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.

 

Why won't Americans leave? (Insurgent Commander)

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 09:17 PM
link   


"When we sit and watch the news on TV we hear that the Taliban attacked here and there and destroyed tanks and killed soldiers. Then in the next news item you hear that the Americans are calling for negotiations and of course you understand that these two news items are related. The second news item is the result of the first, and the Americans want to negotiate because they are losing.

"Why don't they just leave?" he said. "What are they waiting for?"


www.guardian.co.uk...

I want to understand why America is still waiting in Afghanistan?

Isn't it evident that they are loosing, and the war has been lost? The momentum of the resistance has increase to a point of no return?

Some claim it is because no one wants Taliban, yes, true, but no one wants an American puppet regime either. No one wants corruptions, a drug based economy, drug addiction, invasion/occupation...



"But the benefits of the Taliban outweigh the harm we do to the people. In our area there were thieves and bandits. It was chaos.

"People needed someone to monitor and rule and punish. They needed us to impose order.

"The government is besieged in its fortresses and can't come to the people, and corruption is paralysing it. One of the main reasons for our popularity is the failure of this government."

In a striking parallel with what the Americans have been advocating as part of their counterinsurgency initiative, the Haqqanis have set up local shura (consultation) councils made up of village elders and clerics to run the affairs of villagers in the "liberated" areas and create local security. The old man's job is to supervise these councils.

"I am a representative of the movement and I walk among the people and everyone knows me. I move between the people and the commanders, watching the commanders' behaviour. I listen to the people and convey the picture to the supreme leaders," he said.

Had the Taliban changed? A future administration would be based on Islamic rule, which was what the Afghan people wanted, but it would be different in detail from the Taliban regime that had ruled in Kabul before. "We will not rule based on theory. The people want us to be more pragmatic."

He quoted the Muslim poet Muhammad Iqbal. "When the painter works on the same old painting again, he will make it much better.

"The Taliban that will return will not be like the old Taliban. We have learned from the old mistakes. We will accept others. We are not and cannot be all of Afghanistan, but we are an important part of it."


This is gonna be interesting.

We all know US is gonna fail this war, and has already lost, to an extent where they are forced to carry bombardment missions mostly.

So, when Americans leave, what sort of Afghanistan do you expect?

It is evident that the insurgents, militants have changed from Taliban (students), to teachers. They have learned much, through their experiences.

Will Afghanistan be stronger, and better after the

Or

Do we expect the same strict rule as before? The Taliban (Student) rule?

Please read the whole article, of interviews with Taliban commander, civilians representative and ambassador here:

www.guardian.co.uk...

thoughts//

oz




posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Simple answer?

Too much money to be made, old chap. Far too much money.
edit on 26-11-2010 by FalselyFlagged because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by FalselyFlagged
Simple answer?

Too much money to be made, old chap. Far too much money.
edit on 26-11-2010 by FalselyFlagged because: (no reason given)


Almost 1 trillion will be spent in Afghanistan just spending money on Soldiers, do you think US will make a trillion from Afghanistan in 5 years to balance it out?

OR

Is it long term?



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Come on, that's easier said then done. No one can just get up and leave the country like that even if they wanted to. It takes time, effort, and sacrifice because you may be leaving behind some family members that don't want to move.

Even if we move to Canada, America is right below it. If bombs are going to be flying around, I'm that Canada would mistakenly get hit after a while.



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Any country that isn't under the boot of another is better off, period.

Afghanistan is America's 2nd Vietnam, and it's turning into that for my fellow Canadian soldiers as well. You can't fight terrorism with an army, because terrorism doesn't have an army.

They have an idea.

Ideas aren't fought with guns and knives.

The sooner America realizes that the goal of terrorists is to bankrupt them, and that they've won, the better off the world will be.

~Keeper
edit on 11/26/2010 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 


Are you in the right thread, because I don't get at all what you are on about





posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


I think America believes that Communism was defeated by guns and knives.

That is the problem with US, it has its head up its place where the sun never shines.

It has to wake up and smell the air, ideas are countered with better ideas, not with guns and knives.

Very well put.



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 



Almost 1 trillion will be spent in Afghanistan just spending money on Soldiers, do you think US will make a trillion from Afghanistan in 5 years to balance it out?


But the taxpayesr foot the bill for the fight while any profits made from resources go elsewhere..
Those making the profits care little for how much the war costs the taxpayer..

And so it will continue...



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Makes sense, because the TAX PAYERS in the end of the day have to keep working and find money one way or another. In that sense, TAX will always come flowing in towards the government.

Then again

I thought America was broke? I thought they were borrowing money from China? I suck at economic stuff lol..



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by backinblack
 


Makes sense, because the TAX PAYERS in the end of the day have to keep working and find money one way or another. In that sense, TAX will always come flowing in towards the government.

Then again

I thought America was broke? I thought they were borrowing money from China? I suck at economic stuff lol..


Yup, America is broke. The good news is there are a bunch of people willing to give America more fake money in order to continue it's wars and economic decline. China is smart like that. Mind you, the American people should denounce all it's debt as it's based on nothing at all and start from scratch with Gold or Silver.

Either way, America is screwed unless it starts giving the finger to people instead of getting involved in every little dispute on the other side of the planet.

Note to self America: The next time you go to war for oil, get some oil.

~Keeper



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 10:12 PM
link   
This is the reason the US won't be leaving Afghanistan anytime in the near future:


The United States has discovered nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, far beyond any previously known reserves and enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself, according to senior American government officials.


As with most conflicts in this world, all one really has to do to understand what's going on is to follow the money. The US is currently highly dependent on China when it comes to rare earth minerals, which are used in components found in most modern electronic devices. If the US had access to a source for these metals other than China, they'd take it in a heartbeat. The US already has a foothold in Afghanistan and thus access to these minerals, making them more affordable to US companies.


New York Times article



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Crunkman919
 


My mom ran for the parliamentary elections in the Panshir province, she lost, but through her campaign she learned much, and gained a lot of information.

How will the US benefit from the trillion dollar resource? If it has already spent trillions dollars on war?

Plus

Afghan government runs on corruption in every level, that means deals are made through bribes etc.

Who do you think will get the trillion dollar resource? Who will get the contract?

And

The amount of money it would take to take out those resources is huge, and the profit would be diminished. No one would want that in a destabilized Afghanistan/
edit on 26-11-2010 by oozyism because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism

Originally posted by FalselyFlagged
Simple answer?

Too much money to be made, old chap. Far too much money.
edit on 26-11-2010 by FalselyFlagged because: (no reason given)


Almost 1 trillion will be spent in Afghanistan just spending money on Soldiers, do you think US will make a trillion from Afghanistan in 5 years to balance it out?

OR

Is it long term?


Dude... Who said anything about USA making money from the wars? I said "far too much money to be made"... By the military industrial complex, the contractors, the CIA and all their alphabet-boy underlings.

Hahah. If you actually think the policians have the best interests of the COUNTRY in mind, you're deluded.

War is BIG MONEY. Huge money. And quick wars don't make enough.

Do you really think that the USA didn't KNOW FROM THE START that a war in Afghanistan is unwinnable? Considering, that the CIA was running intelligence for the russian-afghan insurgency? LOL They know that a war is not winnable there with a relentless insurgency. They knew that from the start.

The war is about money and giving more power to intelligence military. There was a CIA coup of the government when Kennedy was killed. This is just a continuation of that.



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by FalselyFlagged
 


Corruption to the core?

Is that what you are asserting?



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 10:30 PM
link   
I'll tell you exactly why I won't leave...

No matter where YOU or I go, the issue will always catch up to us.



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


Is that a serious question?



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by FalselyFlagged
reply to post by oozyism
 


Is that a serious question?


Yes??

If the US government do not care about US interests, who do they care about? Whose interests do they have in hand?

If the US government doesn't care for American interests, then that equates to deep corruption. That means the politicians pockets are tied.



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 

The US as a whole may not benefit from the sale or acquisition of said minerals, but the Elites in pulling the strings would profit. As always the US taxpayer would foot the bill in terms of extracting the minerals, and the US military already in place has the logistical capabilities to transport said minerals.
The Afghani government is corrupt, and susceptible to coercion, if the elites throw money at them, it wouldn't matter whether or not Afghanistan would be destabilized because all they would see are the $$$ going into there offshore Swiss bank accounts.

Who will get the contracts you ask? International companies in the mining industry.The higher ups in those industries would get the loins share of the profits from the minerals Something similar happened in Iraq in regards to control of their oil wells:

"The law would transform Iraq's oil industry from a nationalized model ... into a commercial industry all-but-privatized, that is fully open to all international oil companies. The Iraq National Oil Company would have exclusive control of just 17 of Iraq's 80 known oil fields, leaving two-thirds of known - and all of its as yet undiscovered - fields open to international oil companies." ...That provision will allow a lot of (if not most) of Iraq oil revenues to flow out of Iraq; winding up in cash revenues for the international oil companies. It stands to reason that Iraq would lose out if their oil assets are decentralized and their total control of oil revenue is only of 17 of their 80 oil wells.


Political Cortex



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by FalselyFlagged
Simple answer?

Too much money to be made, old chap. Far too much money.


...exactly...

..btw, earlier tonight i read a post where someone believes the reason why the usofa is still in afghanistan is because its too expensive to bring our soldiers home...



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 11:25 PM
link   
If the US doesn't win in Afghanistan it will be for one reason only: Lack of testicular fortitude (or outright betrayal) from our Muslim Commander-in-Chief. If the US military were to be unleashed in AFG, the Taliban would learn the true meaning of terror. The US military is the most awesome and frightful killing machine the world has ever seen, and we do it better than anyone. IMO, once the decision to go to war is made by the civilian government, they need to step back and let the professional soldiers do what they do.

Political correctness loses wars. Feeling sorry for your enemy loses wars. Politicians making strategic decisions lose wars. Reading a combatant his Miranda rights loses wars.

The Taliban aren't beating us; if we pull out of AFG before eradicating the Taliban - and I mean killing every last one of them - our political leadership will be to blame.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join