The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
Historically speaking, America has been in the business of controlling Governments for a long time. I wouldn't be surprised to find the same in this situation. Considering the allegations of election rigging that have come out of Afghansistan lately, I'd be surprised if we weren't controlling things politically in Afghanistan. This sort of thing is the CIA's bread and butter.
There is a difference between controlling and influencing, maybe not to a nutter like you, but yeah there is.
I'm really interested to find out when the CIA has ever rigged a foreign country's election. And as far as this election goes, the Taliban was resisting long before it, and I doubt the US gives a shit which one of the anti-Taliban politicians gets elected.
We tend to wait til after the election and then sponsor a coup if we don't like the winner.
enlightenedbum on
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
There you go, so there is no reason to insinuate that Karzai was reelected because the CIA rigged the election.
Besides, the show down in Afghanistan is run by our military. And our military wants to make the Afghan people happy with the west, not mad. CIA's jurisdiction is in intel gathering and putting missiles on the heads of our enemies there.
There you go, so there is no reason to insinuate that Karzai was reelected because the CIA rigged the election.
Besides, the show down in Afghanistan is run by our military. And our military wants to make the Afghan people happy with the west, not mad.
Which we do by occupying their nation with permanent bases! This is a good plan!
enlightenedbum on
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
And you'll never eliminate an idea, so we're stuck until the electorate gets too frustrated and forces withdrawal. Which is already on its way with support for the war under 50%.
Unless we get some concrete benchmarks, we're there indefinitely. Which is a bad situation.
enlightenedbum on
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
You can eliminate the people that hold the ideas. I have no problem with us doing that to people who hold the idea "Death to America" for as long as it takes.
Hoz on
0
DrakeEdgelord TrashBelow the ecliptic plane.Registered Userregular
There you go, so there is no reason to insinuate that Karzai was reelected because the CIA rigged the election.
Besides, the show down in Afghanistan is run by our military. And our military wants to make the Afghan people happy with the west, not mad. CIA's jurisdiction is in intel gathering and putting missiles on the heads of our enemies there.
I'm not insinuating anything. I'm just saying that I wouldn't be surprised to find that's the case. We at least considered it in Iraq.
And I didn't know the military was in the business of making people happy. Their training seems to be aimed at making people dead. Generally, I'm happiest when people leave me alone. Maybe we should try that if we want to make Afghanistan happy.
You can eliminate the people that hold the ideas. I have no problem with us doing that to people who hold the idea "Death to America" for as long as it takes.
And by killing them you piss off their family/friends/etc. Spiral of violence? Israel/Palestine?
Has there ever been a case of fighting insurgents/freedom fighters that was successful without total war?
enlightenedbum on
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
You can eliminate the people that hold the ideas. I have no problem with us doing that to people who hold the idea "Death to America" for as long as it takes.
That's millions and millions and millions of people.
Did you have to look hard to find the worst possible video to post? I'm sure there are good videos that talk about the cons of the F-22. And that aren't absolute shit.
Also I'm not sure you had any understanding of why I brought up the F-22, it wasn't "God I hope someone posts the worst videos on youtube because they think I'm giving my support to it right now"
My point about the F-22 is that yes, it is a kickass air-superiority fighter. It will kill everything else in the sky ever. It's also extremely expensive and has no place in fighting in places like Iraq or Afghanistan, where there is no rival air force that could take on a goddamn P-26, let alone any current fighter craft. The F-22 is a prime example of how our military spending is clearly pointed towards an all-out war, the reasons for which we could go into at depth, but clearly not from a conspiracy to always keep around this shady islamic extremist which totally doesn't even really exist so that the military could have spending. Were that the case, we would probably be spending some more in equipment that would be useful there. In fact, the premise that this new conspiracy was started because the cold war ended is even more ludicrous because the only reason the F-22 ever happened was from fear of all-out war with Russia, meant to combat the new MiGs, and it's a clear showing that the Cold War ideology keeping military spending around has not collapsed just because the USSR did.
Though you've changed my mind and that video was so atrocious that now I am full support of the F-22 in every way out of spite for that shit.
Also some of the "facts" they brought up were from the Washington Post article which has since been refuted
Oh god you edited in more videos. I refuse if they're as awful as that first one.
No, i didn't have trouble picking out those FOUR. Probably there are dozens more but i guess this is enough. And i agree. Its a prime example how your taxmoney gets wasted. Hey, comon, pal. Its not like mine is not getting wasted by my government. I bet if any Brits read this they still remember how their government uses taxes to pay anything private. It was not that long ago. Its called corruption. And its there wherever huge amounts of money get spent.
Yes ACSIS, governments waste money and have corrupt officials. Thank you for that startling revelation. However, this thread is about Afghanistan, not your views on governments.
Yeah, it works better than the alternative, leave and let the Taliban swarm the country once again.
What's implied in fighting a counter-insurgency war is that you're there to fight it.
Thats what the Soviets thought; they left with their tails between their legs, as I suspect the Americans will do as well.
Eh. The Soviets also had to contend with a rival superpower arming the insurgents.
True, and yet the wars are looking rather similar. Quick, easy victory. Followed by a gradually growing insurgency. The occupiers lose control of the roads, they lose control of the night. They lose control over villages. They train a national army and police force; even though they know they are totally infiltrated by those they are fighting against. A weak national government that has to be continually supported by the occupiers, while the rhetoric about the Afghanis taking control is ever increased. While the casualties climb.
No wars are equivalent, but both are prime examples of guerrilla warfare. The rebels bide their time, and take losses, but when it comes down to it its their country. Time is always on their side.
Yes, I'm not denying that guerrilla warfare tends towards intractability. But American logistic and equipment was a huge factor in killing the Soviet campaign.
The ISI, yeah, not really the same league as a superpower.
And I think you are also conflating the Taliban with the "rebels." Which is sort of fair, because the Taliban is apparently absorbing non-ideological rebels (or vica-versa). But the traditional Taliban isn't much-loved in many areas of Afghanistan; particularly shi'ite Hazara areas.
Qingu on
0
DrakeEdgelord TrashBelow the ecliptic plane.Registered Userregular
Yes, I'm not denying that guerrilla warfare tends towards intractability. But American logistic and equipment was a huge factor in killing the Soviet campaign.
The ISI, yeah, not really the same league as a superpower.
And I think you are also conflating the Taliban with the "rebels." Which is sort of fair, because the Taliban is apparently absorbing non-ideological rebels (or vica-versa). But the traditional Taliban isn't much-loved in many areas of Afghanistan; particularly shi'ite Hazara areas.
In regards to potential ISI and Pakistani support to the Taliban/Afghani Rebels, they do have a lot of back channels to the CIA and the American Military. If those channels ended up subverted it could be a disaster for our guys on the ground, regardless of their economic and military status on the world stage.
There you go, so there is no reason to insinuate that Karzai was reelected because the CIA rigged the election.
Besides, the show down in Afghanistan is run by our military. And our military wants to make the Afghan people happy with the west, not mad. CIA's jurisdiction is in intel gathering and putting missiles on the heads of our enemies there.
uh, it's likely the case that Karzai was reelected because Karzai rigged the election. The CIA provides training, technical support, human and signals intelligence to the Karzai gov't. The CIA certainly knows how Karzai rigged the election and chose to not support the oppo or otherwise draw attention to it. My suspicion is that secdef, state and potus all got together and decided better the devil they knew, than the one they didn't.
Yes, I'm not denying that guerrilla warfare tends towards intractability. But American logistic and equipment was a huge factor in killing the Soviet campaign.
The ISI, yeah, not really the same league as a superpower.
And I think you are also conflating the Taliban with the "rebels." Which is sort of fair, because the Taliban is apparently absorbing non-ideological rebels (or vica-versa). But the traditional Taliban isn't much-loved in many areas of Afghanistan; particularly shi'ite Hazara areas.
Yeah thats why I used the broader term rebels. I personally think the Taliban are too extreme to have any kind of lasting power. They've toned down a bit, like the Americans they are trying to put a nice face on their operations, so they should be around for a little while longer anyway. Even if the Taliban movement were to falter (say Mohammed Omar bites the dust) it would only matter in the short term. Warlords, drug runners, and the religiously motivated all would still have reasons to fight the occupiers. They wouldn't be able to do so as effectively as a united Taliban, but if pressed they too would start to unite under a common banner to fight a common foe. The terrain and the mentality of the people in Afghanistan make it remarkably difficult to control if you don't have the support of individual villages and tribes.
Yeah, umm.. i'd take youtube with a pinch of salt.
The Russian ones are laughable. I think it's kind of funny really, the F22, Eurofighter, SU35 etc are all super manoeuvrable but frankly these days it is purely all about the missiles. Modern western missiles can be fired off at any angle, you no longer need to be lined up on your target defeating the whole point of the need to be manoeuvrable.
Although, I do believe the thing about maintenance of the F22. The paint etc is made to be radar absorbant, not to withstand heat, rain etc.
From my understanding the maintenance needed on the Eurofighter is vastly less than its predecessor. (Tornado)
EDIT: Also, airpower australia is well known to be full of faeces.
GrimReaper on
PSN | Steam
---
I've got a spare copy of Portal, if anyone wants it message me.
There you go, so there is no reason to insinuate that Karzai was reelected because the CIA rigged the election.
Besides, the show down in Afghanistan is run by our military. And our military wants to make the Afghan people happy with the west, not mad. CIA's jurisdiction is in intel gathering and putting missiles on the heads of our enemies there.
uh, it's likely the case that Karzai was reelected because Karzai rigged the election. The CIA provides training, technical support, human and signals intelligence to the Karzai gov't. The CIA certainly knows how Karzai rigged the election and chose to not support the oppo or otherwise draw attention to it. My suspicion is that secdef, state and potus all got together and decided better the devil they knew, than the one they didn't.
Yup, this is pretty much what I think. The CIA doesn't need to rig elections, it gives enough money and training to the current government so they don't have to. Karzai was hand picked by the US to run Afghanistan, good thing for them and their huge war effort that the elections also chose him!
Although, I do believe the thing about maintenance of the F22. The paint etc is made to be radar absorbant, not to withstand heat, rain etc.
Again, a lot of that was from a Washington post article that was refuted. It can withstand heat and rain just fine, it doesn't cost $350 million per, and it doesn't have overly outrageous maintenance.
Yeah thats why I used the broader term rebels. I personally think the Taliban are too extreme to have any kind of lasting power. They've toned down a bit, like the Americans they are trying to put a nice face on their operations, so they should be around for a little while longer anyway. Even if the Taliban movement were to falter (say Mohammed Omar bites the dust) it would only matter in the short term. Warlords, drug runners, and the religiously motivated all would still have reasons to fight the occupiers. They wouldn't be able to do so as effectively as a united Taliban, but if pressed they too would start to unite under a common banner to fight a common foe. The terrain and the mentality of the people in Afghanistan make it remarkably difficult to control if you don't have the support of individual villages and tribes.
I agree with everything you say. My point is that I'm not sure how much past history applies here.
It's not like Iraq, which had a strong state infrastructure. It's not like previous attempts to conquer Afghanistan because the nature of our "empire," and the lack of counterbalancing empires, is different. It's not like Vietnam—see previous reason, and Vietnam was not particularly tribal.
Yeah thats why I used the broader term rebels. I personally think the Taliban are too extreme to have any kind of lasting power. They've toned down a bit, like the Americans they are trying to put a nice face on their operations, so they should be around for a little while longer anyway. Even if the Taliban movement were to falter (say Mohammed Omar bites the dust) it would only matter in the short term. Warlords, drug runners, and the religiously motivated all would still have reasons to fight the occupiers. They wouldn't be able to do so as effectively as a united Taliban, but if pressed they too would start to unite under a common banner to fight a common foe. The terrain and the mentality of the people in Afghanistan make it remarkably difficult to control if you don't have the support of individual villages and tribes.
I agree with everything you say. My point is that I'm not sure how much past history applies here.
It's not like Iraq, which had a strong state infrastructure. It's not like previous attempts to conquer Afghanistan because the nature of our "empire," and the lack of counterbalancing empires, is different. It's not like Vietnam—see previous reason, and Vietnam was not particularly tribal.
Yeah, umm.. i'd take youtube with a pinch of salt.
The Russian ones are laughable. I think it's kind of funny really, the F22, Eurofighter, SU35 etc are all super manoeuvrable but frankly these days it is purely all about the missiles. Modern western missiles can be fired off at any angle, you no longer need to be lined up on your target defeating the whole point of the need to be manoeuvrable.
Although, I do believe the thing about maintenance of the F22. The paint etc is made to be radar absorbant, not to withstand heat, rain etc.
From my understanding the maintenance needed on the Eurofighter is vastly less than its predecessor. (Tornado)
EDIT: Also, airpower australia is well known to be full of faeces.
Sure. Especially if it has something like "airpower russia" in its title.
I do not intend to derail the tread, but... well... maybe a little...
If you want to know about fighter preformance there is one thing you have to keep an eye on.
And thats the american RED FLAG training execise. It includes basically every plane in use and puts them in a multinational training enviroment.
The russian planes are not to be underestimated. Of course an F22 is playing in an entirely different league. But there are quite succesful configurations. Even old planes can be pretty succesful in modern combat.
About the Eurofighter i can say its an entire new league of aircraft. Whilst its not specifically designed for stealth (it is designed for an reduced radar signatur, every plane is these days but not as uncompromising as a F22) it is designed for supersonic combat maneuvers. Its a black hole of cash sucking in its own way of course.
There you go, so there is no reason to insinuate that Karzai was reelected because the CIA rigged the election.
Besides, the show down in Afghanistan is run by our military. And our military wants to make the Afghan people happy with the west, not mad. CIA's jurisdiction is in intel gathering and putting missiles on the heads of our enemies there.
I'm not insinuating anything. I'm just saying that I wouldn't be surprised to find that's the case. We at least considered it in Iraq.
And I didn't know the military was in the business of making people happy. Their training seems to be aimed at making people dead. Generally, I'm happiest when people leave me alone. Maybe we should try that if we want to make Afghanistan happy.
We considered secretly backing candidates financially and logistically in Iraq to counter the support some of the candidates were secretly getting from Iran, rigging the election wasn't part of the equation. Besides, what was proposed didn't even happen.
And there is nothing about Karzai that the US is satisfied with.
You can eliminate the people that hold the ideas. I have no problem with us doing that to people who hold the idea "Death to America" for as long as it takes.
And by killing them you piss off their family/friends/etc. Spiral of violence? Israel/Palestine?
Has there ever been a case of fighting insurgents/freedom fighters that was successful without total war?
Of course, the problem with Afghanistan isn't that we can't get along with their nationalists, it's that we can't find enough nationalists to fight the Taliban.
Hoz on
0
DrakeEdgelord TrashBelow the ecliptic plane.Registered Userregular
edited September 2009
Secretly backing candidates in what is supposed to be a fair and honest election is tantamount to rigging an election in my opinion. It may not be stuffing ballot boxes, but it is a far cry from actual democracy. Why not just expose what your enemies are up to on the international stage?
Yeah, umm.. i'd take youtube with a pinch of salt.
The Russian ones are laughable. I think it's kind of funny really, the F22, Eurofighter, SU35 etc are all super manoeuvrable but frankly these days it is purely all about the missiles. Modern western missiles can be fired off at any angle, you no longer need to be lined up on your target defeating the whole point of the need to be manoeuvrable.
Although, I do believe the thing about maintenance of the F22. The paint etc is made to be radar absorbant, not to withstand heat, rain etc.
From my understanding the maintenance needed on the Eurofighter is vastly less than its predecessor. (Tornado)
EDIT: Also, airpower australia is well known to be full of faeces.
While agree about most of your post, the red part is kinda wrong. The Russians(that is to say the soviets before them) had the first missiles that could be fired of at any angle. They built in a targeting scope into the helmet of MiG-29 pilots enabling them to fire at anything they could se infront of them. They had this in 1985(not kidding look it up). The West only made this avilable to their aircraft in 2003( On the SuperHornet).
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Secretly backing candidates in what is supposed to be a fair and honest election is tantamount to rigging an election in my opinion. It may not be stuffing ballot boxes, but it is a far cry from actual democracy. Why not just expose what your enemies are up to on the international stage?
Because that entail accusing Iraqi candidates of being Iranian pawns, which would be openly meddling in an election. People like you would be screaming their heads off about how America is trying to rig the election, because apparently you have such an open interpretation of that.
Yeah, umm.. i'd take youtube with a pinch of salt.
The Russian ones are laughable. I think it's kind of funny really, the F22, Eurofighter, SU35 etc are all super manoeuvrable but frankly these days it is purely all about the missiles. Modern western missiles can be fired off at any angle, you no longer need to be lined up on your target defeating the whole point of the need to be manoeuvrable.
Although, I do believe the thing about maintenance of the F22. The paint etc is made to be radar absorbant, not to withstand heat, rain etc.
From my understanding the maintenance needed on the Eurofighter is vastly less than its predecessor. (Tornado)
EDIT: Also, airpower australia is well known to be full of faeces.
While agree about most of your post, the red part is kinda wrong. The Russians(that is to say the soviets before them) had the first missiles that could be fired of at any angle. They built in a targeting scope into the helmet of MiG-29 pilots enabling them to fire at anything they could se infront of them. They had this in 1985(not kidding look it up). The West only made this avilable to their aircraft in 2003( On the SuperHornet).
Being able to be fired at anything they could see in front of them is not being able to fire at any angle.
All-aspects can literally be fired at any angle. Like the target can be behind you, you can't see it, but you can get a lock and take it out with an All-aspect
Secretly backing candidates in what is supposed to be a fair and honest election is tantamount to rigging an election in my opinion. It may not be stuffing ballot boxes, but it is a far cry from actual democracy. Why not just expose what your enemies are up to on the international stage?
Counterintelligence and covert ops are rarely that simple. Announcing the results of intelligence gathering could result in any number of negative consequences, not the least of which is telling your enemies precisely what your intelligence capabilities are and how best to foil them.
Yeah, umm.. i'd take youtube with a pinch of salt.
The Russian ones are laughable. I think it's kind of funny really, the F22, Eurofighter, SU35 etc are all super manoeuvrable but frankly these days it is purely all about the missiles. Modern western missiles can be fired off at any angle, you no longer need to be lined up on your target defeating the whole point of the need to be manoeuvrable.
Although, I do believe the thing about maintenance of the F22. The paint etc is made to be radar absorbant, not to withstand heat, rain etc.
From my understanding the maintenance needed on the Eurofighter is vastly less than its predecessor. (Tornado)
EDIT: Also, airpower australia is well known to be full of faeces.
While agree about most of your post, the red part is kinda wrong. The Russians(that is to say the soviets before them) had the first missiles that could be fired of at any angle. They built in a targeting scope into the helmet of MiG-29 pilots enabling them to fire at anything they could se infront of them. They had this in 1985(not kidding look it up). The West only made this avilable to their aircraft in 2003( On the SuperHornet).
I know of those, I wasn't referring to specifically ladar missiles. I meant missiles that could be fired literally at targets behind the aircraft without the need to point your head at anything.
EDIT: To get back onto Afghanistan, I think it'd be pretty awesome to get these zeppelin/blimps in the field. They'd be vastly better than satellites or a uav, you get incredibly long loiter time (a few weeks), the ability to fire off missiles at targets and real time reconnaissance of the field. The taliban have nothing to even shoot them down and they could be remote controlled in much the same manner any uav like a global hawk is.
GrimReaper on
PSN | Steam
---
I've got a spare copy of Portal, if anyone wants it message me.
There you go, so there is no reason to insinuate that Karzai was reelected because the CIA rigged the election.
Besides, the show down in Afghanistan is run by our military. And our military wants to make the Afghan people happy with the west, not mad. CIA's jurisdiction is in intel gathering and putting missiles on the heads of our enemies there.
I'm not insinuating anything. I'm just saying that I wouldn't be surprised to find that's the case. We at least considered it in Iraq.
And I didn't know the military was in the business of making people happy. Their training seems to be aimed at making people dead. Generally, I'm happiest when people leave me alone. Maybe we should try that if we want to make Afghanistan happy.
We considered secretly backing candidates financially and logistically in Iraq to counter the support some of the candidates were secretly getting from Iran, rigging the election wasn't part of the equation. Besides, what was proposed didn't even happen.
And there is nothing about Karzai that the US is satisfied with.
You can eliminate the people that hold the ideas. I have no problem with us doing that to people who hold the idea "Death to America" for as long as it takes.
And by killing them you piss off their family/friends/etc. Spiral of violence? Israel/Palestine?
Has there ever been a case of fighting insurgents/freedom fighters that was successful without total war?
Of course, the problem with Afghanistan isn't that we can't get along with their nationalists, it's that we can't find enough nationalists to fight the Taliban.
I'm going to call killing 1/9 of the population total war.
enlightenedbum on
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
0
DrakeEdgelord TrashBelow the ecliptic plane.Registered Userregular
Secretly backing candidates in what is supposed to be a fair and honest election is tantamount to rigging an election in my opinion. It may not be stuffing ballot boxes, but it is a far cry from actual democracy. Why not just expose what your enemies are up to on the international stage?
Because that entail accusing Iraqi candidates of being Iranian pawns, which would be openly meddling in an election. People like you would be screaming their heads off about how America is trying to rig the election, because apparently you have such an open interpretation of that.
So our Machiavellian nation building schemes place us in a damned if we do, damned if we don't situation. GG America.
Counterintelligence and covert ops are rarely that simple. Announcing the results of intelligence gathering could result in any number of negative consequences, not the least of which is telling your enemies precisely what your intelligence capabilities are and how best to foil them.
I'm sure our intelligence agencies could come up with a way to put out the information without compromising their agents, penetration or capabilities.
I'm sure our intelligence agencies could come up with a way to put out the information without compromising their agents, penetration or capabilities.
Yes but if your enemy doesn't have a clear idea on what your level of penetration is you giving out high class information will let them know you are at least at this level, which may or may not be higher then they thought and they'll crack down hard.
Posts
We tend to wait til after the election and then sponsor a coup if we don't like the winner.
Besides, the show down in Afghanistan is run by our military. And our military wants to make the Afghan people happy with the west, not mad. CIA's jurisdiction is in intel gathering and putting missiles on the heads of our enemies there.
Which we do by occupying their nation with permanent bases! This is a good plan!
What's implied in fighting a counter-insurgency war is that you're there to fight it.
Unless we get some concrete benchmarks, we're there indefinitely. Which is a bad situation.
I'm not insinuating anything. I'm just saying that I wouldn't be surprised to find that's the case. We at least considered it in Iraq.
And I didn't know the military was in the business of making people happy. Their training seems to be aimed at making people dead. Generally, I'm happiest when people leave me alone. Maybe we should try that if we want to make Afghanistan happy.
And by killing them you piss off their family/friends/etc. Spiral of violence? Israel/Palestine?
Has there ever been a case of fighting insurgents/freedom fighters that was successful without total war?
Oh, yes... i almost missed that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIvgBbXKL5E&feature=player_embedded#t=26
and...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5N0iXFN37iU&feature=related
and...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eb_jqsg13wY&feature=related
and...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cORX4hdHEsg&feature=related
Also I'm not sure you had any understanding of why I brought up the F-22, it wasn't "God I hope someone posts the worst videos on youtube because they think I'm giving my support to it right now"
My point about the F-22 is that yes, it is a kickass air-superiority fighter. It will kill everything else in the sky ever. It's also extremely expensive and has no place in fighting in places like Iraq or Afghanistan, where there is no rival air force that could take on a goddamn P-26, let alone any current fighter craft. The F-22 is a prime example of how our military spending is clearly pointed towards an all-out war, the reasons for which we could go into at depth, but clearly not from a conspiracy to always keep around this shady islamic extremist which totally doesn't even really exist so that the military could have spending. Were that the case, we would probably be spending some more in equipment that would be useful there. In fact, the premise that this new conspiracy was started because the cold war ended is even more ludicrous because the only reason the F-22 ever happened was from fear of all-out war with Russia, meant to combat the new MiGs, and it's a clear showing that the Cold War ideology keeping military spending around has not collapsed just because the USSR did.
Though you've changed my mind and that video was so atrocious that now I am full support of the F-22 in every way out of spite for that shit.
Also some of the "facts" they brought up were from the Washington Post article which has since been refuted
Oh god you edited in more videos. I refuse if they're as awful as that first one.
Thats what the Soviets thought; they left with their tails between their legs, as I suspect the Americans will do as well.
Now the Afghani people can do a decent job of arming themselves. They even make their own AK-47's.
I also wouldn't be surprised if they had a nice little stockpile of Stinger missiles and other similar items left over from our support.
Also, Pakistan and the ISI have had a very cozy relationship with Al Qaeda in the past and a lot of analysts don't think those days are over.
True, and yet the wars are looking rather similar. Quick, easy victory. Followed by a gradually growing insurgency. The occupiers lose control of the roads, they lose control of the night. They lose control over villages. They train a national army and police force; even though they know they are totally infiltrated by those they are fighting against. A weak national government that has to be continually supported by the occupiers, while the rhetoric about the Afghanis taking control is ever increased. While the casualties climb.
No wars are equivalent, but both are prime examples of guerrilla warfare. The rebels bide their time, and take losses, but when it comes down to it its their country. Time is always on their side.
The ISI, yeah, not really the same league as a superpower.
And I think you are also conflating the Taliban with the "rebels." Which is sort of fair, because the Taliban is apparently absorbing non-ideological rebels (or vica-versa). But the traditional Taliban isn't much-loved in many areas of Afghanistan; particularly shi'ite Hazara areas.
In regards to potential ISI and Pakistani support to the Taliban/Afghani Rebels, they do have a lot of back channels to the CIA and the American Military. If those channels ended up subverted it could be a disaster for our guys on the ground, regardless of their economic and military status on the world stage.
uh, it's likely the case that Karzai was reelected because Karzai rigged the election. The CIA provides training, technical support, human and signals intelligence to the Karzai gov't. The CIA certainly knows how Karzai rigged the election and chose to not support the oppo or otherwise draw attention to it. My suspicion is that secdef, state and potus all got together and decided better the devil they knew, than the one they didn't.
Yeah thats why I used the broader term rebels. I personally think the Taliban are too extreme to have any kind of lasting power. They've toned down a bit, like the Americans they are trying to put a nice face on their operations, so they should be around for a little while longer anyway. Even if the Taliban movement were to falter (say Mohammed Omar bites the dust) it would only matter in the short term. Warlords, drug runners, and the religiously motivated all would still have reasons to fight the occupiers. They wouldn't be able to do so as effectively as a united Taliban, but if pressed they too would start to unite under a common banner to fight a common foe. The terrain and the mentality of the people in Afghanistan make it remarkably difficult to control if you don't have the support of individual villages and tribes.
Yeah, umm.. i'd take youtube with a pinch of salt.
The Russian ones are laughable. I think it's kind of funny really, the F22, Eurofighter, SU35 etc are all super manoeuvrable but frankly these days it is purely all about the missiles. Modern western missiles can be fired off at any angle, you no longer need to be lined up on your target defeating the whole point of the need to be manoeuvrable.
Although, I do believe the thing about maintenance of the F22. The paint etc is made to be radar absorbant, not to withstand heat, rain etc.
From my understanding the maintenance needed on the Eurofighter is vastly less than its predecessor. (Tornado)
EDIT: Also, airpower australia is well known to be full of faeces.
---
I've got a spare copy of Portal, if anyone wants it message me.
Yup, this is pretty much what I think. The CIA doesn't need to rig elections, it gives enough money and training to the current government so they don't have to. Karzai was hand picked by the US to run Afghanistan, good thing for them and their huge war effort that the elections also chose him!
Again, a lot of that was from a Washington post article that was refuted. It can withstand heat and rain just fine, it doesn't cost $350 million per, and it doesn't have overly outrageous maintenance.
People may not love us, but they hate the Taliban.
It's not like Iraq, which had a strong state infrastructure. It's not like previous attempts to conquer Afghanistan because the nature of our "empire," and the lack of counterbalancing empires, is different. It's not like Vietnam—see previous reason, and Vietnam was not particularly tribal.
Yeah, totally agree.
Sure. Especially if it has something like "airpower russia" in its title.
I do not intend to derail the tread, but... well... maybe a little...
If you want to know about fighter preformance there is one thing you have to keep an eye on.
And thats the american RED FLAG training execise. It includes basically every plane in use and puts them in a multinational training enviroment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCla0sV5M2Y
The russian planes are not to be underestimated. Of course an F22 is playing in an entirely different league. But there are quite succesful configurations. Even old planes can be pretty succesful in modern combat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfXBoeV86Yo&feature=related
About the Eurofighter i can say its an entire new league of aircraft. Whilst its not specifically designed for stealth (it is designed for an reduced radar signatur, every plane is these days but not as uncompromising as a F22) it is designed for supersonic combat maneuvers. Its a black hole of cash sucking in its own way of course.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk-FMT0zcrw
And there is nothing about Karzai that the US is satisfied with.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine%E2%80%93American_War#Irreconcilables
Of course, the problem with Afghanistan isn't that we can't get along with their nationalists, it's that we can't find enough nationalists to fight the Taliban.
While agree about most of your post, the red part is kinda wrong. The Russians(that is to say the soviets before them) had the first missiles that could be fired of at any angle. They built in a targeting scope into the helmet of MiG-29 pilots enabling them to fire at anything they could se infront of them. They had this in 1985(not kidding look it up). The West only made this avilable to their aircraft in 2003( On the SuperHornet).
Being able to be fired at anything they could see in front of them is not being able to fire at any angle.
All-aspects can literally be fired at any angle. Like the target can be behind you, you can't see it, but you can get a lock and take it out with an All-aspect
Counterintelligence and covert ops are rarely that simple. Announcing the results of intelligence gathering could result in any number of negative consequences, not the least of which is telling your enemies precisely what your intelligence capabilities are and how best to foil them.
I know of those, I wasn't referring to specifically ladar missiles. I meant missiles that could be fired literally at targets behind the aircraft without the need to point your head at anything.
EDIT: To get back onto Afghanistan, I think it'd be pretty awesome to get these zeppelin/blimps in the field. They'd be vastly better than satellites or a uav, you get incredibly long loiter time (a few weeks), the ability to fire off missiles at targets and real time reconnaissance of the field. The taliban have nothing to even shoot them down and they could be remote controlled in much the same manner any uav like a global hawk is.
---
I've got a spare copy of Portal, if anyone wants it message me.
I'm going to call killing 1/9 of the population total war.
So our Machiavellian nation building schemes place us in a damned if we do, damned if we don't situation. GG America.
I'm sure our intelligence agencies could come up with a way to put out the information without compromising their agents, penetration or capabilities.
Yes but if your enemy doesn't have a clear idea on what your level of penetration is you giving out high class information will let them know you are at least at this level, which may or may not be higher then they thought and they'll crack down hard.