Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It boggles my mind that some people still actually support these wars in the Middle East.
Back in 2003 it boggled my mind and I couldn't believe how the American people were getting behind it. The propaganda campaign and the buildup to the invasion of Iraq was surreal. The American people just wanted someone's blood, even if it wasn't the people responsible for Sept. 11th.
Now it's almost 2011, I think someone would have to be crazy to still support these operations after everything that's happened and everything we've seen. I think anyone who still supports these operation would have to be extremely uneducated and uninformed.
And I see it happening all over again. And for what ?
The amount of wealth that has left the US for countries in the ME must be in the tens of trillions. And for what ? We are more in fear of them today than we were 10 years ago.
I want to see the poppy fields burned to the ground.
Why do we let them continue to grow that is beyond me.
Strange wording: "let them." Since when is Afghanistan part of the USA? We don't own them, we supposedly don't take places over by force and "annex" them anymore. So dealing with their drug growers is the responsibility of their government, not ours.
Considering drug abuse is a medical and social problem, rather than a criminal one, the entire approach of our "Drug War" is so misguided that even totalitarian slave-state control of every American citizen would not ameliorate the problem of drug abuse. And as many know, the entire reason of labeling it a "War" on drugs was simply to take us one more step in that direction.
Does the struggling American taxpayer REALLY think waging a goal-less and insanely expensive war (be it a Drug War or 9/11 Retaliatory War or Mineral-Quest War) halfway across the world in a barbarian nation is so critically important (let alone achievable after 10 years already) that we must borrow a trillion or so from China, and have our kids and grandkids pay it back with interest? Don't forget American wages stagnated in the 1970s and massive unemployment is now the new normal, and the retirement of the Baby Boom (among countless other unavoidable liabilities) must also be funded by taxes on those declining wages and shrinking number of workers.
Waging "Drug Wars" halfway across the world may seem like fun or macho or cool when you completely ignore the mind-boggling costs. But I don't think anyone with the most basic understanding of economics (like why you just can't print all the money you need) would reasonably argue that this war in Afghanistan accomplishes a goal that is worth the costs. Particularly since nobody, including our Commander-in-Chief or any of his underlings, has the slightest idea what that goal might be.
Strange wording: "let them." Since when is Afghanistan part of the USA? We don't own them, we supposedly don't take places over by force and "annex" them anymore. So dealing with their drug growers is the responsibility of their government, not ours.
Considering drug abuse is a medical and social problem, rather than a criminal one, the entire approach of our "Drug War" is so misguided that even totalitarian slave-state control of every American citizen would not ameliorate the problem of drug abuse. And as many know, the entire reason of labeling it a "War" on drugs was simply to take us one more step in that direction.
Does the struggling American taxpayer REALLY think waging a goal-less and insanely expensive war (be it a Drug War or 9/11 Retaliatory War or Mineral-Quest War) halfway across the world in a barbarian nation is so critically important (let alone achievable after 10 years already) that we must borrow a trillion or so from China, and have our kids and grandkids pay it back with interest? Don't forget American wages stagnated in the 1970s and massive unemployment is now the new normal, and the retirement of the Baby Boom (among countless other unavoidable liabilities) must also be funded by taxes on those declining wages and shrinking number of workers.
Waging "Drug Wars" halfway across the world may seem like fun or macho or cool when you completely ignore the mind-boggling costs. But I don't think anyone with the most basic understanding of economics (like why you just can't print all the money you need) would reasonably argue that this war in Afghanistan accomplishes a goal that is worth the costs. Particularly since nobody, including our Commander-in-Chief or any of his underlings, has the slightest idea what that goal might be.
If you are at war with the Taliban, wouldn't destroying the source of their income HELP you ?
Then why would the general be asking for them ?
He of all people would know that. Some other reason for sending them ?
A "show" of strength maybe ?
The general is just trying to do what's best for his troops and his operations. These tanks will keep the troops safer and help out their operations in the short term i'm sure. But in the big picture, all this isn't going to help anything and the overall mission if Afghanistan is never going to succeed.
Also let's face it. There is corruption running through every facet of this war. Almost every action is money driven. Someone is probably making money somewhere from these tanks being sent over. You never know what the real reason is.
More often than you think, decisions like this are because of internal pressure in the Army from that branch. Tanker's have been pretty much left out of this war, and Iraq too, and they want a piece of the action just like everyone else.
I'm not saying that is the reason, but it's a good possibility which wouldn't surprise me in the least.
I don't object to our troops having everything they need, but I can't help but wonder what good they'll do. The M-1 Abrams weighs over 120,000 lbs and can't get very far off the roads in the heavily mountained parts of Afghanistan where the majority of the fighting is still going on.
Maybe they intend to deploy them to those little, rinky-dink platoon-sized operating bases as additional fire support. That's fine, but they'll sure make a tempting target. Everybody wants to take out a tank!
Danish and Canadian troops have used tanks (Leopard 2A5s, if memory serves - always buy German for quality vehicles) to great effect in the Helmand province. Tanks trundle up to a nice, high fire position, infantry spot targets and pin with light arms fire, tanks open up with HE. Rather like a poor man's close air support. The British forces in the area have been very happy indeed with the assistance.
As a bonus, the tanks come with impressive sensors. And there's very little in Afghanistan that can spook a modern MBT at a distance. (IEDs are a different matter.)
It's not out of the Guderian playbook for armored warfare, but it works. Asymmetric warfare can go two ways, after all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
