im sure MPs have quite a large financial portfolio involving many many defence companies.Mekstizzle wrote:
man you guys are retarded, he talks about governments handing over public money, then you mention a private company, then somehow he's an idiot for not mentioning american private companies
I don't recall any empire in history ever being killed because of Afghanistan, you could say the USSR as a superpower, but it's abit of a stretch to say Afghanistan brought down the USSR.FEOS wrote:
Does anyone really think that Afghanistan is going to "kill" the US? Seriously?Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
Superpowers, Empires, its all the same.FEOS wrote:
Good thing there aren't any empires there now...
That's utter ludicrosity.
Last edited by Mekstizzle (2010-10-27 13:36:55)
US doesn't really need assistance it's just a political gesture.Mekstizzle wrote:
Personally I'm one of the people who thinks these ''Wars'' are just a drop in the bucket for the U.S Military and Economy. Really everything is so much bigger than what's actually being committed it's abit of a farce, almost. They just want other countries to participate as if they actually need them. When you look at just how fucking big the US Military is in every aspect there's no need at all for them to require international assistance. So it's a joke.
Last edited by dayarath (2010-10-27 13:51:03)
US military isn't even using 10% of it's full capabilities. it's more about winning hearts and minds, COIN and CT than just sending sheer number of troops.dayarath wrote:
Well keeping tabs on two countries with a combined population of about 50 million spread out over a pretty damn large area is rough, especially considering the terrain.
The US military may be huge but it's proven that it's a pretty tedious job fighting the war as they're doing now.
What does constitute as full capabilities in this war? Right now all you need is a very very large ground force and going by the looks of it there isn't really enough. All those aircraft carriers, frigates and 2000something fighter jets may be part of the current capabilities but they might aswell be counted as fairly unimportant except for ferrying stuff around and dropping bombs on hajji. And you don't need 2000 jets for that.Cybargs wrote:
US military isn't even using 10% of it's full capabilities. it's more about winning hearts and minds, COIN and CT than just sending sheer number of troops.dayarath wrote:
Well keeping tabs on two countries with a combined population of about 50 million spread out over a pretty damn large area is rough, especially considering the terrain.
The US military may be huge but it's proven that it's a pretty tedious job fighting the war as they're doing now.
besides better to fight in hajji's backyard than america's.
US can pretty much swarm afghanistan with troops if it wanted. but yeah like you said they'd be kinda unwanted. only country that should be helping out are the commonwealth since they have more experience dealing with insurgencies (NI, Vietnam, Malay emergency etc). rest of nato is just there for political backing.dayarath wrote:
What does constitute as full capabilities in this war? Right now all you need is a very very large ground force and going by the looks of it there isn't really enough. All those aircraft carriers, frigates and 2000something fighter jets may be part of the current capabilities but they might aswell be counted as fairly unimportant except for ferrying stuff around and dropping bombs on hajji. And you don't need 2000 jets for that.Cybargs wrote:
US military isn't even using 10% of it's full capabilities. it's more about winning hearts and minds, COIN and CT than just sending sheer number of troops.dayarath wrote:
Well keeping tabs on two countries with a combined population of about 50 million spread out over a pretty damn large area is rough, especially considering the terrain.
The US military may be huge but it's proven that it's a pretty tedious job fighting the war as they're doing now.
besides better to fight in hajji's backyard than america's.
Besides having some international help is good in the sense that you can get alot of feedback from different countries on how things should be done, although most 'other countries' are too busy fighting amongst themselves and being unhappy about NATO and such to actually do more on that regard.
I don't think experience in dealing with them is the biggest problem. The most important part is gathering intelligence which is usually covered by commonwealth/US anyway. On the subject of trying to win "hearts and minds" there's alot of room for improvement.Cybargs wrote:
US can pretty much swarm afghanistan with troops if it wanted. but yeah like you said they'd be kinda unwanted. only country that should be helping out are the commonwealth since they have more experience dealing with insurgencies (NI, Vietnam, Malay emergency etc). rest of nato is just there for political backing.
i heard from aussies that the dutch do a shit job at uruzagan and they're just like school kids on vacation.dayarath wrote:
I don't think experience in dealing with them is the biggest problem. The most important part is gathering intelligence which is usually covered by commonwealth/US anyway. On the subject of trying to win "hearts and minds" there's alot of room for improvement.Cybargs wrote:
US can pretty much swarm afghanistan with troops if it wanted. but yeah like you said they'd be kinda unwanted. only country that should be helping out are the commonwealth since they have more experience dealing with insurgencies (NI, Vietnam, Malay emergency etc). rest of nato is just there for political backing.
I'd say the dutch did pretty decent at that in uruzgan, except for the fact that they're pulling back now and leaving it all to the aussies. IMHO political backing in the form of symbolically sending 400-1000 troops out to die (which is all some NATO countries do, really) is just fucking disgusting.
The criticism towards the dutch is usually coming from rather few aussie soldiers who seem to have some sort of a grudge. I was under the impression by talking to vets over here that the vast majority of them don't feel that way at all. Besides, it's pretty unproductive to kick your ally in what's supposed to be a cooperation mission in the shins anonymously. Doesn't really help the situation.Cybargs wrote:
i heard from aussies that the dutch do a shit job at uruzagan and they're just like school kids on vacation.
commonwealth countries tend to have more experience in dealing with insurgencies. the experience also boils down ways to gather intel.
In the current two cases, it's the cost of building a country up from scratchTurquoise wrote:
The costs associated with blowing a country to pieces are relatively low for our budget.
The costs associated with rebuilding a country are much, much higher.
Well, it just goes to show that committing to a war isn't that expensive.JohnG@lt wrote:
In the current two cases, it's the cost of building a country up from scratchTurquoise wrote:
The costs associated with blowing a country to pieces are relatively low for our budget.
The costs associated with rebuilding a country are much, much higher.
hajji will stop killing each other when we get them fat and lazy.JohnG@lt wrote:
In the current two cases, it's the cost of building a country up from scratchTurquoise wrote:
The costs associated with blowing a country to pieces are relatively low for our budget.
The costs associated with rebuilding a country are much, much higher.
thats what theyre doing in iraq. put a mcdonalds, kfc, starbucks, walmart in every corner. hell blow up the corner if they have to.dayarath wrote:
More mcdonalds sounds like a brilliant idea
Sorry, I forgot, US corporations are the government.Cybargs wrote:
if that shit was any other american defence industry dilbert would be all over that bitch.11 Bravo wrote:
looooooolDilbert_X wrote:
Well now thats a commercial arrangement, not foreign relations.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-10-27 16:49:21)
If the United States was serious about winning the war, we would have invaded Pakistan by now. Bullshit politics. Pakistan is not a sovereign state. Whether or not it's a good idea is irrelevant, because its not happening. At least, not that we know of, beyond the airstrikes/UAV drones.Cybargs wrote:
US can pretty much swarm afghanistan with troops if it wanted. but yeah like you said they'd be kinda unwanted. only country that should be helping out are the commonwealth since they have more experience dealing with insurgencies (NI, Vietnam, Malay emergency etc). rest of nato is just there for political backing.dayarath wrote:
What does constitute as full capabilities in this war? Right now all you need is a very very large ground force and going by the looks of it there isn't really enough. All those aircraft carriers, frigates and 2000something fighter jets may be part of the current capabilities but they might aswell be counted as fairly unimportant except for ferrying stuff around and dropping bombs on hajji. And you don't need 2000 jets for that.Cybargs wrote:
US military isn't even using 10% of it's full capabilities. it's more about winning hearts and minds, COIN and CT than just sending sheer number of troops.
besides better to fight in hajji's backyard than america's.
Besides having some international help is good in the sense that you can get alot of feedback from different countries on how things should be done, although most 'other countries' are too busy fighting amongst themselves and being unhappy about NATO and such to actually do more on that regard.
Last edited by Spearhead (2010-10-28 01:19:06)
You also forgot that for defense companies to enter a deal with another country, they have to get approval through their own country's government first, Dilbert.Dilbert_X wrote:
Sorry, I forgot, US corporations are the government.Cybargs wrote:
if that shit was any other american defence industry dilbert would be all over that bitch.11 Bravo wrote:
loooooool
Its not quite like that elsewhere - thats probably why you're confused, and AFAIK no corporations are involved in this Karzai-Iran thing.
There's nothing about the wars in either country that would "break our budget".Turquoise wrote:
Well, it just goes to show that committing to a war isn't that expensive.JohnG@lt wrote:
In the current two cases, it's the cost of building a country up from scratchTurquoise wrote:
The costs associated with blowing a country to pieces are relatively low for our budget.
The costs associated with rebuilding a country are much, much higher.
It's the act of nation building that makes or breaks budgets.
Granted, entitlement spending dwarfs both sets of expenses combined.
Which still isn't 'foreign relations'.FEOS wrote:
You also forgot that for defense companies to enter a deal with another country, they have to get approval through their own country's government first, Dilbert.
Even jolly old England.
It absolutely is, since those agreements are considered "foreign military sales", and thus part of the overall diplomatic strategy.Dilbert_X wrote:
Which still isn't 'foreign relations'.FEOS wrote:
You also forgot that for defense companies to enter a deal with another country, they have to get approval through their own country's government first, Dilbert.
Even jolly old England.
