Billion (70X < USA) is Afghanistan.
Ref: www.cia.gov...

Military troop levels:

100,000 heavily armed US troops with satellite guided weapons systems, special forces, and superior air power

vrs

100 guys on horseback with AK-47's and RPG's.



This war should be over in about 3 days. (Cough, cough, errr 3 decades)




posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 02:06 AM
link   
In the first round, USA will whoomp Afghanistan, make all of it's worst tricks, but after each one, Afghanistan gets up and USA is starting to loose grip; the mere sinister look in the eyes of Afghan warrior is causing unimaginable fear in well trained, rely-on-quantity soldier of United States.



[edit on 2-12-2009 by v01i0]



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 02:07 AM
link   
I think calling the Taliban, "100 guys on horseback with AK-47's and RPG's" is a bit rude!

they are way more funded and organised than that. Im no expert, but the people there already drove out the Russian Army once. they are extremely experienced fighters on their home turf.

Im sure someone with more knowledge than myself can shed more light on it.

Just goes to show. all the money, troops and guns does not mean victory all the time.

Vietnam springs to mind.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by v01i0
... the mere sinister look in the eyes of Afghan warrior is causing unimaginable fear in well trained, rely-on-quantity soldier of United States.


I think the Taliban may be some sort of indestructable super men.

Maybe the US military should resort to Taliban body counts as a measure of success on how the occupation is progressing?


[edit on 2-12-2009 by In nothing we trust]



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 02:21 AM
link   
I am really, really angry about Obama sending 100,000+ troops to Afghanistan.
I know he said he would before elections but, I can't believe he is going to do it.
Those poor souls fighting for us and dying for us is unbearable to me, especially since they are fighting for a corrupt country, with morbid values.
(I'm saying this as an American)
All I can do is wish our troops safety and victory.
What else can I do? (being a normal citizen)

Godspeed servicemen... return home safely please.
We don't need any more dead Americans! or Afghanis for that matter!

All my heart and wishes go to the men and women in service.
(Also innocent Afghani civilians, of course.)



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 02:22 AM
link   
It's not a War, the USA hasn't actually been in a real war since WW2 (Korea is debatable)

In a War you attempt to defeat your enemy once and for all not police them, enforce a Govt while winning a few decisive victories.

If we actually wanted to defeat the Taliban we could devastate the region over 2 weeks not concern ourselves with who does and doesn't like us and leave.

What we want is an Oil Pipeline and that means being a police force for years and trying to win over the people.

I don;t wish to mince words on the term "war" when we are killing people... and also in Iraq and Vietnam so maybe unconventional warfare, police action... I don't know

perhaps Agenda is the best word...

Or maybe sham for Oil and to get in on the Heroin supply...

Whatever a War... (maybe first 2 weeks of Iraq was a war) that we could win in days or weeks...

This is ... Ridiculous? That a good term? Maybe?



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 03:36 AM
link   
Oil, drugs, and best of all: CANNON FODDER. Always fun to have a playground for the newest, coolest ways to exterminate a human. Your estimate of the Islamic fundamentalists as soldiers on horseback is very misguided, OP - BUT YOU'LL FIGURE THAT OUT SOON ENOUGH. Keep in mind that this war isn't just starting, it's been happening for 8 years, hmm?

Ah, and I must disagree with your estimation that WW2 was our last real war, MopusVindictus, though it was our last real competition in the military industrial world domination complex sector


[edit on 2-12-2009 by illusionincarnate]



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 04:08 AM
link   
Well

It's just a terminology thing in the end...

I suppose you would call 2 guys that push each other 5 or 6 times and then 10 friends separate them a fight. But it's far from a real fight if you ask me.

I personally Hate fights ike that and will walk away even tho I kind of like a good fight from time to time because there is no winner and nothing changes... usually growing when I had a real fight and someone officially got their rear kicked, well then you become friends and the fight is over for good. Usually...

Like the situation with Japan and the USA on a macro scale, we won, they are an ally.


We could easily end the Taliban, make this a "real war" and be done with it...

But we don't and that breeds hatred and Likely a future fight...

So I see no purpose in this Nothing is solved if you don't go for a win OR don't fight at all.

But this half hearted politically correct police action of a war...somehow it will work out ugly for us in the long run. This will come back to haunt my children and their children


Maybe it's a war, but a war like this is a fools war.

Better not fight at all if your going to fight like this I say.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 08:14 AM
link   
The thing with Afghanistan it has never really been conquered. Many of the world’s great superpowers attempted to, but none ever succeeded. Alexander tried it, Genghis tried it, the British tried it, the Soviets tried it - and they all failed. Afghanistan has never been totally subdued by anyone.

Oh, sure, the aforementioned might have claimed that they ruled the country, but they all basically ended up doing the same thing: controlling some strategic strongpoints, major cities and roads and that was it. The country as a whole has never given in to total domination.

So, all those statistics given by the OP are essentially meaningless because I’m sure the same ratios, more or less, could have been applied to any of the previous match-ups. The numbers didn’t guarantee victory. Numbers don’t lie but they can be misleading. This is one such case.

The Afghani’s will do what they have always done: retreat to the hills, conduct hit-and-run attacks and wait until we leave. It’s worked for millennia and it will work again.

(BTW: I am a supporter of the U.S. Armed Forces and of the opinion that they are the greatest fighting force in the world at present. I want them to succeed. So please no comments about how I hate America or am a defeatist, etc. But I also understand that history does repeat itself. This is going to be another example.)



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by grantbeed

I think calling the Taliban, "100 guys on horseback with AK-47's and RPG's" is a bit rude!

they are way more funded and organised than that.


I think my assessment is correct.

It looks like a pretty fair fight.





[edit on 2-12-2009 by In nothing we trust]



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by passenger

The thing with Afghanistan it has never really been conquered. Many of the world’s great superpowers attempted to, but none ever succeeded. Alexander tried it, Genghis tried it, the British tried it, the Soviets tried it - and they all failed. Afghanistan has never been totally subdued by anyone.



Originally posted by mopusvindictus

... a war like this is a fools war.


The Persians tried it
The Greeks tried it
The Huns tried it
THe Mongols tried it
The British tried it
The Russians tried it

Thier entire history has been nothing but turmoil, strife and chaos for thousands of years. Afghanistan is the center of the world and is a crossroads for all belief systems.

USA vrs Afghanistan (Round 2)

[edit on 25-6-2010 by In nothing we trust]

[edit on 25-6-2010 by In nothing we trust]



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 05:07 AM
link   
I'm sorry to say this, but I find this thread insulting to Afghanistan and the US.

May I ask OP what his idea of winning the war in Afghanistan is? Perhaps you expect the US to send 8 million troops like in WW2 and destroy everything? I think that's called 'total war' and I can asure you this would only result in an exponential increase in casualties of both americans and afghans.

Afghanistan currently has a military with nearly 100,000 souls and what makes it different from any other war that country ever suffered is that their military is not fighting against the US, they are fighting their own people (because terrorists are still people) with help from the US. That is something that has never happened before, not with the persians, not with the russians, and not with anyone in between. I think this perfectly fits the term 'civil war', and if it really is a civil war then calling this thread USA vs Afghanistan is insulting because it shows you don't fully understand the scope of this war.

As with any civil war, there is going to be a huge percentage of the population that supports the official government, and a nearly equal percentage that doesn't. Of the percentage that doesn't, a very large group, perhaps in the millions in this case (not 100 guys with RPGs), may be willing to raise arms. Suggesting that the Afghanistan war can be won militarily is the same thing as suggesting that the percentage that doesn't support the government should be anihilated.

In my view there are a few 'realistic' ways in which a civil war can be culminated:

1- Destruction of the official government by rebel forces. Perfect examples: Ethiopian civil war, Vietnam, etc. This occurs when the military cannot support the government.

2- Overwhelming support to the government. I think there may not be many examples of this in part because this may take several decades, but Colombia, for instance, may be heading down this road.

3- Draw/Peace treaty/armistice. When neither party loses support but everyone realizes the war is pointless.

The only thing I find sad about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is that the world is not labeling them as 'civil war'. So long as they are labeled as 'war on terrorism' a peace treaty is not possible. Unless there are other ways to end a civil war that I'm not aware of then we are only left with choices 1 and 2. The first one will not happen so long as the US supports those nations. The second one may take several decades and withdrawing troops in 2011, simply because someone says so, is not going to help one bit.

So I ask you again OP, how exactly would you define winning the war in Afghanistan?

[edit on 25-6-2010 by daniel_g]



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by daniel_g

how exactly would you define winning the war in Afghanistan?


Why are we even there?

I suspect the real reason but I have not voiced it yet.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by In nothing we trust
Ding - Ding

Weighing in on the left, with 307 Million people, a 5% unemployement rate, a literacy rate of 99% and a GDP of $14.44 Trilion is the USA.
Ref: www.cia.gov...

Weighing in on the right, with 28 million people (11X < USA), a 40% unemployment rate (8X > USA), a literacy rate of 28% (4X < USA) and a GDP of $22.32 Billion (70X < USA) is Afghanistan.
Ref: www.cia.gov...

Military troop levels:

100,000 heavily armed US troops with satellite guided weapons systems, special forces, and superior air power

vrs

100 guys on horseback with AK-47's and RPG's.



This war should be over in about 3 days. (Cough, cough, errr 3 decades)


Are you against this country or something? We've already WON the war, right now we're trying to help repair the country. Posts like yours are why people think we lost in Vietnam even though we won that war too!



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jimmy000

Are you against this country or something?


Get it right; I'm not against this country, I am against this government.



We've already WON the war, right now we're trying to help repair the country. Posts like yours are why people think we lost in Vietnam even though we won that war too!


Won the war did we?

Vietnam was a 'Police Action' not a war.

Afghanistan is (WTH are they calling it?) more of an 'Expedition' rather than a war.


[edit on 25-6-2010 by In nothing we trust]



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by v01i0
 


the afghan warriors you spoke of if at there prime in the wopping age of 18 that means they may have fought from oh we will say 1986 til the withdraw beginning in 88' that would make those guys almost in there 40's and i dont think that the muj are all war hardend master seargent/ gunnery seargent/ first seargent mentality level in war fighting tactics I am sure they may have a few college educated guys but having a degree in hordaculture does not make you a tactical expert, the US shouldve won this war long ago but I think here is that something else is going on. Oh yeah, that geo political thingie you get when you start fighting in foreign countries without a conventional declaration of war almost forgot that the US never declared war on AFGHANISTAN but is fighting a war alot like the war on drugs the drug war/ International war(meaning global almost synonamous with world war) on terror, you can draw your own parellels on that but yes my friend they are pretty crude but I will also say in there defense being crude doesnt necassarily make them ineffective



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by daniel_g

... they are fighting their own people ... with help from the US.

As with any civil war, there is going to be a huge percentage of the population that supports the official government, and a nearly equal percentage that doesn't.

In my view there are a few 'realistic' ways in which a civil war can be culminated:

1- Destruction of the official government by rebel forces. Perfect examples: Ethiopian civil war, Vietnam, etc. This occurs when the military cannot support the government.

2- Overwhelming support to the government. I think there may not be many examples of this in part because this may take several decades, but Colombia, for instance, may be heading down this road.

3- Draw/Peace treaty/armistice. When neither party loses support but everyone realizes the war is pointless.

... how exactly would you define winning the war in Afghanistan?


Option 3



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by daniel_g
 


Unless the war is being fought in such a way that lines between winners and losers of war do not matter, the only thing the US has lost in this war is lives and tax payer dollars, perhaps that is the intention I am pretty confident that this war could have been won long ago regardless of why its was started and all of that. I do respect what you said, again, regardless of the why's for the start I think your prospective option 3 at this point would be best



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by mopusvindictus

What we want is an Oil Pipeline


I believe the real reason for the occupation is far more sinister than that.



[edit on 25-6-2010 by In nothing we trust]




top topics



 
2

log in

join