Question about Iraq/Afghan wars...

[AbleDanger]

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?

You are such a narrow thinker. Do the Afghan Warlords collect taxes? All the Afghan Warlords own is a peice of rock. MS13 collects protection money, and owns enough of Fairfax to be a problem the police can not solve outright. There are some parallels except that the Afghan "warlords" are less of a priority in the grand sceme of the WOT. MS13 is a more active domestic problem. You think we should be able to "solve" the issue of independent Afghan tribes that have been around for quite some time. If it's some kind of priority for you, why don't you write your Congressmen about how we should be putting more of our resources towards resolving this grave issue.

[Winslowalrob]

You are such a narrow thinker. Do the Afghan Warlords collect taxes? All the Afghan Warlords own is a peice of rock. MS13 collects protection money, and owns enough of Fairfax to be a problem the police can not solve outright. There are some parallels except the the Afghan "warlords" are less of a priority in the grand sceme of the WOT. MS13 is a more active domestic problem. You think we should be able to "solve" the issue of independent Afghan tribes that have been around for quite some time. If it's some kind of priority for you, why don't you write your Congressmen about how we should be putting more of our resources towards resolving this grave issue.

Well, techically it is out of the jurisdiction of a congressman. Presidents are the ones involved in foreign affairs, although Congress has the right to declare war and pay for it. And why thank you, I am a narrow thinker, how could you tell?. Yeah, the Afghan Warlords actually collect taxes. They are the state. They are judge, jury, and executioner too. States rights run amok basically . Hence our lack of control. Why are the Afghan warlords less of a priority in the WOT? As opposed to Saddam? I do not see a dichotamy in trying to topple the warlords as opposed to toppling Saddam, but if you do could you explain it?

[AbleDanger]

Well, techically it is out of the jurisdiction of a congressman. Presidents are the ones involved in foreign affairs, although Congress has the right to declare war and pay for it.

Congress can be as specific or non-specific as they like as far as federal funding is concerned, but they have to negotiate with a President who has the power to veto a budget.

And why thank you, I am a narrow thinker, how could you tell?. Yeah, the Afghan Warlords actually collect taxes. They are the state. They are judge, jury, and executioner too.

Of specifically what region and what impact do they have in the overall picture? MS13 is taking machetes to people in back alleys, but its not getting media coverage because its not yet happening to white people.

States rights run amok basically . Hence our lack of control. Why are the Afghan warlords less of a priority in the WOT? As opposed to Saddam? I do not see a dichotamy in trying to topple the warlords as opposed to toppling Saddam, but if you do could you explain it?

Saddam had a great deal more influence and power than a warlord who owns a rock in Afghanistan. It all boils down to priorities.

[Air Force Cane]

excellent question Mickalino!

Something we think about a great deal.

One of the reasons is that Afghansitan is made up of non-Arabs, while Iraq is nearly uniformly Arab except for the 18% Kurds.

Another reason is the geography, Afghanistan is mountainous with few cities, where villages can be hard to get to. Iraq is a modern country with easy access on highways. Al-Queda doesn't want to rule over a 18th century mud hut when you have the Tigris/Euphrates civilization in the heart of the Middle East.

Iraq is a much more valuable target. There are easy ways in through Syria where the rat lines run for suicide bombers and money. Iran also has more control in the Shia south.

[chomerics]

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.

This is false and a lie. Iraq is STILL not up to prewar levels in electricity no matter what Fox News says.

As for the resistance growing weaker??? Really??? How come terrorists attacks are up almost 100% since 03?

Mick, as for your question. . . we have the vast majority of troops in Iraq, so that is where the insurgency is. We are the target, if we had 100K troops in Afghanistan, the focus would be there instead.

[GhostofAlvinWalton]

This is false and a lie. Iraq is STILL not up to prewar levels in electricity no matter what Fox News says.

Any reason why you posted this 46 hours after it was determined the statement was incorrect? Just couldn't help yourself?

.

[Winslowalrob]

Congress can be as specific or non-specific as they like as far as federal funding is concerned, but they have to negotiate with a President who has the power to veto a budget.

Of specifically what region and what impact do they have in the overall picture? MS13 is taking machetes to people in back alleys, but its not getting media coverage because its not yet happening to white people.

Saddam had a great deal more influence and power than a warlord who owns a rock in Afghanistan. It all boils down to priorities.

Agreed on first reply.

Ok, what about this: How much (as a percentage) does MS13 influence the state of Virginia? Or even Fairfax? How many people die every year because of machetes? As a percentage of the total population? I cannot answer those questions. If posed I could not answer a similar question about Afghanistan, except that I can categorically say that the United States military and the Afghan government has less control over the country than the "warlords". Or is that too bold a statement?

Just like Osama was the president of Afghanistan and we captured him right? Just because someone is not the head of a state, does not mean they are not a terrorist threat. Why is Saddam more of a priority as opposed to Osama, or even the next Osama just chillin with his rock in Afghanistan? Leaving people free reign in their little feifdoms does not breed terrorism? This is a War on Terror, we have to fight it everywhere, right?

[Winslowalrob]

excellent question Mickalino!

Something we think about a great deal.

One of the reasons is that Afghansitan is made up of non-Arabs, while Iraq is nearly uniformly Arab except for the 18% Kurds.

Another reason is the geography, Afghanistan is mountainous with few cities, where villages can be hard to get to. Iraq is a modern country with easy access on highways. Al-Queda doesn't want to rule over a 18th century mud hut when you have the Tigris/Euphrates civilization in the heart of the Middle East.

Iraq is a much more valuable target. There are easy ways in through Syria where the rat lines run for suicide bombers and money. Iran also has more control in the Shia south.

The Afghans usually hate everyone, from the English to the Russians to other Arabs. While we are pretty popular there right now (compared to other regions in the Middle East), the fact that they do not have a strong Arab population I think is a minor reason. Didn't the political cartoon protests spark some violence in Afghanistan against us already (Why us? Burn the Danes dammit)?

The other stuff you said is food for thought though.

[chomerics]

Any reason why you posted this 46 hours after it was determined the statement was incorrect? Just couldn't help yourself?

.

I didn't see the reply below his, as I hit reply when I saw the post.

[AbleDanger]

Agreed on first reply.

Ok, what about this: How much (as a percentage) does MS13 influence the state of Virginia? Or even Fairfax? How many people die every year because of machetes? As a percentage of the total population? I cannot answer those questions. If posed I could not answer a similar question about Afghanistan, except that I can categorically say that the United States military and the Afghan government has less control over the country than the "warlords". Or is that too bold a statement?

I think your statment is wrong because whatever portion of the rural areas of Afghanistan the "warlords" control does not equate to much capital. Control over the major cities and towns is far more significant. For example, New York city produces far more in the American economy than most of the mid-west combined. Control of New York city is far more relevent. If MS13 moved to a giant ranch in Idaho, they wouldn't be much of a pain in our ass.

Just like Osama was the president of Afghanistan and we captured him right? Just because someone is not the head of a state, does not mean they are not a terrorist threat. Why is Saddam more of a priority as opposed to Osama, or even the next Osama just chillin with his rock in Afghanistan? Leaving people free reign in their little feifdoms does not breed terrorism? This is a War on Terror, we have to fight it everywhere, right

We are fighting it everywhere. I think what you're not grasping is that we have limited resources and we have priorities. You want to find something, anything, even if its less of a priority simply to criticize the Bush administration. Do you think if Clinton were president he would have the all-encompassing policing of the world to satisfy you? He hardly did dick to stop Al Qaeda even after they bombed the WTC in 1993.

And Osama Bin Laden was always our number one priority. Military and intelligence never stopped searching for him. Saddam was an easier catch. I think Saddam got sloppy because he was too fat and spoiled to withstand that standard of living on the go for too long.

[chomerics]

I think your statment is wrong because whatever portion of the rural areas of Afghanistan the "warlords" control does not equate to much capital. Control over the major cities and towns is far more significant. For example, New York city produces far more in the American economy than most of the mid-west combined. Control of New York city is far more relevent. If MS13 moved to a giant ranch in Idaho, they wouldn't be much of a pain in our ass.

So you don't deny that the warlords control a good protion of Afghaistan right? I think your position is that it doesn't matter because it is not a city. . . well, I disagree and I'll just leave it at that.

We are fighting it everywhere. I think what you're not grasping is that we have limited resources and we have priorities. You want to find something, anything, even if its less of a priority simply to criticize the Bush administration. Do you think if Clinton were president he would have the all-encompassing policing of the world to satisfy you? He hardly did dick to stop Al Qaeda even after they bombed the WTC in 1993.

You really don't know your history. Al Qaeda was not around in 93' even though the bombers were linked to them AFTER they were captured. Yep, those guys are all in jail. . . unlike the one who destroyed the two towers, he's still wathing cable TV and preaching more hatred to our country.

Also, I will add that Clinton DID do a lot to Al Qaeda, but nowhere near enough. He did stop the melinneum bombing plot, as well as a few other forign attempts on US targets. . .Bush is the one who ignored ALL evidence of Al Qaeda untill after 9-11.

And Osama Bin Laden was always our number one priority. Military and intelligence never stopped searching for him. Saddam was an easier catch. I think Saddam got sloppy because he was too fat and spoiled to withstand that standard of living on the go for too long.

Again a lie, why do you have to keep on saying things that are not true???

Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html

From the whitehouse web site none the less :doh:

[Sarge]

Again a lie, why do you have to keep on saying things that are not true???

We have guys at firebases on the Afghan/Pak border that go looking for him and other *******s every single day of the week

[Sarge]

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 ?

The general Afghan public is pretty happy right now and pretty much view us as liberators who got rid of a group of *******s that ruled their country through pretty viscious means.

When we first went into Afghanistan and hooked up withthe Northern Alliance, there were guides/soldiers that were minus trigger fingers, an eye, an ear. All because they wouldn't fight for the Taliban.

The warlords could really care less who is in power in the government, as long as life goes on the way they want it to. They get along with just about anyone that has any honor about them. To them, their priorities are God, honor and their families..in that order.

[AbleDanger]

So you don't deny that the warlords control a good protion of Afghaistan right?

I would not concede that point. It's extremely difficult to measure. Can you tell me what portion of America is run by the mafia or by gangs? You can't really measure that. In fact we probably have more violent crimes committed in Texas or California than Afghanistan does right now. And anyone who claims to be able to measure the portion of Afghanistan controlled by "warlords" to be most or even a great amount is either ignorant, a propagandist, or both. I don't even know how you're defining warlords, which is why I have consistently put it in quotations. There are people we deal with every day in Afghanistan that commit offenses or acts of terrorism. Then there are independent tribes in the rural parts of Afghanistan that may not be entirely friendly, but don't cause us much of a problem either.

I think your position is that it doesn't matter because it is not a city. . . well, I disagree and I'll just leave it at that.

From an economic standpoint especially, it makes a big difference.

You really don't know your history. Al Qaeda was not around in 93' even though the bombers were linked to them AFTER they were captured.

That's false and not very significant to the discussion anyhow. The name Al Qaeda was not formally used until 2001, but the term goes much further back. Regardless of when the term started being widely used, Osama Bin Laden's organization goes back possibly much earlier than even 1993.

Yep, those guys are all in jail. . . unlike the one who destroyed the two towers, he's still wathing cable TV and preaching more hatred to our country.

So, you criticize those who are trying to hunt down Osama Bin Laden? Osama Bin Laden didn't launch the biggest attack on American soil without a plan to sustain himself afterwards. He's a millionare with a huge Islamic fan base willing to hide him, years of experience in being allusive, and a professional team that specializes in tunnell digging. If we had someone else as President do you think it would have made a difference? And if so, why and how do you know?

Also, I will add that Clinton DID do a lot to Al Qaeda, but nowhere near enough. He did stop the melinneum bombing plot, as well as a few other forign attempts on US targets. . .Bush is the one who ignored ALL evidence of Al Qaeda untill after 9-11.

Clinton didn't do very much. My brother was a foreign policy adviser to Clinton's Secretary of Defense. Al Qaeda was not a priority through much of his administration. Whatever monitoring we had in place during the Clinton administration (i.e., satellites) remained during the Bush administration.

What the Bush administration did not have that the Clinton administration did have was Able Danger...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Danger

It was revealed to a select few in the Clinton administration, buried, and obviously no one ever acted on it.

Again a lie, why do you have to keep on saying things that are not true???

I have not made any false statements here. You remind of me kids on the playground who use to vehemently accuse me of being a liar. :laugh:

[/color]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html

From the whitehouse web site none the less :doh:

I'm not sure what significance this article has. It's awfully long and seems to cover a great many topics.

[Winslowalrob]

Clinton didn't do very much. My brother was a foreign policy adviser to Clinton's Secretary of Defense. Al Qaeda was not a priority through much of his administration. Whatever monitoring we had in place during the Clinton administration (i.e., satellites) remained during the Bush administration.

I disagree, the embassy bombings really phased him. And thanks for dropping names, if you really want to go down that road I will end up throwing in a few more than you could (I am a foreign service brat, I will leave it at that). But that is not the point of the discussion, and should be saved for another thread.

Also, if you cannot mathematically prove how much the warlords in Afghanistan control the country, how do you know that Saddam was a bigger terrorist threat than pacifying the rest of Afghanistan? And I will give you one chance to take back the "we probably have more violent crimes in Texas or California than in Afghanistan" line.

[AbleDanger]

I disagree, the embassy bombings really phased him. And thanks for dropping names, if you really want to go down that road I will end up throwing in a few more than you could (I am a foreign service brat, I will leave it at that). But that is not the point of the discussion, and should be saved for another thread.

Yeah, the bombings phased Al Qaeda so well that Al Qaeda continued to grow in strength, size, organization, and launch the greatest strike on American soil in history. Your father's job as the janitor at the state department has no bearing on the unfortunate facts. :readnews:

Also, if you cannot mathematically prove how much the warlords in Afghanistan control the country, how do you know that Saddam was a bigger terrorist threat than pacifying the rest of Afghanistan?

We already had a firm foothold in Afghanistan. You would have us believe that we abandoned Afghanistan when we did not. We continued in Iraq because it would be unwise to remain stagnant in a war that spans many nations.

When we defeated the German army in World War II, we established a foothold. There was a terrorist presence there as well. Did they teach you about the Hitler Youth in school? But we didn't remain stagnant and focus solely on Germany. That would have been unwise. We continued on to defeat Japan. It took us some time to rebuild there as well. I don't think as many Americans were so impatient...or maybe they were not so partisan.

And I will give you one chance to take back the "we probably have more violent crimes in Texas or California than in Afghanistan" line.

Absolutely not. They are both very big states with a strong gang presence and illegal immigration. It's not so far-fetched because the amount of turmoil in Afghanistan is being grossly over-stated.

[Winslowalrob]

Yeah, the bombings phased Al Qaeda so well that Al Qaeda continued to grow in strength, size, organization, and launch the greatest strike on American soil in history. Your father's job as the janitor at the state department has no bearing on the unfortunate facts. :readnews:

We already had a firm foothold in Afghanistan. You would have us believe that we abandoned Afghanistan when we did not. We continued in Iraq because it would be unwise to remain stagnant in a war that spans many nations.

When we defeated the German army in World War II, we established a foothold. There was a terrorist presence there as well. Did they teach you about the Hitler Youth in school? But we didn't remain stagnant and focus solely on Germany. That would have been unwise. We continued on to defeat Japan. It took us some time to rebuild there as well. I don't think as many Americans were so impatient...or maybe they were not so partisan.

Absolutely not. They are both very big states with a strong gang presence and illegal immigration. It's not so far-fetched because the amount of turmoil in Afghanistan is being grossly over-stated.

And the Sept 11 attacks mobilzed Bush so much that we cleaned up Afghanistan, removed all remnants of the Taliban, caught Osama and his number 2 man, and destroyed Al-Queda. If you can't take it, don't dish it out. Your brother is a moron, my dad's mop is smarter than he is .

Oh, I know a thing or two about history, not as much as you obviously. Like when we conquered Germany completely, and it was not partitioned into 4 parts for the allies, split even further into East and West Germany months within the original partitioning. And that we did not hire a lot of Nazi intelligence officers the moment the war ended to spy on the Soviets... which I guess means we tried really hard to stamp out the Hitler Youth (although at that point Hitler was dead so I wonder if they still called it the Hitler Youth and if it still had that same cultural cache). Oh and America was just as partisan and impatient. The Republicans were FURIOUS about the Marshall Plan, and for years were calling for a recall of the troops in Germany and Japan. And last time I checked, we took the utiliatarian approach in defeating the Japanese, so are you advocating that we bomb Afghanistan into submission, get their president to kill himself, and nuke Iraq. I mean, if you want to compare wars, you might as well make the comparisons accurate right?

Dude, the problem with Afghanistan is that it gets no mainstream media coverage (you would have to read "Gasp" the Economist or the BBC, crazy communist news sources to find out about it), and all the reporters are in the capital city. While things are improving in Afghanistan, it is still more or less a failed state, and no one seems to know anything about it. I imagine with your extensive contacts, you should be arguing circles around me. Alas that does not seem to be the case.

[Air Force Cane]

nice analyses by AbleDanger and Airborne skins..

it is harder for the muj in Afghanistan to get in out of country support through the Khyber pass and Pakistan.

much easier for the syrians to infiltrate through the Western Euphrates River Valley (WERV) and the iranians through Basra.

[HailYeah]

We have or had loose allies in Afganhistan. The turks dont really count in Iraq, not mush fighting there.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Someone please read "See No Evil" and "Ghost Wars"

Your answers about both wars are in those books

[Winslowalrob]

Someone please read "See No Evil" and "Ghost Wars"

Your answers about both wars are in those books

I would put Charlie Wilson's War up in there too. Only read reviews of See No Evil, but it looked interesting.

[SkinsHokieFan]

I would put Charlie Wilson's War up in there too. Only read reviews of See No Evil, but it looked interesting.

Agree. CW's war is a great book. He is talked about a whole bunch in Ghost Wars also

What a character that guy was

[Winslowalrob]

Agree. CW's war is a great book. He is talked about a whole bunch in Ghost Wars also

What a character that guy was

Oh man, I have never wanted to be a Senator so much in my life.

[Redskins Diehard]

I would be interested to see the sources for all the guys on here with all the answers. I have served in both countries, all over Afghanistan(and only about 8 hours within Kabul). Of course someone who has done some internet searches is completely aware of everything going on in OEF and exactly what our forces are focused on and what they are doing. They also apparently know that warlords are controlling the whole country. If you get the chance to swing through that place you will see how completely ridiculous that statement is.

[Winslowalrob]

I would be interested to see the sources for all the guys on here with all the answers. I have served in both countries, all over Afghanistan(and only about 8 hours within Kabul). Of course someone who has done some internet searches is completely aware of everything going on in OEF and exactly what our forces are focused on and what they are doing. They also apparently know that warlords are controlling the whole country. If you get the chance to swing through that place you will see how completely ridiculous that statement is.

My stuff is mostly based on readings from http://www.cfr.org/, the Economist, with a few history books thrown in for good measure. What are our objectives in Afghanistan and what are our forces doing?