Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Afghanistan Thread Pt 2 (merged)

A forum for discussion of regional topics including oil depletion but also government, society, and the future.

Re: Afghanistan War: Four More Years

Unread postby Keith_McClary » Tue 23 Nov 2010, 00:10:50

Taliban Leader in Secret Talks Was an Impostor
For months, the secret talks unfolding between Taliban and Afghan leaders to end the war appeared to be showing promise, if only because of the repeated appearance of a certain insurgent leader at one end of the table: Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour, one of the most senior commanders in the Taliban movement.

But now, it turns out, Mr. Mansour was apparently not Mr. Mansour at all. In an episode that could have been lifted from a spy novel, United States and Afghan officials now say the Afghan man was an impostor, and high-level discussions conducted with the assistance of NATO appear to have achieved little.

“It’s not him,” said a Western diplomat in Kabul intimately involved in the discussions. “And we gave him a lot of money.”

:oops:

EDIT: Juan Cole, Nov. 23 comments:
The incident set me thinking about all the impostures of that war, which are legion. Let us begin with the frankly dishonest discourse about it of both our twenty-first century presidents, who maintain that the US is fighting “al-Qaeda” in Afghanistan. But there is no al-Qaeda to speak of in that country, if by the term one means the mainly Arab Pan-Islamic International that sees Usama Bin Laden as its leader. US forces in Afghanistan are fighting disgruntled Pashtuns, for the most part. Some are from Gulbuddin Hikmatyar’s Islamic Party. Others from the Haqqani family’s Haqqani Network. The Reagan administration and its Saudi allies once showered billions of dollars on Hikmatyar and Haqqani, so they aren’t exactly eternal adversaries of the US. Some insurgents are from the Old Taliban of Mullah Omar. Still others are not so much terrorist cartels as tribes and guerrilla groups who are just unhappy with poppy eradication campaigns, or with the foreign troop presence (they would say ‘occupation’), or with how Karzai has given out patronage unequally, favoring some tribes over others. The insurgency is almost exclusively drawn from the Pashtun ethnic group.

So the war is not about al-Qaeda.

My guess is that the war is mainly an example of mission creep. The US and other Western powers stood up the Karzai government in late 2001, and they would suffer a loss of face and a geostrategic reversal if he were hanged from a lamp post like Najeeb, one of his Soviet-installed predecessors. So then they have to do whatever they can to prop up the Kabul government, including crash training for 400,000 troops and police to maintain security.

Despite having gotten where he is through US and NATO help, President Hamid Karzai has been revealed to be on a $2 million a year retainer by Iran. And, his brothers and circle are allegedly highly corrupt, getting unsecured loans from a bank they run to buy posh villas in Dubai.


They are lying about their reasons for the war because they don't want to tell us about their real "geostrategic" objectives.
Last edited by Keith_McClary on Tue 23 Nov 2010, 18:55:53, edited 1 time in total.
Facebook knows you're a dog.
User avatar
Keith_McClary
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7344
Joined: Wed 21 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Suburban tar sands

Re: Afghanistan War: Four More Years

Unread postby jmnemonic » Tue 23 Nov 2010, 02:16:35

Well, I see there's a lot of bring-'em-home sentiment here. And I feel it too. I'm a combat vet myself. But is it not possible that we actually have some valid reasons for staying there? For example, Pakistan is wobbly. We can't just inject troops into Pakistan now but if their government/military should collapse it just *might* be handy to have some substantial forces nearby to dash in with guns ablazin' and lock down the nukes. Crazy Taliban folks with nukes might not be a nice result for anyone NATO-ish. As for keeping some troops in Iraq - well duh. They're about the next-closest thing to a new Saudi Arabia in terms of oil, we're gonna want access to that oil, and coincidentally, we have enough force there to take it when we need it, if we have to. Plus, we already spent a billion or two building that giant city-sized complex there. Might as well use it; we bought it. You can argue the morality of effectively standing around with guns near their oil, but when Americans are starving to death from lack of oil, well, that morality question won't be all that important. Starvation trumps morality virtually every time.

Anyway, that's probably the other side of the story. We're closely watching (essentially guarding) the Iraqi oil and the Pakistani nukes. Whether we should be spending so much money to do so - as a form of insurance I guess - is certainly questionable, but cost aside, I think there are some understandable reasons for us being there.
jmnemonic
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun 21 Nov 2010, 09:28:07

Re: Afghanistan War: Four More Years

Unread postby Plantagenet » Tue 23 Nov 2010, 03:19:33

jmnemonic wrote: Pakistan is wobbly. We can't just inject troops into Pakistan now but if their government/military should collapse it just *might* be handy to have some substantial forces nearby to dash in with guns ablazin' and lock down the nukes. Crazy Taliban folks with nukes might not be a nice result for anyone NATO-ish.....


Thats a good point, but is having 100,000 troops engaged in an endless war in Afghanistan really the best way to keep troops near Pakistan?

Couldn't we keep them in India or on Diego Garcia or in Uzbekistan or even on a carrier? They'd still be near Pakistan but we wouldn't be spending hundreds of billions of dollars evert year and losing a hundred good men every month in Afghanistan.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26631
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Afghanistan War: Four More Years

Unread postby Keith_McClary » Tue 23 Nov 2010, 03:21:56

jmnemonic wrote:Anyway, that's probably the other side of the story. We're closely watching (essentially guarding) the Iraqi oil and the Pakistani nukes. Whether we should be spending so much money to do so - as a form of insurance I guess - is certainly questionable, but cost aside, I think there are some understandable reasons for us being there.

The crunch will come when the Chinese, Indians, Europeans, Japanese, Koreans etc. buy up all that oil and the US(raelis) can't afford it.
Facebook knows you're a dog.
User avatar
Keith_McClary
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7344
Joined: Wed 21 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Suburban tar sands

Trans-Afghan pipeline wins support, security key

Unread postby Keith_McClary » Fri 10 Dec 2010, 22:23:51

Trans-Afghan pipeline wins support, security key
The United States has expressed its support for the project.
...
the pipeline would create jobs in Afghanistan.
...
The proposed route runs from western Herat, near the Iranian border, through the southern Taliban heartlands of Helmand and Kandahar.
...
local communities will be paid to guard it

Better keep all those bases there.
Last edited by Ferretlover on Tue 24 May 2011, 18:01:49, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Merged thread.
Facebook knows you're a dog.
User avatar
Keith_McClary
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7344
Joined: Wed 21 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Suburban tar sands

U.S. Army Unveils 'Revolutionary' XM25 Rifle in Afghanistan

Unread postby Carlhole » Wed 15 Dec 2010, 16:40:26

Image

Fox News

Since the dawn of modern warfare, the best way to stay alive in the face of incoming fire has been to take cover behind a wall. But thanks to a game-changing "revolutionary" rifle, the U.S. Army has made that tactic dead on arrival. Now the enemy can run, but he can't hide.

After years of development, the U.S. Army has unleashed a new weapon in Afghanistan -- the XM25 Counter Defilade Target Engagement System, a high-tech rifle that can be programmed so that its 25-mm. ammunition detonates either in front of or behind a target, meaning it can be fired just above a wall before it explodes and kills the enemy.

It also has a range of roughly 2,300 feet -- nearly the length of eight football fields -- making it possible to fire at targets well past the range of the rifles and carbines that most soldiers carry today.
Lt. Col. Christopher Lehner, project manager for the semi-automatic, shoulder-fired weapon system for the U.S. Army's Program Executive Office Soldier, said that the XM25's capability alone is such a "game-changer" that it'll lead to new ways of fighting on the battlefield, beginning this month in Afghanistan.

"With this weapon system, we take away cover from [enemy targets] forever," Lehner told FoxNews.com on Wednesday. "Tactics are going to have to be rewritten. The only thing we can see [enemies] being able to do is run away."


They're going to need something like this to clean the way the new TAPI natural gas pipeline across Afghanistan, among other.

Turkmen natural gas pipeline Tapi to cross Afghanistan
A deal has been struck on building a 1,700km (1,050m) pipeline to carry Turkmen natural gas across Afghanistan to Pakistan and India.
Carlhole
 

Re: U.S. Army Unveils 'Revolutionary' XM25 Rifle in Afghanis

Unread postby PrestonSturges » Wed 15 Dec 2010, 17:32:04

They've been trying to peddle this technology of a gun firing smart firecrackers in various forms for over 10 years. The infantry lacks low cost weapons in the range of the LAW rocket/rpg/recoiless rifle range that can blow out a room through the solid side wall rather than trying to shoot right down their line of fire like this toy. Or they could have put the similar fuse technology in a LAW rocket and just dumped this gun.
User avatar
PrestonSturges
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6052
Joined: Wed 15 Oct 2008, 03:00:00

Re: U.S. Army Unveils 'Revolutionary' XM25 Rifle in Afghanis

Unread postby Carlhole » Wed 15 Dec 2010, 17:47:46

PrestonSturges wrote:They've been trying to peddle this technology of a gun firing smart firecrackers in various forms for over 10 years.


That's the point. It's a new kind of gun and ammo and its being deployed for the first time this month. The people in the video sure had "game-changer" written all over their faces. Time will tell.

According to the video, they can time the projectile to burst to within a meter. Oops, can't hide.

...and it's got a 2300 foot range, laser range finder, etc. Pretty badass, really.
Carlhole
 

Re: U.S. Army Unveils 'Revolutionary' XM25 Rifle in Afghanis

Unread postby Cloud9 » Wed 15 Dec 2010, 19:29:14

Won't make any difference. The Germans had the MP 44 and still lost.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFpsMcZYdAs
User avatar
Cloud9
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2961
Joined: Wed 26 Jul 2006, 03:00:00

Re: U.S. Army Unveils 'Revolutionary' XM25 Rifle in Afghanis

Unread postby vision-master » Wed 15 Dec 2010, 19:35:38

Yeah, the merikains will be driven out with these.

Vintage 1945'ish......

Image

I just wish mine wuz fully-auto. :)
vision-master
 

Re: U.S. Army Unveils 'Revolutionary' XM25 Rifle in Afghanis

Unread postby gollum » Wed 15 Dec 2010, 21:39:30

I don't think the problem there has ever been lack of firepower or the ability to kill the enemy, whom I'm sure will adapt their tactics to include overhead cover and concealed fighting positions.
gollum
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1048
Joined: Thu 11 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Wyoming

Re: U.S. Army Unveils 'Revolutionary' XM25 Rifle in Afghanis

Unread postby PrestonSturges » Wed 15 Dec 2010, 22:29:42

vision-master wrote:Yeah, the merikains will be driven out with these.

Vintage 1945'ish......

Image

I just wish mine wuz fully-auto. :)

No! I don't want a copy of "The Watchtower!" Now piss off!
User avatar
PrestonSturges
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6052
Joined: Wed 15 Oct 2008, 03:00:00

Re: U.S. Army Unveils 'Revolutionary' XM25 Rifle in Afghanis

Unread postby americandream » Thu 16 Dec 2010, 01:47:20

Anything that rids us of these Islamist vermin is to be welcomed. I have absolutely no sympathy for these scum and find it rather ironic that capitalists, on whose behalf they acted against the USSR, are now kicking the shi-ite out of them.
americandream
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 8650
Joined: Mon 18 Oct 2004, 03:00:00

Re: U.S. Army Unveils 'Revolutionary' XM25 Rifle in Afghanis

Unread postby Fiddlerdave » Thu 16 Dec 2010, 03:22:28

americandream wrote:Anything that rids us of these Islamist vermin is to be welcomed. I have absolutely no sympathy for these scum and find it rather ironic that capitalists, on whose behalf they acted against the USSR, are now kicking the shi-ite out of them.
While going broke in the process. Tell me again how we are "winning"? :rolleyes:

None of these glowing reports ever mention development and purchase and maintenance costs.
User avatar
Fiddlerdave
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 582
Joined: Sun 18 Mar 2007, 03:00:00

Re: U.S. Army Unveils 'Revolutionary' XM25 Rifle in Afghanis

Unread postby Pretorian » Thu 16 Dec 2010, 05:03:24

americandream wrote:Anything that rids us of these Islamist vermin is to be welcomed.


But there is nothing that can do that. Their strength is in vaginas. And in western liberals.
Pretorian
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4683
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Somewhere there

Re: U.S. Army Unveils 'Revolutionary' XM25 Rifle in Afghanis

Unread postby PrestonSturges » Thu 16 Dec 2010, 10:12:43

The most efficient use of this weapon would be maiming large numbers of protestors or rioters. Three of these things could sweep a street of several hundred people pretty quickly with their airbursts.

Not that these things rae going to become common, but if they did you'd see the fighters wearing steel pots and old style flak jackets. You can only get so much shrapnel out of these firecrackers, so diminishing their effect is not a puzzle.
User avatar
PrestonSturges
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6052
Joined: Wed 15 Oct 2008, 03:00:00

Biden says US troops in Afghanistan BEYOND 2014

Unread postby Plantagenet » Wed 12 Jan 2011, 14:19:16

When Obama escalated the war in Afghanistan, the media portrayed Joe BIden as the sensible one who favored a pullout.

When Obama extended the US commitment to fight in Afghanistan to 2014, the media reported that Biden argued against staying until 2014, but was out-argued by the generals who wanted a longer war.

But today, Joe Biden gave a speech saying the US will stay in Afghanistan to 2014 and then beyond. Biden says US to stay in Afghanistan beyond 2014 date

It appears that there is NO ONE in the White House who opposes escalating the war in Afghanistan and keeping our troops there indefinitely.

What happened to all the "anti-war" liberals? Why are they all silent about this?
Last edited by Ferretlover on Tue 24 May 2011, 17:51:57, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: Moved to America's Disc.
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26631
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Biden says US troops in Afghanistan BEYOND 2014

Unread postby mos6507 » Wed 12 Jan 2011, 14:43:41

Quit derailing the thread. It's about Biden.
mos6507
 

Re: Biden says US troops in Afghanistan BEYOND 2014

Unread postby eastbay » Wed 12 Jan 2011, 14:58:48

Did Biden say how he planned to pay for all this warfare? Of course not. For him it's endless war at any cost!
Got Dharma?

Everything is Impermanent. Shakyamuni Buddha
User avatar
eastbay
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7186
Joined: Sat 18 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: One Mile From the Columbia River

PreviousNext

Return to Asia Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests