What's new

What are US soldiers dying for?

hey CENTCOM, I like the name these guys are givin us.... American Empire

Very nice, we should take over there lands and take all there oil lol jk


Its a shame we are so hated..... but when you meet them in person they are so thankful that we are there. Does not make sense
 
hey CENTCOM, I like the name these guys are givin us.... American Empire

Very nice, we should take over there lands and take all there oil lol jk


Its a shame we are so hated..... but when you meet them in person they are so thankful that we are there. Does not make sense

Thats because you either meet an CIA operative, someone whos scared of AMerican forces or has given $$$$$$ to greet you.
Otherwise you'll be dead.
 
Laughable. You claim that U.S. Marines on open patrol with rifles and machine guns, when confronted by the enemy, would run away, hide, and call a "drone strike." The simple truth is that when Taliban and terrorists face armed soldiers, they run away. Or detonate an IED.

Actual shooting ambushes are almost non-existent these days, because the terrorists know that they will lose, not because of bombs from the sky, but because of traditional squad tactics and accurate fire.
Taliban TTP's vary greatly from region to region, and I can assure you, not all of them amount to "Blow up bomb, run away". Also, calling all Taliban "terrorists" is misleading, some elements run themselves like terrorist organizations, others more like the mafia, or even closer to conventional military units. Some examples of when the taliban has chosen to stay and fight include:
Battle of Wanat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Operation Moshtarak - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Both of these operations were tactical failures from the Taliban perspective, but that of course is irrelevant to the overall strategic viewpoint. The idea that "Actual shooting ambushes are almost non-existent these days" would be pretty funny to the Soldiers and Marines who are getting shot at every day.
Sharp rise in Army deaths from small arms fire prompts inquiry into Taliban snipers - Asia, World - The Independent

Small arms in fact account for about 30-40% of all ISAF fatalities in Afghanistan in 2010, up from around 15% in previous years. If you go all the way back to 2006, the trend reverses, and 75% of all ISAF casualties were small arms and indirect fire. The Taliban are not cowards, they do what works, never underestimate an enemy.
 
A old article

Global Economy

The oil behind Bush and Son's campaigns
By Ranjit Devraj

NEW DELHI - Just as the Gulf War in 1991 was all about oil, the new conflict in South and Central Asia is no less about access to the region's abundant petroleum resources, according to Indian analysts.

"US influence and military presence in Afghanistan and the Central Asian states, not unlike that over the oil-rich Gulf states, would be a major strategic gain," said V R Raghavan, a strategic analyst and former general in the Indian army. Raghavan believes that the prospect of a western military presence in a region extending from Turkey to Tajikistan could not have escaped strategists who are now readying a military campaign aimed at changing the political order in Afghanistan, accused by the United States of harboring Osama bin Laden.

Where the "great game" in Afghanistan was once about czars and commissars seeking access to the warm water ports of the Persian Gulf, today it is about laying oil and gas pipelines to the untapped petroleum reserves of Central Asia. According to testimony before the US House of Representatives in March 1999 by the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan together have 15 billion barrels of proven oil reserves. The same countries also have proven gas deposits totaling not less than nine trillion cubic meters. Another study by the Institute for Afghan Studies placed the total worth of oil and gas reserves in the Central Asian republics at around US$3 trillion at last year's prices.

Not only can Afghanistan play a role in hosting pipelines connecting Central Asia to international markets, but the country itself has significant oil and gas deposits. During the Soviets' decade-long occupation of Afghanistan, Moscow estimated Afghanistan's proven and probable natural gas reserves at around five trillion cubic feet and production reached 275 million cubic feet per day in the mid-1970s. But sabotage by anti-Soviet mujahideen (freedom fighters) and by rival groups in the civil war that followed Soviet withdrawal in 1989 virtually closed down gas production and ended deals for the supply of gas to several European countries.

Major Afghan natural gas fields awaiting exploitation include Jorqaduq, Khowaja, Gogerdak, and Yatimtaq, all of which are located within 9 kilometers of the town of Sheberghan in northrern Jowzjan province.

Natural gas production and distribution under Afghanistan's Taliban rulers is the responsibility of the Afghan Gas Enterprise which, in 1999, began repair of a pipeline to Mazar-i-Sharif city. Afghanistan's proven and probable oil and condensate reserves were placed at 95 million barrels by the Soviets. So far, attempts to exploit Afghanistan's petroleum reserves or take advantage of its unique geographical location as a crossroads to markets in Europe and South Asia have been thwarted by the continuing civil strife.

In 1998, the California-based UNOCAL, which held 46.5 percent stakes in Central Asia Gas (CentGas), a consortium that planned an ambitious gas pipeline across Afghanistan, withdrew in frustration after several fruitless years. The pipeline was to stretch 1,271km from Turkmenistan's Dauletabad fields to Multan in Pakistan at an estimated cost of $1.9 billion. An additional $600 million would have brought the pipeline to energy-hungry India.

Energy experts in India, such as R K Pachauri, who heads the Tata Energy Research Institute (TERI), have long been urging the country's planners to ensure access to petroleum products from the Central Asian republics, with which New Delhi has traditionally maintained good relations. Other partners in CentGas included the Saudi Arabian Delta Oil Company, the Government of Turkmenistan, Indonesia Petroleum (INPEX), the Japanese ITOCHU, Korean Hyundai and Pakistan's Crescent Group.

According to observers, one problem is the uncertainty over who the beneficiaries in Afghanistan would be - the opposition Northern Alliance, the Taliban, the Afghan people or indeed, whether any of these would benefit at all. But the immediate reason for UNOCAL's withdrawal was undoubtedly the US cruise missile attacks on Osama bin Laden's terrorism training camps in Afghanistan in August 1998, done in retaliation for the bombing of its embassies in Africa. UNOCAL then stated that the project would have to wait until Afghanistan achieved the "peace and stability necessary to obtain financing from international agencies and a government that is recognized by the United States and the United Nations".

The "coalition against terrorism" that US President George W Bush is building now is the first opportunity that has any chance of making UNOCAL's wish come true. If the coalition succeeds, Raghavan said, it has the potential of "reconfiguring substantially the energy scenarios for the 21st century".

(Inter Press Service
 
They died for rich congressman kids. They died for nothing. Just like 2 million Vietnamese died for nothing. NOTHING.
 
They are not cavemen. They have highly intelligent operatives throughout the world.

And sorry, but 9/11 ain't no lie.

how funny 2 aircrafts hit the buildings and so called super duper army aircraft and security sleeping .... better to watch cartoon network if you really love to watch BBC CNN
 
how funny 2 aircrafts hit the buildings and so called super duper army aircraft and security sleeping .... better to watch cartoon network if you really love to watch BBC CNN

Post to the 9/11 truther thread... but to respond to this, people would be absolutely shocked at how little air defense actually exists over the U.S. The days of worrying about bombers entering our airspace went away 30 years ago. There was nothing to defend against.

AD consists of a handful of "alert barns" on the coastlines. There are no SAM's. Besides, the paradigm of using airliners as a weapon was inconcievable, everything happened very fast, and civilian air traffic control has nothing to do with AD radars.
 
Post to the 9/11 truther thread... but to respond to this, people would be absolutely shocked at how little air defense actually exists over the U.S. The days of worrying about bombers entering our airspace went away 30 years ago. There was nothing to defend against.

AD consists of a handful of "alert barns" on the coastlines. There are no SAM's. Besides, the paradigm of using airliners as a weapon was inconcievable, everything happened very fast, and civilian air traffic control has nothing to do with AD radars.

Respected sir,
Moscow is fully enveloped with S-300 SAM sites & now be upgraded to S-400; how could Washington be not the same??
 
Remember 9/11, God Bless

Then shouldn't US take their war to Saudi Arabia because most of the terrorists on 9/11 were Saudis not a single terrorist was an Afghan or a Pakistani.

And why were U.S. soldiers dying in Iraq? Where were the weapons of mass destruction Bush was going crazy about.

9/11 was a false flag because Bush wanted to bring war to oil/gas/ resource rich geo-strategic countries in the Muslim world.
 
Then shouldn't US take their war to Saudi Arabia because most of the terrorists on 9/11 were Saudis not a single terrorist was an Afghan or a Pakistani.
Unless Saudi regime would have supported and funded those idiots, their would have been no justification for such an offensive.

In addition, even Americans respect the sanctity of Islamic holy cities.

And most importantly; Saudi leadership have been loyal to US for a long time, and Saudi Arabia is one of its largest trading partners.

And why were U.S. soldiers dying in Iraq? Where were the weapons of mass destruction Bush was going crazy about.
Bush found an opportunity under the pretext of WOT.

And Iraqi campaign had been a success regardless of challenges.

9/11 was a false flag because Bush wanted to bring war to oil/gas/ resource rich geo-strategic countries in the Muslim world.
Only time will tell. In current times, conspiracies are rampant and spread confusion. They are powerful tools to shape the beliefs of the masses. This is a matter of concern for all of us.

In current age; lies are treated as facts and facts as lies, so it is hard to trust any interpretation.

Though, US imperialism fuels these kinds of interpretations. As a world power, US have managed to influence events throughout the world.
 
They say they are fighting to avenge 9/11 but Afghanistan has little if anything to do with 9/11 as it was almost entirely planned in Hamburg, Germany by mostly Saudis.

There are more terrorists today than there were on 9/11, due to the Iraq war.

All that being said, I have no solution in mind for Afghanistan as it's possible to argue that Afghanistan has been in a state of civil war since the end of the Durrani Empire in the 1830s, and an immediate pullout of NATO troops may be worse.
 
Then shouldn't US take their war to Saudi Arabia because most of the terrorists on 9/11 were Saudis not a single terrorist was an Afghan or a Pakistani.

Americans cannot attack Saudi Arabia for these reasons:

-They need the oil (not the Americans themselves but most of their allies in Europe are dependent on Saudi oil)
-An attack on Saudi Arabia would be seen by the Muslims of the world as an attack on Islam, which I don't think Americans want, not the sane ones anyway.
-Saudis have close ties to all living former presidents of Iran. Arabs also have a powerful lobby which rivals the Israeli lobby.
-Americans still want to use Saudi Arabia for a potential attack on Iran, and even if they don't they want to keep their airbases and naval bases in Saudi Arabia.
 
Respected sir,
Moscow is fully enveloped with S-300 SAM sites & now be upgraded to S-400; how could Washington be not the same??

It isn't. I'm being truthful. The manned aircraft threat vanished 30 years ago except for strays and possibly rogues. I'm not sure why the defenses are so weak, but believe me, they are. It's not cost effective to have a dense AD network when there is no real military threat.

I'd guess Moscow is so heavily defended because they are surrounded by dozens of nation-states that were/are hostile at some point. That, and traditional Russian paranoia, but in that case, they are justified. Russia has been invaded a number of times by large armies. The U.S., never, discounting a handful of British Marines in the war of 1812.

-They need the oil (not the Americans themselves but most of their allies in Europe are dependent on Saudi oil)

Then let Europe, China, and Japan worry about ME security and stability. We get the vast majority of our oil from Canada and Mexico.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom