The American War Machine
Who said it was over? It's a work in progress. All you "gimme, gimme" cry babies want an instatnt answer and it doesn work that way in the real world. Only the bleeding heart liberal fantasy world.
What do you think the US population would have thought of a headline that read, "US give $2b to afgan poppy farmers to stop growing their crops"? Do you think there would have been some farmers in the Midwest that would have felt cheated by that? You can't take a single pointed view and think you have derived a worldwide solution. All costs and responses have to be weighed. That's why dipshits like the one in the video think they have all the answers. They only consider one approach and one consequence. Unfortunately, that's how we ended up with our current president. We all see how that turned out.
What do you think the US population would have thought of a headline that read, "US give $2b to afgan poppy farmers to stop growing their crops"? Do you think there would have been some farmers in the Midwest that would have felt cheated by that? You can't take a single pointed view and think you have derived a worldwide solution. All costs and responses have to be weighed. That's why dipshits like the one in the video think they have all the answers. They only consider one approach and one consequence. Unfortunately, that's how we ended up with our current president. We all see how that turned out.
you do realise that they've been 'fighting' the war on opium since 2000/2001 and its now 2011 right? also, every single year since US occupation, opium production has gone UP.
afghan herion supplies 92% of the WORLDS needs.
afghan herion supplies 92% of the WORLDS needs.
WOW! Joe Rogan doesn't like country music? I had no clue.
1st of all.... Iraq. The guy has no clue.
2nd of all... Afghanistan. The guy has no clue.
3rd of all... 9/11. The guy doesn't even come CLOSE to having a clue.
I say everyone vote for Joe Rogan (because he "thinks" he knows what's going on) just like everyone voted for Obama "thinking" that he had a clue about clues....
Just sayin...
1st of all.... Iraq. The guy has no clue.
2nd of all... Afghanistan. The guy has no clue.
3rd of all... 9/11. The guy doesn't even come CLOSE to having a clue.
I say everyone vote for Joe Rogan (because he "thinks" he knows what's going on) just like everyone voted for Obama "thinking" that he had a clue about clues....
Just sayin...
Not to keep stirring the pot.. BUT Its not that i wanna hear the truth.. I just can't stand the blatancy of the two party system.. Like health care.. Obviously it wouldn't go to both houses or anywhere.. Yet the repubs still brought it up just to make a statement.. I mean wtf what a waste of time.. This bailout **** was ridiculous.. The current gov. is a "get while the gettin is good" system.. **** needs to stop.. Gov. office used to be a public service.. Now its all about who will pay the most for the vote.. You say he doesn't know anything about all these topics... Yet do you? Do you think the Gov. has the interest of its people in it at this day and age? We are headed down the wrong road.. No one can deny that.. You should always question government.. Never be complacent.. End rant..
P.s. I support neither party..
P.s. I support neither party..
Teching In
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
The truth is US ground troops destroy opium fields. Everyone knows that the Taliban was trafficking heroin to make money, so they could support their political aims such as funding terrorist acts. Instead of believing some guy who doesn't know jack **** about what's going on overseas, why not get your *** out there and see for yourself?
Joe Reagan is a fucktard, and I'm basing this off the few minutes I spent watching this video. He didn't bring up one logical argument in the 3 minutes I watched the clip. Seriously, the guy basically says we went there and harmed a bunch of innocent people for money and you guys instantly believe him? That's ******* retarded when Saddam Hussein was the Dictator we removed from power.
Joe Reagan is a fucktard, and I'm basing this off the few minutes I spent watching this video. He didn't bring up one logical argument in the 3 minutes I watched the clip. Seriously, the guy basically says we went there and harmed a bunch of innocent people for money and you guys instantly believe him? That's ******* retarded when Saddam Hussein was the Dictator we removed from power.
if you destroy the opium fields you are essentially destroying the livelihoods of those who produce it. the last thing they need is more pissed off arabs when they're trying to occupy the country. sometimes its best to look the other way for the greater good.
and oil? the us is not in iraq for oil, are you kidding me? the amount of oil imported from iraq today is less than before the war. and the percentage of iraqi oil is low in comparison to oil imports from other countries. the largest is canada. second largest is mexico. in fact we import more oil from canada than all countries in the persian gulf combined. to say that we're in iraq for oil is ridiculous. if our country wanted oil, all we'd have to do is invade canada. more oil and they'd put up less of a fight
and oil? the us is not in iraq for oil, are you kidding me? the amount of oil imported from iraq today is less than before the war. and the percentage of iraqi oil is low in comparison to oil imports from other countries. the largest is canada. second largest is mexico. in fact we import more oil from canada than all countries in the persian gulf combined. to say that we're in iraq for oil is ridiculous. if our country wanted oil, all we'd have to do is invade canada. more oil and they'd put up less of a fight
Teching In
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
When the opium fields are being used to fund the enemy's war effort it makes perfect sense to destroy them. Think of it as like in WW2 where the Allies bombed oil fields and manufacturing plants that were controlled by the Axis.
Forces capture Taliban facilitator, destroy drug supply in Kandahar
To prove my point.
Forces capture Taliban facilitator, destroy drug supply in Kandahar
To prove my point.
Last edited by acertx; Jan 20, 2011 at 11:35 PM. Reason: Added link
According to Antonio Costa, the former director of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime,
"Afghanistan's economy has thus evolved to the point where it is now highly dependent on opium. Although less than 4 percent of arable land in Afghanistan was used for opium poppy cultivation in 2006, revenue from the harvest brought in over $3 billion—more than 35 percent of the country's total gross national product (GNP). Opium poppy cultivation, processing, and transport have become Afghanistan's top employers, its main source of capital, and the principal base of its economy."
sure, it would take money away from the bad guys, but at the same time youre ruining their economy. that equates to lots of pissed off afghans, making it much more difficult to control the situation. they probably destroyed the drugs mentioned in that article because much has already been processed. the farmers already got their money, so basically they are not hurting the legitimate part of the afghan economy by destroying taliban drugs.
"Afghanistan's economy has thus evolved to the point where it is now highly dependent on opium. Although less than 4 percent of arable land in Afghanistan was used for opium poppy cultivation in 2006, revenue from the harvest brought in over $3 billion—more than 35 percent of the country's total gross national product (GNP). Opium poppy cultivation, processing, and transport have become Afghanistan's top employers, its main source of capital, and the principal base of its economy."
sure, it would take money away from the bad guys, but at the same time youre ruining their economy. that equates to lots of pissed off afghans, making it much more difficult to control the situation. they probably destroyed the drugs mentioned in that article because much has already been processed. the farmers already got their money, so basically they are not hurting the legitimate part of the afghan economy by destroying taliban drugs.
LS1 Tech Stories
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
6 Common C5 Corvette Failures and What's Involved In Repairing Them
Pouria Savadkouei
Retro Modern Bandit Pontiac Trans AM Comes With Burt Reynolds' Autograph
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Greatest Cadillac V Series Performance Models Ever, Ranked
Pouria Savadkouei
Top 10 Most Powerful Chevy Trucks Ever Made!
Hennessey's New Supercharged Silverado ZR2 Has 700 HP
Verdad Gallardo
Coachbuilt N2A Anteros Is an LS2-Powered C6 Corvette In Italian Clothes
Verdad Gallardo
Awesome K5 Blazer Restomod Comes With C7 Corvette Power
Verdad Gallardo
10 Camaros You Should Never Buy
10 LS Engine Myths That Refuse to Die
Verdad Gallardo Teching In
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Those "farmers" chose their side. They know damn well who's paying them to grow drugs and why it pays so well. It's illogical to excuse their actions in support of the enemy because it pays so well. It's also war not some make believe fairy tale land where the enemy doesn't have a family somewhere so I could care less if their excuse is they need money.
A person who is a key factor in the enemies supply chain should get captured and interrogated for information if we can safely capture them. If they can't safely be captured(safe for our troops) they deserve a bullet to the head etc.
A person who is a key factor in the enemies supply chain should get captured and interrogated for information if we can safely capture them. If they can't safely be captured(safe for our troops) they deserve a bullet to the head etc.
i'm sorry man, thats got to be some of the most retarded logic i have heard in a while.
Those "farmers" chose their side. They know damn well who's paying them to grow drugs and why it pays so well. It's illogical to excuse their actions in support of the enemy because it pays so well. It's also war not some make believe fairy tale land where the enemy doesn't have a family somewhere so I could care less if their excuse is they need money.
A person who is a key factor in the enemies supply chain should get captured and interrogated for information if we can safely capture them. If they can't safely be captured(safe for our troops) they deserve a bullet to the head etc.
A person who is a key factor in the enemies supply chain should get captured and interrogated for information if we can safely capture them. If they can't safely be captured(safe for our troops) they deserve a bullet to the head etc.
no matter how rich and "powerful" these drug lords get, they will never come close to what the United States can do. we have a much larger, better trained, better equipped military with very deep pockets. not to mention the society is largely tribal. therefore, they cannot form a unified front against our military. even if they somehow did, we would obliterate them. what im getting at is, it would be easier to fight a select few with some high tech equipment than it would be to fight an entire population with cheap ak47 rifles. no matter how rich they get, we will always have the bigger stick.
Joe Reagan is a fucktard, and I'm basing this off the few minutes I spent watching this video. He didn't bring up one logical argument in the 3 minutes I watched the clip. Seriously, the guy basically says we went there and harmed a bunch of innocent people for money and you guys instantly believe him? That's ******* retarded when Saddam Hussein was the Dictator we removed from power.
Teching In
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
I know what perspective you're looking at it from and it makes zero sense militarily. If my enemy is well funded, well fed, and all he has to do is survive by moving around; how am I going to destroy his will to fight? However, if I take away his means to acquire supplies he becomes underfunded, underfed, and has to come out to fight so that he can survive. At the same time he comes out to fight he will be under equipped.
The Taliban fights with "cheap AK47s" because they work. Same reason they use RPKs and RPGs, it's because they work! The Taliban is also building more and more IEDs because they lose everytime a large battle happens and we can bring our full military might down on them. You need to destroy their will and means to fight though, and letting them make billions a year is NOT the way to do that. What we are never going to be able to do is have one huge battle where the Taliban calls it quits. That will never happen!
As far as recruits, those farmers are already recruits since they are SUPPLYING the Taliban.
The Taliban fights with "cheap AK47s" because they work. Same reason they use RPKs and RPGs, it's because they work! The Taliban is also building more and more IEDs because they lose everytime a large battle happens and we can bring our full military might down on them. You need to destroy their will and means to fight though, and letting them make billions a year is NOT the way to do that. What we are never going to be able to do is have one huge battle where the Taliban calls it quits. That will never happen!
As far as recruits, those farmers are already recruits since they are SUPPLYING the Taliban.
you have to look at it through a different perspective i guess. if you destroy the single largest industry of a country you can expect a lot of trouble. it makes more strategic sense to keep the general population happy and to engage a rich enemy than to **** everybody off and give the enemy more recruits. its called choosing your battles.
no matter how rich and "powerful" these drug lords get, they will never come close to what the United States can do. we have a much larger, better trained, better equipped military with very deep pockets. not to mention the society is largely tribal. therefore, they cannot form a unified front against our military. even if they somehow did, we would obliterate them. what im getting at is, it would be easier to fight a select few with some high tech equipment than it would be to fight an entire population with cheap ak47 rifles. no matter how rich they get, we will always have the bigger stick.
no matter how rich and "powerful" these drug lords get, they will never come close to what the United States can do. we have a much larger, better trained, better equipped military with very deep pockets. not to mention the society is largely tribal. therefore, they cannot form a unified front against our military. even if they somehow did, we would obliterate them. what im getting at is, it would be easier to fight a select few with some high tech equipment than it would be to fight an entire population with cheap ak47 rifles. no matter how rich they get, we will always have the bigger stick.
that makes total sense!!!!!....
if you disregard history, you know. stuff like the 1980 Insurrection of Afghanistan. just that.
actually it does. you clearly have a pre vietnam mentality when it comes to this. you cannot simply carpet bomb entire cities, or march through georgia burning everything in sight. our military has to play by certain rules. to that end, they take a more targeted approach to war. part of that is leaving the civilian population alone. our government has been trying to offer alternatives to opium since the beginning, but nothing can compete. and with opium prices on the rise, its only going to get worse. as for the farmers themselves, its not like they're a bunch of thug type people growing this stuff, they're just doing what makes the most economic sense. honestly i dont blame them, because im not so sure i wouldnt do the same thing if i were in their shoes.
you mean when the United States helped the mujahideen beat back the soviets? dont see how that counters my point that the usa has the most superior military in the world.
Teching In
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
What lost Vietnam was the population in the U.S. not what was going on in Vietnam. Also after helping the Afghan people defeat the S.U. we should have stayed and built schools etc. Then we wouldn't have to be there today. You simply can't let the enemy keep doing what it takes to supply themselves and expect them to not have the will to fight.
The problem with what you're saying isn't that it would be nice to do. It's that it just doesn't work that way in real life.
The problem with what you're saying isn't that it would be nice to do. It's that it just doesn't work that way in real life.
thats what the russians thought when they invaded and got their asses handed to them and pulled out after 9 years.
keep in mind this is cold war russia, that gave the US a run for its $ in terms of power and intimidation.
i didnt mean it like that. what i meant was before vietnam our military was all for wanton destruction. however, since the fourth geneva convention in 1949, our military can no longer engage in what is called total war, aka what you want to do. special protections for civilians were put in place. therefore, we cannot destroy things like food storage, water treatment, or personal property such as homes. unfortunately, this includes ali baba's opium farm. of course, sometimes things happen, but the military cannot go about destroying such things on a massive scale. im sure they would if they could.