Asia getting ready for US collapse

reply to post by mobiusmale

So, you are seeing America completely collapsing...economically, militarily, politically...because of the Taliban's little insurgency? Boy, Afghanistan must be a really important place in the world...central to all things economic and political. Um...not.

There is a saying:

"Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires".

Remember the collapse of USSR? and the expansion of NATO?

That is what I'm talking about.

USSR was turn to R.

I suspect USA will be turned to A, if that makes since.

The US destroyed the majority of insurgency in Iraq through divide and conquer, remember the civil war? There are many in the world who believes it was orchestrated by the US, planting bombs in the markets places and blaming the insurgents etc.

Afghanistan in the other hand is very different, Afghan civilians have a long history of involvement in wars therefore know the strategies used by empires. An attempt was made by US to use the same Iraq tactics in Afghanistan, but failed due to Afghan knowledge, knowing the difference between a suicide bombing, and a planted bomb, or a drone missile.

How much can US afford to inject in Afghanistan?

That is the question? Where is the money gonna come from? How long can the US print its own money?

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by mobiusmale

 

I think you see war from a simplistic view, where air force + navy + boots collide.

The 21st century wars are much more complicated than that, hence it usually start economically, then there are proxy wars. Wars have objectives these days, you don't just go and destroy a the navy of a nation, or boots on the ground, or targets without clear cut objectives.

If those objectives are not met in the end of the day, then the war is failed. That is why most in the world saw Israel get defeated in Lebanon, because the goals of the war wasn't achieved.

I am note sure why you think I am unaware of the economic aspects of international conflict. I am quite well aware, and have addressed some of that aspect elsewhere in this thread.

However, when weapons begin to be fired between adversaries then the imbalances that exist between the forces are the most relevant factors...for the duration of actual hostilities.

You are correct, I think, that in this day and age when Western forces try to use measured force so as to avoid civilian casualties...or so as to not completely destroy all infrastructure...the impression can be left that the victor on the battlefield was actually the loser.

We, in the West, could totally obliterate our enemies each time we engage them...with no regard for the common people residing in those nations...and then just walk away. I would prefer to give the "impression" of losing, even though we have won...than to go back to the days of "total war" and things like the carpet bombing of cities.

reply to post by mobiusmale


No one denies that the US have the ability to annihilate the whole world, but that doesn't give the impression of loosing, that is actually loosing.

As I said previously, objectives, what are the objectives you are trying to gain?

If the objective is to neutralize a threat, that would fail also, because in order to neutralize a threat completely, you have to invade + occupy that nation.

How on earth can US invade + occupy China?

You idea that US can easily destroy the navy + air power of China is not a credible claim:

1. US military is scattered all around the world, meaning they have air bases all around the world, if there was to be a fight against China, head on, US would have to focus all its attention on China, what about other war fronts? China can use proxies to push in other fronts.

2. War is strategy based, it is not about might, look at Afghanistan for example, the strategy Afghan insurgents are using is very effective, hence planting a home made IED which is devastating US troops and US transport machines which costs thousands of times more than 1 IED.

3. China having the world's largest population also equates to China haven't the world most thinkers and war strategists. US war strategies have failed miserably in recent times, most notable in Vietnam, and now visibly in Afghanistan.

What do you think, is it really that easy to defeat China in a head on war?

Originally posted by oozyism

There is a saying:

"Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires".

Remember the collapse of USSR? and the expansion of NATO?

That is what I'm talking about.

Yes, the USSR was forced to abandon their occupation of Afghanistan. Do you honestly believe that this is what lead to the collapse of the USSR? Again, you seem to think that Afghanistan has far more influence than it really does. It is a backward, under-developed and at times troublesome, spot on the map of little real consequence.

Had the Taliban not buddied up with Bin Laden's band of nut bars...they would still be going around shooting women in the head for exposing their noses in public.

I think I read somewhere else on here that this is your homeland, so apologies for the generalizations made. I am sure there are many fine and wonderful people in Afghanistan (which is why we are still over there trying to help re-build the Country and improve people's lives - and keep the Taliban from coming back in to murder and maim Afghan citizens again).

There are many in the world who believes it was orchestrated by the US, planting bombs in the markets places and blaming the insurgents etc.

There are millions of children in the world who still believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

Afghanistan in the other hand is very different, Afghan civilians have a long history of involvement in wars therefore know the strategies used by empires. An attempt was made by US to use the same Iraq tactics in Afghanistan, but failed due to Afghan knowledge, knowing the difference between a suicide bombing, and a planted bomb, or a drone missile.

How much can US afford to inject in Afghanistan?

That is the question? Where is the money gonna come from? How long can the US print its own money?

Yes, at some point America (and the other Allies) will get tired of spending our money to help the people there improve their lives. That is why we will work to switch on the mining of Afghanistan's mineral riches - so that they can finish the job for the most part by themselves (with Western Companies helping and profiting too of course).

But, your link between the trouble in Afghanistan and America's "imminent" collapse just does not compute. Sorry.

Originally posted by oozyism

No one denies that the US have the ability to annihilate the whole world, but that doesn't give the impression of loosing, that is actually loosing.

As I said previously, objectives, what are the objectives you are trying to gain?

If the objective is to neutralize a threat, that would fail also, because in order to neutralize a threat completely, you have to invade + occupy that nation.

How on earth can US invade + occupy China?

Who said anything about invading or occupying China? We could quite easily set their industrial and military capabilities back about 100 years, while leaving most of their population and food production completely intact.

The Chinese people would take over from there.

You idea that US can easily destroy the navy + air power of China is not a credible claim:

1. US military is scattered all around the world, meaning they have air bases all around the world, if there was to be a fight against China, head on, US would have to focus all its attention on China, what about other war fronts? China can use proxies to push in other fronts.

Yes, for a couple of weeks anyway. Because China is a more formidable foe than, say, Iraq or Iran, there would not be a slow build-up, followed by a hunt and peck surgical attack. It would use overwhelming force, over a very short period of time...enough to quickly disable the Chinese military and the command and control structure.

Once the top leadership is killed or cut off, Chinese forces will have almost no idea what to do as the situation begins to really get out of hand. China is a multi-layered, top-down, slow moving machine...that would come apart at the seams against a nimble, determined, decentralized military force like America (if it ever got totally revved up).

2. War is strategy based, it is not about might, look at Afghanistan for example, the strategy Afghan insurgents are using is very effective, hence planting a home made IED which is devastating US troops and US transport machines which costs thousands of times more than 1 IED.

OOzie. The Taliban's strategy is not militarily effective...it is a pain in the backside. Once again, the only reason the insurgency is still even going on at all is because we scaled back our response to it, to try to save civilian lives. It does tend to wear down support at home...but that is only because we have decided to put our own people at risk to try to save Afghan lives.

3. China having the world's largest population also equates to China haven't the world most thinkers and war strategists. US war strategies have failed miserably in recent times, most notable in Vietnam, and now visibly in Afghanistan.

You are wrong for reasons I won't go into here...but you obviously do not understand China.

Also, America's only failure in any recent war has to do with its post war management of the country it has defeated. But, give them time...and force them into a few more of these conflicts and they will figure that out too.

What do you think, is it really that easy to defeat China in a head on war?

In a head on war...right now...yes.

Originally posted by mobiusmale
Yes, the USSR was forced to abandon their occupation of Afghanistan. Do you honestly believe that this is what lead to the collapse of the USSR? Again, you seem to think that Afghanistan has far more influence than it really does. It is a backward, under-developed and at times troublesome, spot on the map of little real consequence.

So USSR didn't get defeated in Afghanistan, but wait, wait NVM. I don't really care, people see it as it is (in there heads).

Had the Taliban not buddied up with Bin Laden's band of nut bars...they would still be going around shooting women in the head for exposing their noses in public.

No mobiusmate, I don't believe Al-Qaeda managed to infiltrate through multi layers of defense which billions are spent every year. If US Jets can't even take down couple of passenger jets then it is really in trouble.

I think I read somewhere else on here that this is your homeland, so apologies for the generalizations made. I am sure there are many fine and wonderful people in Afghanistan (which is why we are still over there trying to help re-build the Country and improve people's lives - and keep the Taliban from coming back in to murder and maim Afghan citizens again).

Yes generalization is a good term, just like some people could look at one US cops and generalize, or look at torture, then generalize, or look at US soldiers raping innocent Iraqis and generalize. Same thing really, but doesn't really bother me, just like it doesn't bother you.

There are millions of children in the world who still believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

Now is that really how you deny the allegations against US, for orchestrating the Iraqi civil war? Are you suggesting US is not capable of such an act? Or do you need evidence before believing? Or do you need a control leak to tell you? Some of us have the brain to connect the dots.

Yes, at some point America (and the other Allies) will get tired of spending our money to help the people there improve their lives. That is why we will work to switch on the mining of Afghanistan's mineral riches - so that they can finish the job for the most part by themselves (with Western Companies helping and profiting too of course).

But, your link between the trouble in Afghanistan and America's "imminent" collapse just does not compute. Sorry.

Yes, reading history might help

"""""While I see US trying to make a deal, to pass authority over Japan to India,"""""

That is an interesting theory you have. FIJI has been passed to India to hold control of it. The new Continental Flight from Guam to Fiji....a Indian girl in Guam blogging her trip from Guam to Fiji on the Guampdn.com awhile back....

I do think we have been getting India to help us hold territory in the Pacific. Too bad we won't allow Democracy there and are supporting the military dictatorship of Fiji....(indian military).

There are lots of people making money off of the souls there. We have a retired B-52 pilot who owns an airline running in and around that locale. I don't think India will be able to secure their Pacific Ocean assets or protect Japan. I think we are just using them to help us with costs. Let them play Dictator in a few places and spend their $$$.

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by delicatessen

 

I don't think you got my point, I will try again.

See in the middle east, the only ally US has is Israel, in Central and South East Asia the only Ally US has is India.

See how US is supporting Israel? Expect the same support for India.

I think you will be VERY sprised what allis the US will have - world wide. And you wont know until the time, and hopefully that never comes.

But arnt you the person who thought It was not right for the World to remove that man calling for all Westerners to be attacked by muslims that had moved Into their country for residence? So clearly you are not a westerner or even think they have the right to live In their own country without being attacked by muslims of the extreme variety ( as I know many who find this repulsive ).

Dont play Into this people - seriously! You are just giving Ideas and Info away for the classic Quaran quote of befriend to destroy.

Originally posted by mobiusmale


Who said anything about invading or occupying China? We could quite easily set their industrial and military capabilities back about 100 years, while leaving most of their population and food production completely intact.

That is a huge assumption you are making, it depends on many things, you are making an assumption that China doesn't have any defense capabilities, also making an assumption that China cannot take out US war ships, and easily take down US jets. Imagine this, if there is a head on war, China will unleash its missiles, which could be thousands in matter of minutes. Do you think China will allow US to attack it, without any retaliation?

Yes, for a couple of weeks anyway. Because China is a more formidable foe than, say, Iraq or Iran, there would not be a slow build-up, followed by a hunt and peck surgical attack. It would use overwhelming force, over a very short period of time...enough to quickly disable the Chinese military and the command and control structure.

Exactly, which China also have the capability. And no, it isn't that easy to transport a warship from one strategic area to another, that is a very hard decision to make, because there could be hostility from another power in the area where the warship is leaving. Sometime it is easier to stay defensive than offensive, offensively you got all your forces and defense equipment in a concentrated area, where it can unleash a devastating defeat to a spread out force, where mobilization would be extremely slow.

Once the top leadership is killed or cut off, Chinese forces will have almost no idea what to do as the situation begins to really get out of hand. China is a multi-layered, top-down, slow moving machine...that would come apart at the seams against a nimble, determined, decentralized military force like America (if it ever got totally revved up).

Well the US have to be able to handle couple of weeks of war and handle couple of thousands missiles and bombs before we can talk about leaderships being killed. You're assuming that American people will allow this, and there will be no uprising at home.

OOzie. The Taliban's strategy is not militarily effective...it is a pain in the backside. Once again, the only reason the insurgency is still even going on at all is because we scaled back our response to it, to try to save civilian lives. It does tend to wear down support at home...but that is only because we have decided to put our own people at risk to try to save Afghan lives.

It is militarily effective, it is killing the occupying force at a rate of 1 per day. That is extremely good strategy considering the amount of money being spent by the insurgent, and the amount of money being spent by the occupying force. Once again, I know the US has the capability of annihilating the world, but that doesn't mean they will, because every war has objectives, if those objectives are not met, then you loose. Simple, it is like a game of soccer, who ever gets the most goals win, that is the objectives of the game.

You are wrong for reasons I won't go into here...but you obviously do not understand China.

Also, America's only failure in any recent war has to do with its post war management of the country it has defeated. But, give them time...and force them into a few more of these conflicts and they will figure that out too.

Once again, objectives. If the objective is to occupy, but it fails, that is a failed war.

In a head on war...right now...yes.

I will be watching Afghanistan.

By the way:
NATO soldier killed in S Afghanistan

"An International Security Assistance Force service member died following an improvised explosive device attack in southern Afghanistan Sunday," the press release said.

This was today ..

Originally posted by Subjective Truth
Hmm my money is on the US going to all out war to save what it has left. I wonder if history and common sense back up what I am saying?

Speaking of history . . .

Ever heard of this country called Germany?
They tried all out war a couple of times.
Wish there was a way to find out how that worked for them.

Come to think of it, they'd have never done it a second time if it hadn't worked out brilliantly the first time. Because people do learn from history, don't they?

So which Country is the safest to live in right now and for the next 20+ years?

Do I start to learn Chinese or Russian.

I hate the UK and want a change but would like to be safe from Nukes, Disease and have a bit of peace and quiet!

reply to post by minkey53
There is no place safe to go.

You will KNOW what language you need to learn when the time comes.....

And nobody's going to use nukes,unless it a rogue faction

reply to post by Kailassa
Germany knows how to raise hell,and knows when to do it.

Germany has a great appreciation for natural resources,because they have been nearly destroyed twice.

I visited Germany once,I didn't want to come back home afterward.

It is a gorgeous place.

Originally posted by Stormflower007
(replying to Oozy)
But arnt you the person who thought It was not right for the World to remove that man calling for all Westerners to be attacked by muslims that had moved Into their country for residence? So clearly you are not a westerner or even think they have the right to live In their own country without being attacked by muslims of the extreme variety ( as I know many who find this repulsive ).

You are the one being manipulated here.

You see some of the Muslims in your own country behaving in disgusting ways, and being egged on by religious leaders who should not be allowed in western countries because they are using their influence this way. But you are not looking any further.



As Hitler showed, you can get a people to give up their lifestyle and put everything into a war effort if you can just teach them how to hate first.

Anyone believing Muslims carried out 9/11 has their eyes shut tight. That was our Reichstag, and if you haven't read up on that, and read "Operation Northwoods", you need to so you can see how leaders behave.
Look at the latest "incident", "bomb kits", that just happened to look exactly like toner cartridges, being flown from Yemen to synagogues in America. All eyes were on Yemen, to find the nasty little Muslim responsible.
Not one single media outlet questioned why American synagogues were receiving dozens of bomb kits. No, can't question them, that would be antisemitic. But apparently there is nothing antisemitic about dropping missiles, clusterbombs, the modern version of napalm and D.U. dust on the real semites.

The Muslims didn't invade us, we invaded them, and it was no slip of the tongue when Bush pandered to his Christian audience and called it a crusade or holy war, and said he had god on his side, telling him what to do.

Of course, given our hatred towards them, and what we have done to their countries and relatives, lots of Muslims are going to hate us back. I could go on for ages about the effect that's having on my country. But it's just dumb to blame it all on Muslims without looking at the blood on our own hands.

Hell, even the sect of Muslim faith funding the more insane of the Imams and wanting to institute Sharia law is a relatively new, Western invention.



The world has been set up to be divided on the lines of Christian versus Muslim.
Someone is behind the scenes, pulling the strings, looking to benefit as the two sides stay focused on weakening each other.
And that entity behind the curtain sure isn't likely to be Christian or Muslim.

Originally posted by chiponbothshoulders
reply to post by Kailassa

 

Germany knows how to raise hell,and knows when to do it.

Germany has a great appreciation for natural resources,because they have been nearly destroyed twice.

I visited Germany once,I didn't want to come back home afterward.

It is a gorgeous place.

I felt the same when I spent a few months in Canada (Kawartha Lakes, Ontario), now there's a thought?

Originally posted by chiponbothshoulders
reply to post by Kailassa

 

Germany knows how to raise hell,and knows when to do it.
Germany has a great appreciation for natural resources,because they have been nearly destroyed twice.
I visited Germany once,I didn't want to come back home afterward.
It is a gorgeous place.

I love germany.
That's why I'm deeply aware of the terrible position their stupid wars left them in.

As for knowing how to raise hell and when to do it, they allowed their country to be ruined by stupid leaders who were greedy to take over other countries.

It was once those leaders were gone the German people showed what they could do once they concentrated on doing what they could for their own country instead of invading others.

I don't know that Americans have the leaders and work ethic to do the same.
They are too used to a relatively easy lifestyle granted by the manipulated trade advantages the petrol dollar has allowed them.

Originally posted by oozyism
There are many in the world who believes it was orchestrated by the US, planting bombs in the markets places and blaming the insurgents etc.

It's not just a belief, there's been numerous times along the way stories of this have got out.

I remember one from 5 or 6 years back, where an Iraqi guy was called in by the Americans, talked to away from his car, and told to drive from there straight to a market and ring back from there ... under some threat if he didn't.
He started to and got worried. Can't remember if something was happening that made him realise his car had been tampered with. Anyway, he stopped along the way to ring a friend from a public phone because he didn't know what to do. And, while he was on the phone, his car blew up.

I'm thinking that we should be sceptical of any instances of stupid violence which are not succeeding in killing anyone America or Israel care about, and which really serve to achieve nothing except bring the world's hatred and scorn on the supposed perpetrators of this violence.

Few westerners question this because we've been fed so much propaganda about the "stupid ragheads over there" who wouldn't know any better than to blow up each other and Israeli oranges.

Where is the money gonna come from? How long can the US print its own money?

As long as they can keep oil producers all selling their oil for US$.
In other words, not much longer.

reply to post by Kailassa
I remember that story about the guy being told to drive ...someplace...

And I remember the story about Iraqi soldiers,supposedly chucking babies out of incubators in a hospital,to die on the cold floor.

And then seeing a story later,that it was fabricated by an Iraqi politician,and his granddaughter or niece or something was the little girl telling the story to the cameras,of what she supposedly witnessed.

That it was a lie.

reply to post by Kailassa


There's also another incident where UK special forces wearing Arab clothings driving in a car, when they were stopped in a check point they shot the Iraqi police and drove away, then after the chase, once they got caught the Iraqi police found out the car was booby trapped.

They were locked up, when UK heard about it they came with tanks and destroyed the prison wall taking the special forces out through force and in the process freed many more prisoners lol..

That car was probably going to a market to explode killing innocent women and children in the process.

Then again it all does come down to belief, because some would never believe US or its proxy states are capable of such acts. Those who don't believe, no amount of evidence will suffice.

reply to post by oozyism


Hey there oozy;

As I have mentioned to you in past, I think you are quite good at confusing folks who cannot make up their minds, or do not have the time to research things on their own, or are easily led. So, more power to you in that respect...may you someday have a large following of (paying) disenfranchised and gullible people of many persuasions, who look to you for their daily meal of fear and hatred of the West. Lord (or your choice, of course) knows you have a large potential market both inside and outside of the West.

Every effective disinformation message, or campaign, has a proper mixture of verifiable proofs (thereby building credibility and trust), half-truths (which seem more compelling based on the first category of arguments), speculations (you know, the IMO and IMHO's etc.) that seem to be worthy of consideration based on categories one and two, and outright lies and fabrication (which are seen as truths by the unwashed) based on all of the above.

Simply put...assuming you genuinely believe what you are trying to sell here, even though you utilize disinfo tactics to spread your message...we have completely different world views. We will likely never agree on very much...other than the right to openly and freely exchange ideas. Even this I question sometimes based on your slant toward the support of certain overtly oppressive and violent (even against their own peoples) regimes and ideologies.

Simply put...I hope that I never have to live in a world where Islam and Sharia Law are supreme. This is for about a thousand reasons that we could perhaps leave for a separate thread on the subject. I suspect that you wish that the world was a one religion (Islamic), one world Government theocracy on the model of either Iran or the Taliban.

Simply put...I hope that I never have to live in a world where a totalitarian, undemocratic, un-god-fearing political machine rules all. A number of countries live this way now...North Korea, Myanmar come to mind.

Having said the above, I have no problem with people practicing their faith...whatever it is...just so long as those faiths do not interfere with the basic (and core) freedoms that we have come to love in Western society.

Getting back to the subject of this thread, I do not believe that the imminent demise of the USA, and the greater West, is upon us. And for this I thank God, Allah, Jehovah...whatever name you wish to apply to our Creator and Overseer.

All the best Oozyism.