Mickalino Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 I'll admit I'm no political expert, so forgive me if I'm overlooking something obvious, but I'm curious why we are facing far more insurgent resistance in Iraq than Afghanistan ? Why did the democratic transition and governmental change go so much smoother in Afghanistan, than in Iraq, considering Afghanistan is the home-base for al-quaida ? Is al-quaida fighting more fiercer for Iraq than Afghanistan, because they want the oil, and the power that goes with it, just as much as we do ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edgun88 Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Afghanistan is not the home-base they dont have a home base that's why Al-queda is so hard do deal with , they are around the whole middle east. Also we are fighting just as much in Afghanistan ... it just isnt being reported Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webnarc Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 I'll admit I'm no political expert, so forgive me if I'm overlooking something obvious, but I'm curious why we are facing far more insurgent resistance in Iraq than Afghanistan ? Why did the democratic transition and governmental change go so much smoother in Afghanistan, than in Iraq, considering Afghanistan is the home-base for al-quaida ? Is al-quaida fighting more fiercer for Iraq than Afghanistan, because they want the oil, and the power that goes with it, just as much as we do ? It would seem, that the longer an invading force stays in a country, the greater the internal resistance towards them will become. The pace and aggression will be greater if the quality of life for the native people is highly compromized. Life in Iraq took a big nose dive after the invasion and it has not yet achieve the levels needed to passify the hostility by moderates. It will return, but it could take many years. IMO this is not a politics issue, it's an evolutionary psychology issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbleDanger Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 I'll admit I'm no political expert, so forgive me if I'm overlooking something obvious, but I'm curious why we are facing far more insurgent resistance in Iraq than Afghanistan ? Why did the democratic transition and governmental change go so much smoother in Afghanistan, than in Iraq, considering Afghanistan is the home-base for al-quaida ? Is al-quaida fighting more fiercer for Iraq than Afghanistan, because they want the oil, and the power that goes with it, just as much as we do ? My deductions... 1. In Afghanistan we had the Northern Alliance doing a lot of leg-work for us. 2. Afghanistan is more rural and Iraq is more complicated urban warfare. 3. Afghan people have been at war for decades and at this point many would rather bow out than become insurgents. 4. Al Qaeda and Iran see the American steam-roller setting up camp in yet another middle eastern country and seek to make a stronger stand the second time around. 5. The Iraqi insurgency is a little overstated in the media. They are not having as much success as it might seem. They are losing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
airborneskins Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 I don't know if this will answer your question, but it is easier for the "terorists" to hide in Afghanistan. Having been to both, We are fighting more of an "urban" war in Iraq. Meaning that the "terrorists" can hide in the cities of Iraq, and we will have a harder time defining who is who. In Afghanistan, it is a little but different. Afghanistan is definately not an urban environment. It is very mountainous and harder for terrorists to blend in. Also to make a big impact with terrorism, you take innocent civilians life. A little hard to do in Afghanistan. Whereas in Iraq, you can go into a town square with 10,000 people there ta once and blow yourself, along with a couple hunred others with you. Like I said , I don't know if this makes any sense to you, but It is my attempt to answer your question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbleDanger Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 It would seem, that the longer an invading force stays in a country, the greater the internal resistance towards them will become. The pace and aggression will be greater if the quality of life for the native people is highly compromized. Life in Iraq took a big nose dive after the invasion and it has not yet achieve the levels needed to passify the hostility by moderates. It will return, but it could take many years.IMO this is not a politics issue, it's an evolutionary psychology issue. That's all false. There have never been more Iraqis hooked up to electricity and running water than today. Democracy is on track. The resistence is growing weaker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sick Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 That's all false. There have never been more Iraqis hooked up to electricity and running water than today. Democracy is on track. The resistence is growing weaker. That is false. Before 1991, Iraq had almost 9000 MW of energy daily. When the second Gulf War started, they were about 4400. They are above the 4400 figure, but well short of the First Gulf War and sanctions level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 I think the main problem is in reporting. The war in Afghanistan is one that most Americans, liberal and conservative agree upon. The Afghans harbored Al-Qaeda pre-9-11, and our subsequent invasion was a direct response thereto. With U.S. public opinion fairly consistent on Afghanistan, and the relative success of operations there, the media sees it as a "non-story." On the other hand, the war in Iraq is a devisive issue, largely (though not completely) split down party lines. The casualty numbers have also been significantly higher. With 2200 deaths in a war the country is so divided on, it makes for far "better" TV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbleDanger Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 That is false. Before 1991, Iraq had almost 9000 MW of energy daily. When the second Gulf War started, they were about 4400. They are above the 4400 figure, but well short of the First Gulf War and sanctions level. Okay, perhaps so but the point is still valid. There's progress that is not being acknowledged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Well, you've got to ask yourself exactly who is resisting American's in Iraq? What % are Iraqi's? What % of those Iraqi's are part of Al-Queda? What % of the resistance are outsiders? What % of the outsiders are part of Al-Queda? How do you define these different groups as Terrorists or Insurgents? If the United States was invaded, and the Gov't was overthrown....but you still had American born folks getting together to attack the Outside Military here running things. Does that make us Terrorists? Insurgents? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted February 4, 2006 Author Share Posted February 4, 2006 Well, you've got to ask yourself exactly who is resisting American's in Iraq?What % are Iraqi's? What % of those Iraqi's are part of Al-Queda? What % of the resistance are outsiders? What % of the outsiders are part of Al-Queda? How do you define these different groups as Terrorists or Insurgents? If the United States was invaded, and the Gov't was overthrown....but you still had American born folks getting together to attack the Outside Military here running things. Does that make us Terrorists? Insurgents? Regardless of how you want to label these people, the question remains - why is there so much more resistance in one place than the other ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Just because they feared and hated Saddam, doesn't mean they want to be occupied and have their future determined by a Western society. We're look at an unofficial civil war. The people who are willing to accept what we're telling them to do, and those who refuse to accept it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webnarc Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 That's all false. There have never been more Iraqis hooked up to electricity and running water than today. Democracy is on track. The resistence is growing weaker. Okay, perhaps so but the point is still valid. There's progress that is not being acknowledged. I hope you're feeling better today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winslowalrob Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 Regardless of how you want to label these people, the question remains - why is there so much more resistance in one place than the other ? To be quite honest, we have kind of gave up on Afghanistan. We kind of control the capitol and the surrounding suburbs, but outside of that its all warlords. We are not trying to take the whole country, hence less insurgents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted February 5, 2006 Author Share Posted February 5, 2006 To be quite honest, we have kind of gave up on Afghanistan. We kind of control the capitol and the surrounding suburbs, but outside of that its all warlords. We are not trying to take the whole country, hence less insurgents. That doesnt even make sense First of all, we dont even control the capital of Iraq. Most of the attacks occur in Baghdad. What part of Iraq do we control ? And why would we give up on Afghanistan ? Considering bin Laden is hanging out in that area, and he's the most wanted man on the planet ? We didnt go there just to overthrow the government. We went there to find bin Laden, which we didnt find in the capital city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winslowalrob Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 That doesnt even make senseFirst of all, we dont even control the capital of Iraq. Most of the attacks occur in Baghdad. What part of Iraq do we control ? And why would we give up on Afghanistan ? Considering bin Laden is hanging out in that area, and he's the most wanted man on the planet ? We didnt go there just to overthrow the government. We went there to find bin Laden, which we didnt find in the capital city. A lot of the military reports from Afghanistan look bleak, with small improvements measured against no sustained attempt at state building. Thankfully the international community has pledged 2 billion to help it out, although it will take years to get there, the money will probably be mismanaged, and it will all go to the capital. I am not totally sure why we gave up on Afghanistan, but right now we are content to leave the country in the hands of anyone but the Afghani government. The insurgencies in Iraq are relegated to like 4 provinces out of 21, a lot of Iraq is improving (Which does not mean its as good as before, or better, just improving). Think of Iraq as like the city of LA (not the best analogy, just trying to illustrate my point), with a few good parts, a few mediocre parts, and a few bad parts. When bad things happen in LA that get national headlines, people will associate the bad parts with the rest of the city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbleDanger Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 I hope you're feeling better today. I feel great every day. :wavetowel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbleDanger Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 To be quite honest, we have kind of gave up on Afghanistan. We kind of control the capitol and the surrounding suburbs, but outside of that its all warlords. We are not trying to take the whole country, hence less insurgents. We never gave up on Afghanistan. We're still there. We do have limited resources to fight Al Qaeda globally (since Al Qaeda is not just limited to Afghanistan). So what are you suggesting we do with these Afghan "warlords" who are shacked up in the rural parts of Afghanistan? Afghanistan has always had independent tribes in the rural areas of their country. What are you suggesting we do with them? America has its own "warlords." They're called gang bangers. And that's certainly not a problem we're solving here overnight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 My deductions...4. Al Qaeda and Iran see the American steam-roller setting up camp in yet another middle eastern country and seek to make a stronger stand the second time around. Yep. This is what I think and given the situation we're facing with Iran it makes perfect sence. I've always thought that Iran's pursuit of a nuclear bomb was a KEY driving force behind Iraq. Can't prove it but it certainly is plausible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winslowalrob Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 We never gave up on Afghanistan. We're still there. We do have limited resources to fight Al Qaeda globally (since Al Qaeda is not just limited to Afghanistan).So what are you suggesting we do with these Afghan "warlords" who are shacked up in the rural parts of Afghanistan? Afghanistan has always had independent tribes in the rural areas of their country. What are you suggesting we do with them? America has its own "warlords." They're called gang bangers. And that's certainly not a problem we're solving here overnight. Wow, way to infer something I never said. Classic. No, I want to go into Afghanistan and take out the warlords. That control umm a lot of the country. Last time I checked we were not doing that. But this is not simply a fight against Al Qaeda, I want to set up a functional state that will be a model to a lot of countries in the Middle East. Surely you can undersand that. Oh, thank you for explaining to me what a gangbanger is, I hadn't a clue. Your brother has taught you well I can see. Except that no gangbanger controls the county of Orange County. Or Fairfax. You seem to miss the scope of warlord control. It is not simply relegated to a few rural areas that we can afford to ignore. But I can tell by your sarcasm that you are way smarter than I am, so why do I even try arguing with you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbleDanger Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 Wow, way to infer something I never said. Classic. No, I want to go into Afghanistan and take out the warlords. That control umm a lot of the country. Last time I checked we were not doing that. But this is not simply a fight against Al Qaeda, I want to set up a functional state that will be a model to a lot of countries in the Middle East. Surely you can undersand that. Oh, thank you for explaining to me what a gangbanger is, I hadn't a clue. Your brother has taught you well I can see. Except that no gangbanger controls the county of Orange County. Or Fairfax. You seem to miss the scope of warlord control. It is not simply relegated to a few rural areas that we can afford to ignore. But I can tell by your sarcasm that you are way smarter than I am, so why do I even try arguing with you? Someone from Governor Warner's administration was interviewed on a radio program saying the greatest civil threat to Northern Virginia right now is gangs. MS13, in particular, is a huge cancer. I don't know what you were trying to infer. Why don't you settle down and clear your mind there, charlie. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 Afghanistan is a very desolte, traditional country, with an infastructure suitable for the 1800s Why is there no "insurgencey?" They are all hiding in the mountains because we kicked their ass when we moved in after 9/11 As far as the warlord culture, yeah 90 percent of that country is a lawless wasteland, which will take generations to catch up to the modern world. The thing is though, those people don't really WANT TO catch up to the modern world. Hence this tenuous peace where we leave them alone unless there is intel pointing to Al Qaeda or Taliban groups Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winslowalrob Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 Someone from Governor Warner's administration was interviewed on a radio program saying the greatest civil threat to Northern Virginia right now is gangs. MS13, in particular, is a huge cancer. I don't know what you were trying to infer. Why don't you settle down and clear your mind there, charlie. :laugh: Its a cancer, to be sure, but who owns Fairfax? The county government? Or MS13? Does MS13 collect taxes? Dole out social services? Keep up roads? Deal out Salvadorian punishment? But I am not settled down enough I guess to see the that an Afghani warlord and MS13 are the same thing . If you do not know what I was trying to infer, why not ask? Or is everything a presumption now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winslowalrob Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 Afghanistan is a very desolte, traditional country, with an infastructure suitable for the 1800sWhy is there no "insurgencey?" They are all hiding in the mountains because we kicked their ass when we moved in after 9/11 As far as the warlord culture, yeah 90 percent of that country is a lawless wasteland, which will take generations to catch up to the modern world. The thing is though, those people don't really WANT TO catch up to the modern world. Hence this tenuous peace where we leave them alone unless there is intel pointing to Al Qaeda or Taliban groups I would agree, except that there is no such a thing as a hopeless country. 50 years ago one of the most backwards countries in the world was South Korea, it was third from last in every human development index, trailing behind almost every African nation. And a lot of people believed that its Oriental culture prohibited it from being anything more than a glorified Chinese pimple. Then again, you and I know that the South after the Civil War clung to its medieval racist lifestyle, even after a quality thrashing on the part of the union. I am a little more optimistic than you I guess. But I think it would still be worth it to take 90 percent of the country and place it in the hands of anyone else but the Taliban, Al Queda, or a warlord. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuposse87 Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 Well i think the Afghani people hated the taliban more than the Iraqis hated saddam. saddam was tyrannical only to a minority of his people(he still deserves to fry for that though), the taliban were equally terrible to all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.