Future Conflicts

[jonnygreen]

I wanted to stimulate a discussion about the near future. (2010-2018)

What countries and regions would have the greatest conflicting interests with the U.S. and WHY?

and What countries are we most inclined to use SEALs and SOF in combat operations in and WHY? (2012-2018) Try to back up opinions with FACTs please... Thanks!

~Jonny G.

[beardch]

I would say:
Iran-For nuclear reasons
Pakistan-We all know they house terrorists right across the border, sooner or later the U.S. will decide it's time to go get them, recent "fatalities" suffered when airstrike hit Pakistan border security and killed some soldiers led to increased tension
North Korea-The whole nuclear conflict with them vs. NATO
***Of course this is all pure speculation and opinion by me, and honestly who knows, it's hard to predict things like this a few years in advance...

[imddrummer]

My friend in the State Department told me that China would be an issue in the future...

[sirmonty]

My friend in the State Department told me that China would be an issue in the future...

Just curious: Do they think that they will be a military issue, or more of an economic issue? I certainly see some economic tensions in the near future, but armed conflict?

(And yes I realize one can certainly lead to the other)

I can see this happening with Iran, although I certainly hope it doesn't come to that. From what I understand, there is a very pro-democratic movement (especially amongst the youth and others disenfranchised with the current regime) in Iran and I think armed conflict might diminish what pro-American support we do have there. But I suppose if we have no choice....

Pakistan worries me more and more everyday for obvious reasons.

Saudi Arabia, although currently our allies, has a very oppressive regime (particularly towards women and their civil rights) and I would like to see pressure placed on them for democratic reform (hopefully without bloodshed).

Of course, this is all just speculation....

[kpat91]

somewhere in central asia: I know State Department employees and I live in Kazakhstan. This is a growing region that concerns the State Department with the development due to the collapse of the Soviet Union. I believe there will be future conflicts in this region.

Pakistan: reasons are obvious

Russia: Former Soviet Union and big rival of the U.S.A. I attend school with Russians that believe they are way better than Americans and dislike Americans for the simple fact that the Soviet Union collapsed.


Just my opinion.

[jonnygreen]

Thanks guys... good thoughts so far! I agree that China will definitely be an economic contender, which will obviously conflict with our interests. On the other hand, I'm not exactly sure how we would go about using military force with a country that has more than 4 times the population and nuclear weapons. We have never been in military conflict with a "super power" that possesses Nukes. Other than the Soviet Union. But we never had direct military confrontation. It was all indirect, such as vietnam, korea, cuba, etc...

I think that is more what I'm getting at.... the less obvious countries. I think, at the moment everyone would initially respond to my question like you guys have. "Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, China, and Saudi Arabia."

So far, my projection is that the military conflicts that we will have in the future will be primarily for humanitarian reasons. In addition to that, there will be increasing tension over finite resources. Pakistan is very probable to me, other than that the countries listed above are most likely not going to be addressed.

North Korea- The cost/benefit is too great (more than Iraq)... we would have to have full commitment

Iran- Same as North Korea and what sirmonty said about it... on top of that, the CIA came out with a report last year stating that all Iran's nuclear technology is committed to energy, not weapons, and it would take years to even start the process of nuclear development. Don't believe everything the Bush administration tells you about Iran (I thought people would know by now)

Saudi Arabia- they are heavily invested into corporate America an attack on them by anyone, hurts us economically... not including they have the largest oil reserves. But I agree, when it comes to civil rights, and the fight on terrorism Saudi Arabia is actually our greatest threat in the middle east. But we aren't going to do anything about it, as you can see every President since Reagan plays grab *** with them...


I can see a chain of indirect conflicts with China in the next decade. maybe in South East Asia or Africa. I know that many out-sourced U.S. jobs in Africa are being taken because of China's influence. If anyone disagrees or has any ideas on specific countries, that would be chill.. keep the ideas flowing

Thanks

[thatguy2695]

China will not be a problem because our economies are heavily reliant on each other and we both have nuclear weapons. Or in another terminology may God have Mercy on us all if a war broke out between the United States and China.

I think Iran is a big possibility thank the Russians for just selling them better Radar and anti Aircraft too. Bastards

Also the Iranians have been able to see the inability for U.S forces to quickly route out the terrorist in Iraq. They have a very Large army that if instructed to go under ground would be a real problem.

Personally I think we need to stop holding back Israel.

[sbd22]

Any war or economic backlash with China would send both economies to the sh**er. My prediction is any third world country that could collapse and harbor terrorists. Not arguing for or against global warming, but increased weather patterns that are hitting the global south have prompted U.S. Generals to plan for increased terrorism in the countries that collapse do to changing climate problems.

[sirmonty]

Personally I think we need to stop holding back Israel.

Well to be fair, I think a lot of the anti-US sentiments in that region are due to the massive military and economic aid we give to Israel. In reality, we probably don't need to be giving them some 84 billion dollars a year. Granted, they are one of the only stable democracies in the the region and a very important and valuable ally, but they certainly aren't perfect and there are other countries that could use some of that aid for humanitarian purposes that would foster more pro-Americanism.


Any war or economic backlash with China would send both economies to the sh**er. My prediction is any third world country that could collapse and harbor terrorists. Not arguing for or against global warming, but increased weather patterns that are hitting the global south have prompted U.S. Generals to plan for increased terrorism in the countries that collapse do to changing climate problems.

^This^

Economic difficulties are probably the fastest way to create terrorists.

[Aram]

I agree, the US is in a precarious position involving China though notsomuch Russia or Pakistan. From the last thing I read with the IAEA, Iran can't make up its mind what it has versus what it says it has. (That has been a month or so ago, so obviously things could have changed.) Although, the increased communication and relations with countries like Uzbekistan, Russia and China is definitely something to watch. Although, what happens with any of these countries in the future is heavily dependent on the election. McCain wasn't my first choice, but he sure as hell is better than Obama.

[WannabeA_Tadpole]

I think Iran could potentially be a problem. A lot of weapons have been found and linked to Iran used by our enemies. Iran also was huge in training and arming Hezbollah, and the word on the street is Iran spies, and Hezbollah militants were spotted in Iraq. Pakistan as a whole is not an issue; the political leader within North West Pakistan however, is a known leader of terrorism. The president of Pakistan is afraid of an uprising if he removes the political leader within NW Pakistan. I do not know why he has not let our military in to take care of business yet. I do not remember the numbers exactly, but I think it was somewhere around 20,000 from NW Pakistan fought against our guys in the initial afghan conflict, I am sure many of them, and even more by now, continue to fight against out soldiers. What is bad about Iran is high ranking military leaders from that country have said "Islam will continue to grow and prosper through the blood of Muslims." They have also made it very clear, and I cannot remember the quotes, that they have a very scary view on what they think Jihad means, and why they are happy it is taking place. In fact one of the first known Muslim suicide bombers was a 13 year old trained from Iran during the Iraq Iran conflict (Iran created a large shrine for this young boy). Iran is linked to training and funding the attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut. Basically Iran is the godfather of training and funding everything we stand against in the Middle East. Many mosques contribute money to the terrorist’s adjenda, but Iran funds many of those mosques. Technically, Iran is an enemy right now.

As for North Korea, I think that is self explanatory. What is scary about China is they receive certain resources from Iran, so that could pose some interesting situations, and could explain why the U.S. has not been more aggressive toward Iran’s open support of terrorism. Russia has been very active lately, but I would be surprised if they were stupid enough to rise against our country again.

As for holding Israel back, I agree it sucks, but there are many reasons for it. Israel is hated by pretty much every country in the Middle East. One reason why Iran is funding and arming terrorist groups against us, and why they helped to create Hezbollah, is because they know we are the reason Israel cannot be invaded. They believe our defeat, is the path to Israel's destruction. And we were the first country to recognize Israel as a true country. I believe one day Israel will be called upon to get deeper into the wars waged in the Middle East. However as soon as Israel joins the conflict, it is theory that countries that are not our enemies right now will become our enemies. Countries in the Middle East that do not share alliances may ally for the simple fact that they believe and almost all agree, Israel should be destroyed. Every conflict going on in the Middle East is connected to many things, and many leaders. It is far more complicated than the media has ever talked about, and I am surprised our government has not tried to explain it better to the people of our country.

[jonnygreen]

I agree, the US is in a precarious position involving China though notsomuch Russia or Pakistan. From the last thing I read with the IAEA, Iran can't make up its mind what it has versus what it says it has. (That has been a month or so ago, so obviously things could have changed.) Although, the increased communication and relations with countries like Uzbekistan, Russia and China is definitely something to watch. Although, what happens with any of these countries in the future is heavily dependent on the election. McCain wasn't my first choice, but he sure as hell is better than Obama.

I checked out the article you were referring to on IAEA's website. That Article is more than 4 years old. Nothing was conclusive, or clear, kind of like your answer. lol... The reality is that there is NO EVIDENCE that Iran has been actively prosuing Nukes! None!... Sound familiar?(Iraq) The CIA report that I am referring to came almost 3 years after the article you're talking about. It states,

"The CIA found no conclusive evidence, as yet, of a secret Iranian nuclear weapons program running parallel to the civilian operations that Iran has declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency," according to the article.

"A current senior intelligence official confirmed the existence of the CIA analysis, and told me that the White House had been hostile to it."


Note: In 2003, the CIA issued a report claiming that Iran was actively prosuing the development of WMD's... In late 2006, the CIA produces another report saying they have no evidence of Iran trying to develop Nukes.

How do you explain this? I think it's pretty obvious... the Bush Administration wants you to think that Iran is a Nuclear threat. George Tenant was the director of the CIA during the first report. And Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz screened all the CIA evidence before it was given to Bush or congress. (Both Iraq & Iran)

I'm just trying to debunk these accusations, cause if I don't now they'll probably crop up another dozen times.

But keep the creativity flowing fellas

`Jonny G.

[joshdupre]

Well if you guys have time and wanted to see what could become of U.S. and China/Noth Korea going to war then check out this older movie called "On The Beach" it has the guy from the movie ****tails that played with Tom Cruise. It is a pretty good movie it maybe hard to find I think it is that way because to many people get upset after watching something like that, check it out.

[Aram]

JonnyGreen - I could swear it was more recent than that. I took the liberty of looking up the article that mentioned the IAEA reports, and it stated that the reports would not have been released until March 3 2008.

Maybe I'm off, it has happened before, right fellas? :)

http://www.upi.com/Security_Industry/2008/03/06/Outside_View_Iran_nuke_showdown/UPI-35651204821947/

JG: I just reread your post, (forgive me, I'm in the middle of writing a paper that is due tomorrow), I wasn't trying to be so obtuse, but what I was trying to say was that Iran has cried wolf for a long time concerning their nuclear capabilities. The reason that the aforementioned article was so intriguing was that Ahmadi-Nejad had repeatedly told the Ayatollah that their program was, to paraphrase, "practically a done deal", but while in reality it was not. He had apparently been warned by Khomeini not to 'mislead' about the program, yet he did again. (or so it seemed).

[WannabeA_Tadpole]

Here are some articles about N Korea and Iran. Regardless of whether Iran wants these weapons, they cannot be trusted.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article4144317.ece

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,246584,00.html

[jdoleac]

Someone pointed out Central Asia, or the -stans (Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, etc.), in a previous post. These places are largely Muslim in their demographic and exhibit various levels of cooperation and hostility toward the west. There is also speculation that there are fairly rich oil deposits in this region, but it is hard for commercially sponsored engineers to get inside safely and evaluate their potential. Nevertheless, there is immediate strategic value to these countries for both the U.S. and Islamic militants. In the near future, depending on how OIF and OEF develop, there will be a race for the hearts and minds, and to some extent the economies of these nations and nations like Indonesia (the most heavily populated Muslim country in the world). The larger and more obvious threats such as Iran are most likely going to remain simply that, threats. Currently and historically, there is a great deal of posturing that goes on between countries of larger nations. Armed conflict is usually a last resort, even if the ideologies are so drastically different as to suggest an impossibility of future cooperation on even the smallest levels. There is a good book about Central Asia called [I]Jihad: The Rise of Militant Islam in Central Asia [I]by Ahmed Rashid, who wrote a good book about the Taliban as well.

[imddrummer]

SIRMONTY- I'm not sure what he was referring to. He didn't offer details, so I didn't ask. I was telling him about my interest in maybe joining the FBI. He suggested learning a foreign language. He said everyone has learned Arabic and all the middle eastern languages, but forgotten about China. He said he would suggest learning Chinese before Arabic or Farsic. I was listning to Neal Boortz (libertarian talk show host) the other day, and he mentioned that, get this, CHINA WAS TRYING TO GET A 100 YEAR LEASE ON THE GULF OF MEXICO TO DRILL FOR OIL!!!!!!! It makes me angry just to think about how Mexico is drilling in the gulf and selling it to us, and now China.....And the environmentalists say we're going to "harm the environment". Well we would drill a whole hell of a lot cleaner than China! You really think they care about the Gulf of Mexico??? And don't even get me started on Alaska.

ARAM- I'm rght with you on the election. McCain wasn't near my first choice fo the Republican candidate (I liked Fred) but he sure is better than Obama.

[pipelinesurfer]

guys, we have WAAAY too many problems in this country now(and more on the way) to be thinking about the next international one.

im no ron paul, (we're an international, powerful nation, we need to exhibit an international presence) but we need to focus on fixing the problems HERE in the USA before jumping into another cluster**** elsewhere.

on a side note, oil is on the way out, we've burned up half of all oil reserves ON EARTH!!! we need to begin development of cellulosic ethanol, or get the damn hydrogen industry into gear. then we need to share that technology with india and...dun, dun, dun... CHINA!!!!! i hate to sound like a ***** environmentalist, but if we don't do something about climate change, we're ****ed. especially me living in SoFla!

just my view

[imddrummer]

Yes we do have lots of problems to fix here, but this thread is about thoughts on international conflicts. Yes we do need to develope other fuel sources, but until then, oil it is! And right now, it costs way too much to fill up my car! And nothing we do is going to stop any global warming, plain and simple. The only thing we will do by trying to regulate everything is ruin the economy.

[pipelinesurfer]

Yes we do have lots of problems to fix here, but this thread is about thoughts on international conflicts.

point taken. but i feel as though there is a sweeping epidemic in America of impatience. We want everything done RIGHT now(fast food, plastic surgery, high speed internet(lol) etc) and since we dont want to face the real problems, we substitute military conflicts which politicians can show tangible evidence of action taking place. so then the general pop. feels comforted, "we're making the world a better place!" and doesnt pay attention to life threatening issues choosing instead to watch american idol and "reality t.v."

Yes we do need to develope other fuel sources, but until then, oil it is! And right now, it costs way too much to fill up my car!And nothing we do is going to stop any global warming, plain and simple.

but thats the kind of attitude getting us in deep ****. we need to help make the change, not just sit by and talk about it and say "thats how it is". you are right about global warming though, we cant STOP it, but we should try to slow it. if we just continue with a "**** it" attitude we can kiss our butts goodbye. if we slow it our lives will change, but they will go on.

The only thing we will do by trying to regulate everything is ruin the economy.

im not really sure what you mean by this. also, not sure how much more damage can be done to the economy, ~9 trillion in debt anyone?

[jonnygreen]

JonnyGreen - I could swear it was more recent than that. I took the liberty of looking up the article that mentioned the IAEA reports, and it stated that the reports would not have been released until March 3 2008.

Maybe I'm off, it has happened before, right fellas? :)

http://www.upi.com/Security_Industry/2008/03/06/Outside_View_Iran_nuke_showdown/UPI-35651204821947/

JG: I just reread your post, (forgive me, I'm in the middle of writing a paper that is due tomorrow), I wasn't trying to be so obtuse, but what I was trying to say was that Iran has cried wolf for a long time concerning their nuclear capabilities. The reason that the aforementioned article was so intriguing was that Ahmadi-Nejad had repeatedly told the Ayatollah that their program was, to paraphrase, "practically a done deal", but while in reality it was not. He had apparently been warned by Khomeini not to 'mislead' about the program, yet he did again. (or so it seemed).


Hey Aram-Sorry about the misunderstanding on the report. I went to the actual IAEA website and the closest article to what you were describing was in 2003. Anyways, neither of us are wrong... Iran is pretty much being a dip-s**t. But on the other hand, this last fall the CIA reported that there is no evidence of a nuclear weapons program/threat. That was the only point I was trying to make. The President of Iran promised his people greater success in the nuclear program than he has reached, so of course he is going to spew rhetoric that keeps the rest of the middle east and his people thinking he's packin nukes. That's my interpretation of it at least. I could be wrong. Good luck on your paper!

[sickle]

My friend in the State Department told me that China would be an issue in the future...

China is too smart to fight with us. They'd rather take our money instead.

[sirmonty]

Basically Iran is the godfather of training and funding everything we stand against in the Middle East.

Actually, I think the ultra-conservatist branches of Islam (you know, the uber fundamentalists that breed terrorism) came out of Wahhabism, which originated in Saudi Arabia. If anyone is probably the godfather of state sponsered terrorism it is the Saudis.

Remember, the majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis....

Don't get me wrong, Iran has it's share of radicals, but they also have a much more democratic system than the Saudis....

[jonnygreen]

pipelinesurfer & imddrummer- I agree that the world is addicted to oil and will not be making changes anytime soon. It's true, that at this point in time, oil prices are f**king us economically. Finally, it true that conflicts for years to come will be driven by oil. Now that said...

There was a congressional committee on CSPAN the other day on Alternative fuels and Global warming (half Republicans & half Dems).. There was little or no dispute on these facts

1) Offshore oil drilling in the U.S. is not the answer.. U.S. oil companies want you to think that it will lower oil prices, but it wont. Logically you would think, "increased supply, therefore cheaper prices," right? Usually, but in this case no.. We have tried it before in the 70's and 80's. Historically there is no evidence of decreased prices. There is not sufficient oil reserves in the U.S. to stimulate those price drops. Sorry!

2) Ethanol is just as bad for the environment and the economy. Not the way to go... with some of the corn production going to ethanol and another large chunk ruined from that giant midwest flood we are looking at higher ethanol prices and food prices across the board.

3) Only 100,000 windmills would produce enough energy to power all U.S. transportation if we were to have all electric vehicles. an electric vehicle costs slightly more than a hybrid to produce and can get more than 100 miles, some more than 300 mile off one charge. (this is current technology)

taking these numbers into account, and knowing that the investment into full alaskan and U.S. offshore drilling would be roughly the same investment as the windmills I just mentioned. It doesn't make much sense why we would stay addicted to oil. It's undisputed that gas prices are going to continue to rise no matter what we do. They longer we stay in denial the harder the landing is going to be when we realized we f**ked up.

We need a boost of leadership in this area guys! Right before we committed to WWII we had less than 30,000 planes... In turn, we quickly produced 300,000 planes for war. We can do that, but we can't build a lousy 100,000 windmills and subsidize the car manufacturers to build electric????

Global warming is as eminent of a threat as lighting a stick of dynamite!!!

But lets try and keep this forum more on topic gents...

[jonnygreen]

Actually, I think the ultra-conservatist branches of Islam (you know, the uber fundamentalists that breed terrorism) came out of Wahhabism, which originated in Saudi Arabia. If anyone is probably the godfather of state sponsered terrorism it is the Saudis.

Remember, the majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis....

Don't get me wrong, Iran has it's share of radicals, but they also have a much more democratic system than the Saudis....

totally concur sirmonty!

[sirmonty]

I say legalize hemp. The biofuels we could produce with that would help out tremendously.

Plus, it doesn't cause the soil problems other crops used for biofuels do and it is a bi-annual crop....

Obviously it probably isn't a be all and end all solution to our problems, but it seems to me to be a better alternative than about anything else out there at the moment.

[pipelinesurfer]

pipelinesurfer & imddrummer- I agree that the world is addicted to oil and will not be making anytime soon. It's true, that at this point in time, oil prices are f**king us economically. Finally, it true that conflicts for years to come will be driven by oil. Now that said...

There was a congressional committee on CSPAN the other day on Alternative fuels and Global warming (half Republicans & half Dems).. There was little or no dispute on these facts

1) Offshore oil drilling in the U.S. is not the answer.. U.S. oil companies want you to think that it will lower oil prices but it wont. Logically you would think, "increased supply, therefore less demand," right? Usually, but in this case no.. We have tried it before in the 70's and 80's. Historically there is no evidence of decreased prices. There is not sufficient oil reserves in the U.S. to stimulate those price drops. Sorry!

2) Ethanol is just as bad for the environment and the economy. Not the way to go... with some of the corn production going to ethanol and another large chunk ruined from that giant midwest flood we are looking at higher ethanol prices and food prices across the board.

3) Only 100,000 windmills would produce enough energy to power all U.S. transportation if we were to have all electric vehicles. an electric vehicle costs slightly more than a hybrid to produce and can get more than 100 miles, some more than 300 mile off one charge. (this is current technology)

taking these numbers into account, and knowing that the investment into full alaskan and U.S. offshore drilling would be roughly the same investment as the windmills I just mentioned. It doesn't make much sense why we would stay addicted to oil. It's undisputed that gas prices are going to continue to rise no matter what we do. They longer we stay in denial the harder the landing is going to be when we realized we f**ked up.

Global warming is as eminent of a threat of lighting a stick of dynamite!!!

But lets try and keep this forum more on topic gents...

sorry, had to chime in again.

1) COMPLETELY AGREE!!!! thank you! lmao, we could drill in ANWR, the gulf and anywhere else, demand elsewhere and greed will not let prices down.
my prediction: in about 3 to 5 months, probably the latter(election time) the Fed will announce an increase in interest rates. "magically" gas prices will drop ~$1.00. after ~ 2-3 months at the most, prices will begin increasing, and NEVER come down again.

2) Corn ethanol and youre right, however i was talking about cellulosic. there are 3 types, corn based, sugar based(which they are using successfully in Brazil) and cellulosic. Cellulosic is MUCH more efficient, and viable.

3) Just look at the success of the EV1, too bad it was sabotaged by Detroit.

to keep this post more "on topic": with regards to both Saudi Arabia and mainly Iran, they would be insane to start a conflict with us. the riches theyre getting for their oil now??? if we were to go to war with them, they know we'd close the Straight of Hormuz, which would be catastrophic for the oil trade.

however, do some research on the Sunburn missile, of which Russia has sold an undisclosed amount to Iran. no adequate missile defense system to stop them.

[sirmonty]

1) COMPLETELY AGREE!!!! thank you! lmao, we could drill in ANWR, the gulf and anywhere else, demand elsewhere and greed will not let prices down.
my prediction: in about 3 to 5 months, probably the latter(election time) the Fed will announce an increase in interest rates. "magically" gas prices will drop ~$1.00. after ~ 2-3 months at the most, prices will begin increasing, and NEVER come down again.

Wouldn't suprise me at all.

Personally, I think the Fed is one of the main culprits of our economic problems.....

Hey can you tell I'm a fan of Ron Paul....? :P

[imddrummer]

JG- It is estimated that there are 10 billion barrels of oil in ANWR. That would eliminate the oil imported from Saudi Arabia for a few years. That said, do you not think th Saudis would drop the price on their oil when they see us getting it from other sources? They thrive on our business. Right now we're putting billions into the country most of the 9/11 hijackers came from.

[mike09]

Here's my opinion:

-Iran, for their nuclear program and activity in Iraqi insurgencies.
-Pakistan, for housing Taliban and other terrorists
-Africa, because so many of the countries in Africa are failed states, the genocide in Darfur, and the intercontinental conflicts, I believe the U.S. (and its allies) will probably step in at some point, because the U.N. certainly isn't providing sufficient support to the areas most in need

[WannabeA_Tadpole]

Actually, I think the ultra-conservatist branches of Islam (you know, the uber fundamentalists that breed terrorism) came out of Wahhabism, which originated in Saudi Arabia. If anyone is probably the godfather of state sponsered terrorism it is the Saudis.

Remember, the majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis....

Don't get me wrong, Iran has it's share of radicals, but they also have a much more democratic system than the Saudis....

Yes I agree on the Saudi issue, but if you do some research, most of the funding, arming, and training is coming from Iran, not just Iran, but the government. Other funding is coming from mosques. Therefore they are a bigger issue than the Saudis, at least as of right now. Those Saudi hijackers received funding from their terrorist group, I bet some of that money, came from Iran. The Saudis are not fully involved on a government level, Iran is and has been for a longer time than most people know. And once again for individuals talking of Pakistan. Their government is not fully involved either, it is a small portion that cannot be controlled. If their top government officials tried to do anything to NW Pakistan’s government leaders, a cluster-**** of problems would rise. Within many of the countries named, most of violence is taking place on a religious level, meaning the mosques are funding, and somewhat training. Pakistan is a prime example of this. Many of the major mosques in Pakistan can be linked to our enemies, however, no one can touch them right now. It is a crazy issue, we are not really fighting terrorists, we are actually fighting a decent portion of an entire religion. A study was done on a group of countries not too long ago that proved over 110,000,000 Muslims believe suicide bombing is sometimes/often justified. I believe the study was done around 2007. Even though that is a small percent of the worldwide Muslim population that is a large number. And 25% of US Muslims under the age of 30 support suicide bombings to some capacity. You will see small percentages here or there spoken of by the media, but if those small percents that have been proven to have some hostile tendencies, decided to stand up against our country, that small percent can represent millions of crazed lunatics. This issue is much deeper in **** than most of us can even begin to imagine. I believe that most future conflicts will deal with these people and their allies.

[jonnygreen]

JG- It is estimated that there are 10 billion barrels of oil in ANWR. That would eliminate the oil imported from Saudi Arabia for a few years. That said, do you not think th Saudis would drop the price on their oil when they see us getting it from other sources? They thrive on our business. Right now we're putting billions into the country most of the 9/11 hijackers came from.


The 1993 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study indicated at least 4.3 billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8 billion (5% probability) barrels (0.9 to 2.5 km³) of technically recoverable oil exists in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 1002 area.

The estimate for ANWAR reserves was revised downward by the USGS in late 2004 to roughly 0.173 billion barrels of oil and 0.127 billion barrels of natural gas.

Enough said for that.. It's not enough to do anything. Obviously!!

We are already drilling all of our largest reserves. In the late 70's we had 40 billion barrels, and now we only have 20. Not including these are very expensive barrels. Production cost is waaaaay more here than in the middle east. Like I said, we tried this once before, we opened up off shore drilling in the 70's and it didn't lower prices. If it didn't do it then, with the numbers I've just gave, it doesn't make any since why it would drop prices now. Especially that fuel demand is just going to increase.

We use roughly 8 billion barrels of oil each year. We can't just suck up all the oil at once! Even if offshore drilling gave us almost a billion barrels a year more than what we've been producing (which it wont) you think a lousy 5-10% increase in production is going to drop prices??? (more expensive production) I think not, and the statisions, scientists, and the congressional committee that I was referring drew the same conclusion


But if we can, lets keep this forum on topic

[jonnygreen]

Here's my opinion:

-Iran, for their nuclear program and activity in Iraqi insurgencies.
-Pakistan, for housing Taliban and other terrorists
-Africa, because so many of the countries in Africa are failed states, the genocide in Darfur, and the intercontinental conflicts, I believe the U.S. (and its allies) will probably step in at some point, because the U.N. certainly isn't providing sufficient support to the areas most in need

-Iran, their nuclear program is under too much scrutiny by U.N., IAEA, and the CIA for a weapons program to go under our noses. They are not a direct threat to us... I do agree that they are a security issue when it comes to the Iraqi insurgency though. So that is a legit reason

-Pakistan, I concur with this.. except it's not so much the government that we would be in conflict with, but the terrorist within Pakistan. We would basically tell the government, "step aside, we're going to conduct operation, and you don't want to mess with us"

-Africa, I totally concur on this one

As environmental conditions worsen, population increases, and natural resources decrease in Africa and elsewhere, there will be more conflicts and genocides occurring in third world countries.

[Aram]

I sometimes wonder if there was a way to re-organize the continent of Africa. I feel that whole issue of nation/state and the overlapping boundaries is the main cause of the conflict.

[pipelinesurfer]

I sometimes wonder if there was a way to re-organize the continent of Africa. I feel that whole issue of nation/state and the overlapping boundaries is the main cause of the conflict.

Colonialism, caused more problems than i care to think about.

[mike09]

-Pakistan, I concur with this.. except it's not so much the government that we would be in conflict with, but the terrorist within Pakistan. We would basically tell the government, "step aside, we're going to conduct operation, and you don't want to mess with us"


I agree, but the Pakistani government is part of the problem. They are a strong Coalition ally, and that is a reason for not telling them to step aside (at least not yet). I believe it was Barack Obama who said if he knew that UBL was in Pakistan, he would be willing to go in to Pakistan to get him without the mutual consent of the Pakistani government. That statement alone is a testament to his inexperience(if you are an Obama supporter, that's just my opinion, I'm not trying to start a debate :). ) and it even stirred up controversey between the U.S. and Pakistan.
Just my input :)

[mike09]

Colonialism, caused more problems than i care to think about.

I could NOT agree more.

[jonnygreen]

I agree, but the Pakistani government is part of the problem. They are a strong Coalition ally, and that is a reason for not telling them to step aside (at least not yet). I believe it was Barack Obama who said if he knew that UBL was in Pakistan, he would be willing to go in to Pakistan to get him without the mutual consent of the Pakistani government. That statement alone is a testament to his inexperience(if you are an Obama supporter, that's just my opinion, I'm not trying to start a debate :). ) and it even stirred up controversey between the U.S. and Pakistan.
Just my input :)

mike09- I'm not sure what your point is?

1) You say, "Pakistani government is part of the problem." Well, if the Pakistani government is part of the problem, then wouldn't we have conflict with the government? This claim seems to support U.S. conflict with the Pakistani Government

2) Then you say, "They are a strong coalition ally." First off, this statement seems to contradict your previous. I agree that we are on peaceful terms with the Pakistani government... but "Ally"? The government does not want to fully cooperate with us. They harbor a s**t load of terrorists, most likely including UBL.

If you could articulate how Obama's statement is a bad move and why "it's a testament to his inexperience"... I'm all ears =)


=) Jonny G.

[WannabeA_Tadpole]

mike09- I'm not sure what your point is?

If you could articulate how Obama's statement is a bad move and why "it's a testament to his inexperience"... I'm all ears =)


=) Jonny G.

Read this whole comment before you reply:

Because anyone who knows how Pakistan works, and knows how making a forced entry could ruin relations with Middle Eastern allies, would never make a statement like that. Friends in the Middle East would not see it as us trying to take out a couple bad guys, they could take it as us invading a country we are supposed to have friendly relations with. As we try to win the hearts and minds of the Afghans this could be a bad move. What we want to do with Pakistan right now, is continue to talk with them, the majority of Pakistan is somewhat considered friends at this point. Right now the government of Pakistan is keeping the bad guys in the North West, out of office within that country. Pakistan has nuclear weapons, if we go in there and break the stability, the people of Pakistan may gain trust for the bad guys and see them as a defense against what they could believe to be an invading army. They could potentially get the individuals who represent the North West Pakistan into government office(these individuals within the NW have the power to run for office). The representatives within NW Pakistan, have made it clear they are willing to stand against America, if we give the people of Pakistan a reason to stand behind them, and they sneak into full control of the Government, they will have control of nuclear weapons. By keeping relations with Pakistan we keep relations with their military, by keeping relations with their military, we keep relations with most of the people, by keeping relations with most of the people, we keep the *******s in the NW on a leash. It is a very simple concept that any leader with a brain should notice. I personally think when the time is right, Pakistan will let us take out NW Pakistan. Until then, we are playing an extremely sensitive game of chess, and the wrong move, could cause more damage than good.

That is why Obama is a total wank on his foreign issues. He even said he wants to go into diplomacy talks with Iran, like that has not already been done.

[jdoleac]

For anyone that tells you history is boring or asks why it matters, they need look no further than Africa or the Middle East to understand how colonialism's influence is as strong today as it was over a century ago. The Congress of Berlin (1885) essentially carved up Africa among the European powers based on topographic and political considerations and whatever territorial claims had been made to that point. Many of the boudaries drawn then exist today and not a single one was based with consideration toward ethnic or cultural distinctions among the indigenous.

The League of Nations set up different Mandates during its first conferences in the early 1920s. One of these mandates called for the reorganization of the holdings of the old Ottoman Empire (present-day Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Palestine, Arabia, Egypt) into arbitrarily and artificially drawn territories without cultural consideration that would be supervised by Europen powers (the victors in WWI-France, England) until they were deemed capable of running their own government (in reality, until they were no longer useful.)

So, absolutely, colonialism has quite a bit to do with why we are where we are today. Sorry for the history lesson.

[mike09]

Read this whole comment before you reply:

Because anyone who knows how Pakistan works, and knows how making a forced entry could ruin relations with Middle Eastern allies, would never make a statement like that. Friends in the Middle East would not see it as us trying to take out a couple bad guys, they could take it as us invading a country we are supposed to have friendly relations with. As we try to win the hearts and minds of the Afghans this could be a bad move. What we want to do with Pakistan right now, is continue to talk with them, the majority of Pakistan is somewhat considered friends at this point. Right now the government of Pakistan is keeping the bad guys in the North West, out of office within that country. Pakistan has nuclear weapons, if we go in there and break the stability, the people of Pakistan may gain trust for the bad guys and see them as a defense against what they could believe to be an invading army. They could potentially get the individuals who represent the North West Pakistan into government office(these individuals within the NW have the power to run for office). The representatives within NW Pakistan, have made it clear they are willing to stand against America, if we give the people of Pakistan a reason to stand behind them, and they sneak into full control of the Government, they will have control of nuclear weapons. By keeping relations with Pakistan we keep relations with their military, by keeping relations with their military, we keep relations with most of the people, by keeping relations with most of the people, we keep the *******s in the NW on a leash. It is a very simple concept that any leader with a brain should notice. I personally think when the time is right, Pakistan will let us take out NW Pakistan. Until then, we are playing an extremely sensitive game of chess, and the wrong move, could cause more damage than good.

That is why Obama is a total wank on his foreign issues. He even said he wants to go into diplomacy talks with Iran, like that has not already been done.

Haha, wow, Tadpole got here before I could respond, but yeah, there it is for you. Like I said, I'm not trying to start a debate about the candidates, but it would a completely idiotic move to make a move into a country without a mutual agreement. Very well put, Tadpole

[mike09]

mike09- I'm not sure what your point is?

1) You say, "Pakistani government is part of the problem." Well, if the Pakistani government is part of the problem, then wouldn't we have conflict with the government? This claim seems to support U.S. conflict with the Pakistani Government

2) Then you say, "They are a strong coalition ally." First off, this statement seems to contradict your previous. I agree that we are on peaceful terms with the Pakistani government... but "Ally"? The government does not want to fully cooperate with us. They harbor a s**t load of terrorists, most likely including UBL.

If you could articulate how Obama's statement is a bad move and why "it's a testament to his inexperience"... I'm all ears =)


=) Jonny G.


In regards to number 1, the Pakistani Government's unwillingness to allow U.S. Troops in to recover terrorists is what makes them part of the problem. However, negotiating is how to deal with the Pakistani Government's role in this, not forcing our way in without any consent.


Ok, what Tadpole said covers most of 2, but let me elaborate. The way I worded it was incorrect, I should've said 'strong ally TO the Coalition'. By this I mean the peaceful terms we are on with them are very beneficial, and we would not want to break that by just walking in their borders and doing as we please. The backlash from that could, just as Tadpole said, become anti-Americanism and support of terrorist organizations or other potential enemies. Negotiations are the key to extracting these terrorists right now. BTW, just to share, I saw something interesting on the news the other day about the Afghan government's mounting impatience with the harboring of terrorists in Pakistan. I wonder what will come out of their impatience...but anyways, just something I thought I'd share. I hope what Tadpole and I said cleared up any misunderstandings you had :D

[jonnygreen]

Read this whole comment before you reply:

Because anyone who knows how Pakistan works, and knows how making a forced entry could ruin relations with Middle Eastern allies, would never make a statement like that. Friends in the Middle East would not see it as us trying to take out a couple bad guys, they could take it as us invading a country we are supposed to have friendly relations with. As we try to win the hearts and minds of the Afghans this could be a bad move. What we want to do with Pakistan right now, is continue to talk with them, the majority of Pakistan is somewhat considered friends at this point. Right now the government of Pakistan is keeping the bad guys in the North West, out of office within that country. Pakistan has nuclear weapons, if we go in there and break the stability, the people of Pakistan may gain trust for the bad guys and see them as a defense against what they could believe to be an invading army. They could potentially get the individuals who represent the North West Pakistan into government office(these individuals within the NW have the power to run for office). The representatives within NW Pakistan, have made it clear they are willing to stand against America, if we give the people of Pakistan a reason to stand behind them, and they sneak into full control of the Government, they will have control of nuclear weapons. By keeping relations with Pakistan we keep relations with their military, by keeping relations with their military, we keep relations with most of the people, by keeping relations with most of the people, we keep the *******s in the NW on a leash. It is a very simple concept that any leader with a brain should notice. I personally think when the time is right, Pakistan will let us take out NW Pakistan. Until then, we are playing an extremely sensitive game of chess, and the wrong move, could cause more damage than good.

That is why Obama is a total wank on his foreign issues. He even said he wants to go into diplomacy talks with Iran, like that has not already been done.

Read this fellas...

Main article: State-sponsored terrorism#Pakistan

Intelligence agencies around the world have long suspected Pakistan as a source of extremism and terrorism. It has recently been revealed that Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, a top scientist involved with Pakistan's nuclear program has been selling nuclear technologies to Iran, North Korea and Libya. Khan was tried within Pakistan. It is unclear whether the state has been involved with his dealings. Pakistan has used Islamist militants to fight its wars in Afghanistan and Kashmir. The Government of Pakistan is accused by India of having supplied monetary aid to certain terrorist organizations fighting for secession in Kashmir. It has strongly denied the latter. However some statements have claimed the involvement of Pakistan's Federal Minister for Railways, Sheikh Rashid Ahmed, in establishing terrorist training camps in the early stages of the war many years ago. American intelligence sources, mainly the FBI claims that there are "terrorist training camps" in Pakistan and that the terrorists come to Pakistan from all over the globe. In Pakistan, most modernized infrastructure of terrorist training exists, supported by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) in terms of money, ideological training, and moral support. Many other nations and nonpartisan sources also state that Pakistan is one of the perpetrators of state-sponsored terrorism by providing help to Kashmiri and other terrorist outfits with connections to Al-Qaeda.

Okay, that is waaaaayy more proof and justification to invade Pakistan than it was for Iraq and Afghanistan, let alone just conducting a few operations in their country. Yes, we are on peaceful terms with the "State" of Pakistan, but they are playing a "rope a dope" politics. They try to appear compliant to the U.S., but for anyone who looks in depth on the subject knows that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are the top contributers to fanatic Islam and terrorist organizations. Yet, we play grab a** with both... because SA has Oil and Pakistan has Nukes.

I am not supporting U.S. involvement in Pakistan at this time. However, for you guys being supporters of our efforts to capture UBL as well as a supporters of our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan (either or) Both of you guys are being very hypocritical with your arguments. Not to say that some of your arguments aren't legit. But if we had actual intelligence of UBL's whereabouts, at this time, we cannot trust the Pakistani government to conduct the mission themselves. It's obvious that at their core, they are more sympathetic to their radical Islam population. (which is way more significant than Afghanistan, Iraq, and even Indonesia which has the largest muslim population in the world)

We, the U.S., have a long track record of getting involved in governments that we had no conflict with. Nicaragua and Guatemala for example... Not saying that is a good idea, but it's not new..

I am not supporting significant involvement in Pakistan (an invasion), rogue agents running around, nor keeping Pakistan out of the loop.

Last thing, there is No evidence that supports the claim that there would be any significant reprocutions from conducting a mission or two within Pakistan. If we are "Allies" with Pakistan.... If they are a "significant component to our coalition" then they should not have any problem with us ridding them of UBL and a few other high key terrorists, now would they... or at least allow us to combine forces on those key missions that are vital to U.S. interests.

PS. Your mention of the Pakistani Government being good for us... that government id a dictatorship bud... and like I've said previously, they are very sympathetic to terrorism behind closed doors (if not funding them) and this is claim is supported by actual evidence by a s**t load of nations... unlike our justification for Iraq

PSS. and you're comment about Iran.. "He even said he wants to go into diplomacy talks with Iran, like that has not already been done." lol... What is the harm in exhausting all diplomacy efforts before making the decision to use force??? It's unproductive and increases the likelihood of military conflict arising if you don't exhaust the diplomacy effort.

[jonnygreen]

In regards to number 1, the Pakistani Government's unwillingness to allow U.S. Troops in to recover terrorists is what makes them part of the problem. However, negotiating is how to deal with the Pakistani Government's role in this, not forcing our way in without any consent.


Ok, what Tadpole said covers most of 2, but let me elaborate. The way I worded it was incorrect, I should've said 'strong ally TO the Coalition'. By this I mean the peaceful terms we are on with them are very beneficial, and we would not want to break that by just walking in their borders and doing as we please. The backlash from that could, just as Tadpole said, become anti-Americanism and support of terrorist organizations or other potential enemies. Negotiations are the key to extracting these terrorists right now. BTW, just to share, I saw something interesting on the news the other day about the Afghan government's mounting impatience with the harboring of terrorists in Pakistan. I wonder what will come out of their impatience...but anyways, just something I thought I'd share. I hope what Tadpole and I said cleared up any misunderstandings you had :D

Oh, and the anti-Americanism you speak of... there is already a s**t load of it. Especially in Pakistan! UBL was pretty much the entire reason we got involved with the global war on terror and fighting two fully committed wars in the middle east.

That said, Our involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan, Giving Isreal 90 billion a year for their military, threats of war on a daily basis towards Iran individually, let alone as a whole have stimulated waaaay more Anti-Americanism than a mission to get UBL in Pakistan would ever come close to.

This has been my whole point with both of your arguments. You guys aren't consistent in anyway..

You say "diplomacy is the only answer with Pakistan" then you turn around and say, "That is why Obama is a total wank.... he wants to go into diplomacy talks with Iran, like that has not already been done."

The terrorists in Pakistan are actually a greater threat than Iran and they are most likely harboring UBL, which was the entire point of our middle east involvement. And if you are worrying about Anti-Americanism and it's reprocutions then why do you support threats of war towards Iran which actually has way more pro-American population than Pakistan.

Not saying some arguments aren't legit. But you guys are just really inconsistent with nearly everyone of your arguments.

[WannabeA_Tadpole]

ONCE AGAIN,

Portions of Pakistan’s government are involved with terrorism, already said that and it has been known for a long time. We have been trying to deal with that for a long time. If we betray the part of the government that actually gives a ****, the part that does not give a **** will take office, and will assume control of nuclear weapons. The part that does not give a **** can sell bad plans to bad guys right now, and that is a bad thing, but it is better than giving them control of nuclear weapons. I am sure for the most part we cannot fully install our trust into any country over there except Israel. We probably would have done something about Pakistan if it was not for the instability issues that will come with it.
I have never said anything about trusting Pakistan. I said anyone with a brain will do what they have to, in order to evade a nuclear war. I can almost promise you right now, if we step on the wrong toes in Pakistan, Perez Musharraf will be over thrown. Musharraf has said he is afraid of taking certain action due to the fact that the current government can be overthrown, if the bad guys who snaked their way into the government continue to gain followers. We do not want that government to be overthrown my friend, because that government comes with nuclear weapons, and at the current moment, we kind of have a little control over that government. Once Musharraf gives us the ok, instability will still be an issue, but at least the Pakastani military will have our backs as well. If your home boy Obama Hussein pulls some the rabbits he has up his *** to the playing board, and forces into that country, he is risking a great deal of trust throughout the middle east. It is not a matter of whether it is justified to invade Pakistan at the moment or not, it is that fact that it is too complicated to force entry without the backing of Musharraf. That government is not organized, some of their government is allied with us, and a smaller but dangerous portion is allied with the bad guys. Honor and love of country does not exist for the most part in the Middle East, most of them are broken into religious armies.
The difference between Pakistan and Iraq, is we knew Iraq would fall apart real quick, allowing us to control their next “Government” move. They had chemical weapons, no one can deny that, that has been proven. However these weapons had no quick transportation means to our country or Israel. The nukes in Pakistan can reach Israel for sure, and we cannot allow that. Basically, Pakistan requires a little more respect in terms of tactical intervention, because they can cause a bigger threat. And Musharraf has given us no reason not to remain friendly toward the majority of that country. The only problem is we cannot go into the North West portion, where a lot of the terrorist camps are located near. When the time comes though I think it will not be an issue.
Musharraf himself has said he is afraid of being overthrown by his own country. Stability there is hanging by a thread. Rushing in there with guns blazing would not exactly help that thread remain very strong. NW Pakistan is gaining followers, but you have to understand it is not throughout the entire government. NW Pakistan is gaining followers from the civilians that live near there. If the population of followers for the NW increases too much, that government will be overthrown. I have a sneaking suspicion if we go behind Musharraf’s back and invade, some of the people will believe he is incapable of controlling his own country, and they will support the NW representatives for their President. At the very least the part we have to worry about, does not control the nuclear weapons and that is all that matters at the point.
And as far as I can see no one said Pakistan is good for anything, alls we have said is a majority of their government if pretty friendly with us right now. That friendly portion is keeping control of around 90%-95% of that country. I would rather not unleash the other 5-10% without having the proper strategies planned.
SUMMARY: Afghanistan and Iraq did not have control of Nuclear weapons, Pakistan does. Iraq’s president did not comply with anything, Musharraf tries to help as much as possible. Afghanistan’s government let us invade, Pakistan’s president is very worried about us doing so. Afghanistan’s military is helping us fight and this helped portray a good picture. If Musharraf lets Pakistan’s military fight, we should definitely take the bad guys down, until then talking will not hurt… At least for a little while.
There is no consistency with Pakistan because the government is not constant. Once again Iran does not have nukes yet, their president is a total wack job. Pakistan’s President tries to comply with almost anything we ask of him, ONCE AGAIN SO YOU DO NOT FORGET, Musharraf is afraid of actions within that country due to stability and the ABILITY FOR THE NW TO TAKE CONTROL OF NUKES. I do not understand exactly how you do not agree with everything I am saying because, this is not an issue of whether I am right or wrong, because I just said the right way. The entire government of Iran is involved in the bad stuff. Only around 10 percent of Pakistan’s government is involved in bad stuff. But that 10% can do a lot of damage if we listened to people like you.

[WannabeA_Tadpole]

Notice the part where it says "and launched rocket attacks in the North-West Frontier province and Tribal areas." NORTH WEST, they are the issue.


"Denunciation of extremism
On January 12, 2002, Musharraf gave a landmark speech against Islamic extremism. He unequivocally condemned all acts of terrorism and pledged to combat Islamic extremism and lawlessness within Pakistan itself.

At the same time as banning foreign funding of Islamic educational institutions, he made it compulsory for them to teach a whole host of additional subjects such as computing. This meant that many had to close due to the halt of funds from Pakistanis working abroad resulting in not being able to teach the additional subjects that he had made compulsory. Musharraf also instituted prohibitions on foreign students' access to studying Islam within Pakistan, an effort which began as an outright ban but was later reduced to restrictions on obtaining visas.[23]

On September 17, 2005, Musharraf made a historic speech before a broad based audience of Jewish leadership, sponsored by the American Jewish Congress's Council for World Jewry, in New York City.[citation needed] In the speech, he denounced terrorism and opened the door to relationships between Pakistan and Israel, as well as between the Muslim world and Jews worldwide. He was widely criticized by Middle Eastern Arab leaders and Muslim clerics, but was met with some praise among Jewish leadership.[24]

On September 13, 2007, 300 Pakistani troops were captured by Islamic militants. Terrorists then bombed Musharraf's own SSG unit, killing 16, and launched rocket attacks in the North-West Frontier province and Tribal areas.


Assassination attempts
On December 14, 2003, Musharraf survived an assassination attempt when a powerful bomb went off minutes after his highly-guarded convoy crossed a bridge in Rawalpindi. It was the third such attempt during his four-year rule. On December 25, 2003, two suicide bombers tried to assassinate Musharraf, but their car bombs failed to kill him; 16 others nearby died instead.[25] Musharraf escaped with only a cracked windscreen on his car. Militant Amjad Farooqi was apparently suspected of being the mastermind behind these attempts, and was killed by Pakistani forces in 2004 after an extensive manhunt.

On July 6, 2007, there was another attempted assassination, when an unknown group fired a 7.62 submachine gun at Musharraf's plane as it took off from a runway in Rawalpindi. Security also recovered 2 anti-aircraft guns, from which no shots had been fired.[26] On July 17, 2007, Pakistani police detained 39 people in relation to the attempted assassination of Musharraf.[27] They were detained at an undisclosed location by a joint team of Punjab Police, the Federal Investigation Agency and other Pakistani intelligence agencies.[28]"

"Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, Musharraf sided with the United States against the Taliban government in Afghanistan after an ultimatum by U.S. President George W. Bush. Musharraf agreed to give the United States the use of three airbases for Operation Enduring Freedom. Secretary of State Colin Powell and other administration officials met with Musharraf. On September 19, 2001, Musharraf addressed the people of Pakistan and stated that, while he opposed military tactics against the Taliban, Pakistan risked being endangered by an alliance of India and the U.S. if it did not cooperate.[78] In 2006, Musharraf testified that this stance was pressured by threats from the U.S., and revealed in his memoirs that he had "war-gamed" the United States as an adversary and decided that it would end in a loss for Pakistan.[79]"

"Government financing of Al Qaeda
On July 22, 2004, The Guardian reported that Omar Sheikh, a British-born Islamist, had, on the instructions of General Mahmud Ahmad, the then head of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), wired $100,000 before the 9/11 attacks to Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker. When Ahmed was exposed by the Wall Street Journal as having sent the money to the hijackers, Musharraf forced him to retire.[86] The 9/11 commission did not investigate this funding out of lack of credibility.

In September 2007, in the aftermath of the Lal Masjid incident, al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden urged his followers to fight a holy war against Musharraf and the Pakistani army.[87][88]


Richard Armitage comments
During a September 24, 2006 interview with Steve Kroft on 60 Minutes, Musharraf said that then-U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage had called Musharraf's intelligence director shortly following the 9/11 attacks and threatened military action if Pakistan did not support the U.S.-led "war on terror". According to Musharraf, Armitage warned: "Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age."[89] Furthermore, during an interview with Jon Stewart of The Daily Show on September 26, 2006, Musharraf stated that then-Secretary of State Colin Powell also contacted him with a similar message: "You are with us or against us." Musharraf refused to elaborate further, citing the then-upcoming release of his book, In the Line of Fire: A Memoir (ISBN 0-7432-8344-9). Armitage has, however, categorically denied that the U.S. used such harsh words to threaten Pakistan, whereas President Bush has refrained from publicly acknowledging the possibility of the exact wordings being used.


Nuclear proliferation
One of the most widely-reported controversies during Musharraf's administration arose as a consequence of the disclosure of nuclear proliferation by Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, the metallurgist known as the father of Pakistan's bomb. Musharraf has denied knowledge of or participation by Pakistan's government or army in this proliferation and has faced bitter domestic criticism for singularly vilifying Khan, a former national hero. Khan has been pardoned in exchange for cooperation in the investigation, but is still under house arrest.[90]"

[mike09]

Read this fellas...

Main article: State-sponsored terrorism#Pakistan

Intelligence agencies around the world have long suspected Pakistan as a source of extremism and terrorism. It has recently been revealed that Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, a top scientist involved with Pakistan's nuclear program has been selling nuclear technologies to Iran, North Korea and Libya. Khan was tried within Pakistan. It is unclear whether the state has been involved with his dealings. Pakistan has used Islamist militants to fight its wars in Afghanistan and Kashmir. The Government of Pakistan is accused by India of having supplied monetary aid to certain terrorist organizations fighting for secession in Kashmir. It has strongly denied the latter. However some statements have claimed the involvement of Pakistan's Federal Minister for Railways, Sheikh Rashid Ahmed, in establishing terrorist training camps in the early stages of the war many years ago. American intelligence sources, mainly the FBI claims that there are "terrorist training camps" in Pakistan and that the terrorists come to Pakistan from all over the globe. In Pakistan, most modernized infrastructure of terrorist training exists, supported by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) in terms of money, ideological training, and moral support. Many other nations and nonpartisan sources also state that Pakistan is one of the perpetrators of state-sponsored terrorism by providing help to Kashmiri and other terrorist outfits with connections to Al-Qaeda.

Okay, that is waaaaayy more proof and justification to invade Pakistan than it was for Iraq and Afghanistan, let alone just conducting a few operations in their country. Yes, we are on peaceful terms with the "State" of Pakistan, but they are playing a "rope a dope" politics. They try to appear compliant to the U.S., but for anyone who looks in depth on the subject knows that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are the top contributers to fanatic Islam and terrorist organizations. Yet, we play grab a** with both... because SA has Oil and Pakistan has Nukes.

I am not supporting U.S. involvement in Pakistan at this time. However, for you guys being supporters of our efforts to capture UBL as well as a supporters of our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan (either or) Both of you guys are being very hypocritical with your arguments. Not to say that some of your arguments aren't legit. But if we had actual intelligence of UBL's whereabouts, at this time, we cannot trust the Pakistani government to conduct the mission themselves. It's obvious that at their core, they are more sympathetic to their radical Islam population. (which is way more significant than Afghanistan, Iraq, and even Indonesia which has the largest muslim population in the world)

We, the U.S., have a long track record of getting involved in governments that we had no conflict with. Nicaragua and Guatemala for example... Not saying that is a good idea, but it's not new..

I am not supporting significant involvement in Pakistan (an invasion), rogue agents running around, nor keeping Pakistan out of the loop.

Last thing, there is No evidence that supports the claim that there would be any significant reprocutions from conducting a mission or two within Pakistan. If we are "Allies" with Pakistan.... If they are a "significant component to our coalition" then they should not have any problem with us ridding them of UBL and a few other high key terrorists, now would they... or at least allow us to combine forces on those key missions that are vital to U.S. interests.

PS. Your mention of the Pakistani Government being good for us... that government id a dictatorship bud... and like I've said previously, they are very sympathetic to terrorism behind closed doors (if not funding them) and this is claim is supported by actual evidence by a s**t load of nations... unlike our justification for Iraq

PSS. and you're comment about Iran.. "He even said he wants to go into diplomacy talks with Iran, like that has not already been done." lol... What is the harm in exhausting all diplomacy efforts before making the decision to use force??? It's unproductive and increases the likelihood of military conflict arising if you don't exhaust the diplomacy effort.


I agree with what Tadpole had to say. I want to solidify my argument now to avoid confusion. The U.S. is in negotiations with Pakistan are about efforts against terrorists taking refuge in Pakistan. Musharraf has spoken against terrorism, and certainly hasn't condoned it. I never said anti-Americanism was not present in Pakistan, but an invasion of Pakistan NO DOUBT would turn people against us, and could cause them to turn to terrorist organizations to fight America (that is, of course, a 'what if', but it is an educated 'what if'. Take for example the impoverished German population before WWII. They turned to Hitler because he was someone that promised them prosperity to come, but my statement about turning to terrorist organizations is just a speculation). The fact that America and Pakistan are on peaceful terms is a GOOD thing. Trying to negotiate the actions against terrorists with an enemy would be significantly less productive than negotiating with a government that is on your side (I'm talking about the majority of the government, that does not advocate terrorism). (Keep in mind I'm just solidifying my argument, not accusing you of supporting military action in Pakistan). The Pakistani government is solid in its resolve to allow Coalition troops and the Afghan National Army to take action on the Afghan side of the border, but that the terrorists on the Pakistani side of the border are the sole responsibility of the Pakistanis. That is why negotiations continue so that the U.S. and Pakistan can produce terms that will not allow terrorists to be harbored in Pakistan. A quote from Condoleezza Rice on talks with Pakistan:
"We’re trying to develop with the government a positive agenda for that region. And we have to remember that the region wasn’t governed for years and years and years. And so the positive agenda is to work in this very poor region with aid projects and with ways to give the people a better choice. After all, in some of the toughest areas, when allowed to vote, they did not vote for extremist parties, so there’s something there to work with."

“We were strong advocates for a democratic election in Pakistan, and we’re working with this new civilian government. It’s a step forward for Pakistan.” Rice said terrorists are a threat to Pakistan, Afghanistan and the US and “we have a common objective” in the region.

Those excerpts taken from the Daily Times.

That's what I have to say, and that's where I stand. But let me step back and say this is a really good debate :D Since it's so good I only request that we don't bring it to a shouting match (if it isn't already) and stay mature about it so that we keep it all in good spirits.

[mike09]

If I left anything out in my last post or there's bad spelling, forgive me becase I'm pretty tired, but just let me know and I'll fill in anything or fix grammar or spelling tomorrow

[jonnygreen]

Well, it seems that I'm pissing people off a bit... Let's try and cool it down somewhat, that was partly my fault. Anyways,


First off, this is my exact quote "I am not supporting significant involvement in Pakistan (an invasion), rogue agents running around, nor keeping Pakistan out of the loop." I never once said anything about invading.. I made that as clear as can be. I bolded it for crying out loud... I do agree that that would be a mistake. On another note, there would be very little, if any reprocutions of having a Spec. Ops. mission to catch UBL

All I'm saying is, that the "creating more terrorists" argument works in some cases, but not really this one. I've already explained why, I REALLY don't feel like explaining myself again. God I'm tired!

2) Of course Musharraf is going to be worried about getting overthrown... he is essentially a dictator. He has had his country in Marshal law for years and the U.N. was trying to get him to drop the Marshal Law. If the U.N. wants them to drop Marshal law, it's probably because it's not necessary. According to the U.N. he is doing as an excuse to not get VOTED out of power. International pressure was being put on the U.S. to tell Musharraf to Stop that crap and we kinda said to the international community... "next comment."

Take note: We installed Hussein as the dictator of Iraq. We are doing a similar thing with Musharraf with allowing him to Claim Marshal Law.


Wannabe Tadpole: "Iraq’s president did not comply with anything"... Really Now?? Well, according to U.N. expectors Hussein was being reluctant at times, but was pretty much complying... the only government that said otherwise was us. Hhhmm, I wonder why?

Wannabe Tadpole: "Musharraf tries to help as much as possible."... Dude! Come on now, Musharraf is trying the best he can?? If you read what wrote before, you know, those things called FACTS, it's pretty obvious that he wants it to appear that he is complying, but his government is still probably THE greatest contributer to terrorism. There is no dispute on that.... But lets look at your statistics just for fun...

Wannabe Tadpole- "That friendly portion is keeping control of around 90%-95% of that country. I would rather not unleash the other 5-10% without having the proper strategies planned. " hahaha... oh, little wannabe tadpole.... Cute! I love you're statistics, where'd you get them??

Wannabe tadpole-"The entire government of Iran is involved in the bad stuff." Really now?? So the whole 110% of the government is involved in "Bad Stuff" lol

Wannabe tadpole-"Only around 10 percent of Pakistan’s government is involved in bad stuff."
WOW!!! only 10% Bad stuff, huh? I would love to see that CIA report!! Just fascinating!

"But that 10% can do a lot of damage if we listened to people like you."

Now that just hurts my feelings! it really does! But I forgive you!

I can disprove you all day on your "facts"... but you're going to just say the same thing over and over and over again. You really want to be right, don't you??

We have gone way off topic... The whole reason I created this forum was to stimulate ideas about possible future conflicts... not wether they are right or wrong. And with half of the people on this forum posting Pakistan as a possibility. Then that is the extent it goes, whether or not it is probable is the discussion. I took it a little further stating, if it were to happen it would not be against the Government of Pakistan, but a few key targets within Pakistan. And I think we would all agree to that?? whether or not it's a good idea is for another forum... that said

Lets keep the discussion on topic and as friendly as possible.

PS> I would appreciate it if political smearing stayed out of this forum entirely (like Wannabe Tadpoles "Obama Hussein") I have not done that, and it's not cool in any instance... Lets stick with Reasoning alone

[mike09]

We have gone way off topic... The whole reason I created this forum was to stimulate ideas about possible future conflicts... not wether they are right or wrong. And with half of the people on this forum posting Pakistan as a possibility. Then that is the extent it goes, whether or not it is probable is the discussion. I took it a little further stating, if it were to happen it would not be against the Government of Pakistan, but a few key targets within Pakistan. And I think we would all agree to that?? whether or not it's a good idea is for another forum... that said

Let keep the discussion on topic and as friendly as possible.

PS> I would appreciate it if political smearing stayed out of this forum entirely (like Wannabe Tadpoles "Obama Hussein") I have not done that, and it's not cool in any intance... Lets stick with Reasoning alone

I can agree with that. Even if our views on what's going on over there are different, I'm going to end my role in the debate now. I've said what I need to say, and now I think we should get back to discussing possible future conflicts. If I remember correctly, JG, we saw eye to eye on Africa :)

[sirmonty]

Yes I agree on the Saudi issue, but if you do some research, most of the funding, arming, and training is coming from Iran, not just Iran, but the government. Other funding is coming from mosques. Therefore they are a bigger issue than the Saudis, at least as of right now. Those Saudi hijackers received funding from their terrorist group, I bet some of that money, came from Iran. The Saudis are not fully involved on a government level, Iran is and has been for a longer time than most people know.

I wasn't disagreeing with the fact that Iran does and is a state sponsor of terrorism, but rather that it is the godfather of modern radical Islamic terrorism. That title goes to the Saudis, as the radical Muslim school of thought pretty much was originated and cultivated there even before the US really got involved much in the region.

I also think it is important to reiterate that Iran has a system of rule that is much more conducive to democratic change than SA. That, along with the fact there IS a fairly decent percentage disenfranchized with the current Iranian administration and a fair amount of pro-Americanism there, makes me think that it would certainly not be wise to go start dropping bombs or engaging in any sort of large scale or open warfare with the nation. I think it would be much wiser for America to try and foster and cultivate the pro-Americanism that is already there.

This is not to say that Iran doesn't concern me, because it certainly does. I just think there are better ways of defeating our enemies in that particular nation than dropping bombs and I think our closeness and willing to work with the Saudis despite their sympathies to terrorism is kind of hypocritical and alarming.

It is unfortunate that there are radical Muslims out there that have to crap all over such a fascinating and beautiful religion, but I suppose the same holds true for just about any religion or organization. ****heads have to go and ruin it for everyone.

[joshdupre]

The cost for a barrel of oil is dictated by the highest price. So even if someplace produced a $50 barrel of oil for us to purchase we would still pay lets say $150 because that is what the most expensive barrel cost. So with high prices like these it's causing more places to get more oil online to take advantage of the high profits which could possibly cause a increase in the amount of product available.

[jonnygreen]

The cost for a barrel of oil is dictated by the highest price. So even if someplace produced a $50 barrel of oil for us to purchase we would still pay lets say $150 because that is what the most expensive barrel cost. So with high prices like these it's causing more places to get more oil online to take advantage of the high profits which could possibly cause a increase in the amount of product available.

I couldn't agree more.. that is why there is such a demand in corporate america to open up all our reserves.. Because, they want to get in on that money making. It's as simple as that... Prices wont drop

BUT,, and that's a big BUT, lets try to stay away from political talk as much as possible in this forum

[jonnygreen]

I can agree with that. Even if our views on what's going on over there are different, I'm going to end my role in the debate now. I've said what I need to say, and now I think we should get back to discussing possible future conflicts. If I remember correctly, JG, we saw eye to eye on Africa :)

Thanks for the attempt to keep things friendly in the forum! I was getting a little d**kish myself. Anyways,

We did agree on Africa! So many failed states, so much violence and genocide. The darfur genocides were stimulated by water shortages. And that seems to be a pattern in Africa, when resources are scarce then all hell brakes loose. And the U.N. never does anything about it. I think if the middle east simmers down at all we will get involved more. And I also think that there will be an increase in conflicts in Africa, with increasing population and decreasing resources. NOT GOOD!

I wonder what specific countries would the U.S. get involved in? Does anybody have any projections on African countries or regions?

[sirmonty]

Thanks for the attempt to keep things friendly in the forum! I was getting a little d**kish myself. Anyways,

We did agree on Africa! So many failed states, so much violence and genocide. The darfur genocides were stimulated by water shortages. And that seems to be a pattern in Africa, when resources are scarce then all hell brakes loose. And the U.N. never does anything about it. I think if the middle east simmers down at all we will get involved more. And I also think that there will be an increase in conflicts in Africa, with increasing population and decreasing resources. NOT GOOD!

I wonder what specific countries would the U.S. get involved in? Does anybody have any projections on African countries or regions?

I hate to say it but I think it is unlikely we will get our hands dirty with most of the troubled African nations because there is very little economic incentive to do so...

Like it has been said, Africa is a prime example of the failures of colonialism. Vietnam was/is another example of that. It is amazing the scope of conflicts that have risen out of the European colonial empires of the centuries past....

[mike09]

I wonder what specific countries would the U.S. get involved in? Does anybody have any projections on African countries or regions?

Here's my input:
Sudan- Because of the genocide, the amount of refugees and IDPs, the government corruption, the militias freely roaming and killing, etc. The Sudanese government is supplying and backing militias that kill innocent civilians. So far the largest/most powerful militia is called Janjaweed, and is doing a lot of the damage. It's a mess in Sudan.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48943-2005Mar19.html
read that article, it's very informative.

There are so many places in Africa that need help. To see all the failed states in Africa and all of their problems, google 'Failed States Index' and click on the first one, which should be fundforpeace.org then find the failed states index and just check everything out.

[pipelinesurfer]

I hate to say it but I think it is unlikely we will get our hands dirty with most of the troubled African nations because there is very little economic incentive to do so..

all too correct my friend.

[TAMU_2008]

It is not going to be an "open war" type of conflict in saying that we will not be meeting another power who stands under different colors on an open field and engage in a massive tank battle ect...

It is going to be covert, quiet, and though conventional forces will be used SOF units will be paramount...at least for us.

Who will we be fighting? Not Iran, at least openly, if they get as close to owning a nuke as we think they will be in the next few years we will just let the Israeli-es take out the program, and most likely deny the fact that we knew anything about it. Iran is a massive country with a large amount of vast mountain ranges and desolate land, very hard to track certain key targets over such a vast amount of land, and forget occupying Tehran. Heck we probably wont even have to "let" the Israeli es destroy the program...they will just do it lol.

Pakistan is the type of country that is on your side as long as the checks keep rolling in. They are a Nuclear power for hire but there people are some of the most progressive thinkers in the region and want change both socially, and politically yet it seems that every time they get it (Bhutto's one and two) and seem to have a democracy or at least the shadow of one in their sights a military coup takes place and the people don't do a damn thing about it. Pakistan is in my mind a possibility for open U.S military action (conventional forces on the ground) in the near future, but we will not be fighting Pakistan, but rather just going across the border to oust Al-Queda strongholds even without Pakistani permission. It would be naive to think that we are not already carrying out SOF missions across the Afghan/Pakistan border.

China is an interesting situation because they are a sort of hybrid communist state. They unlike the Soviet Union (the SU of the 50s,60,70s not the 80s,90s) allow a more progressive open forum for protest against their government. They are also the most "open" door communist state ever being so heavily involved in trade and economically invested on the world market. China will not come to a head and fall into conflict with the United States I think the people will rise up and reach a breaking point, very soon and China will quietly and bloodlessly (if thats a word) change hands and become not the shinning beacon of Democracy in the World..but not communist as well. It will be interesting to see what happens at the Olympics.

N.Korea is my Front Runner for an "Open Conflict" type situation to ignite. With their continued Nuke Program/U.N Follies/Known Human Rights Violations/Mass on the DMZ N.Korea is most likely to have action taken against them by the world community, though would be rather dangerous situation for China (if they would stand with us) knowing N.Korea can reach out and touch all of China with Nukes, as well as Japan. This could easily spark a World War III type situation. I think that if we can somehow wait out Kim Jong Il and let him die off or be assassinated by someone ; ) it would de escalate the situation. And I hope that if it did come down to the "nut-cuttin" Kim Jong Il's advisers or whoever he keeps remotely close to him would do the job for us.

I think that the future "conflicts" the United States will engage in, in the next years will depend very heavily on who wins the 2008 election. but regardless it will be more covert than open. The War on Terror is not the War of our Grandfathers its not even the Gulf War/Vietnam Fight some of our fathers were in, it is a war among massive civilian populations with an enemy who uses that fact to his advantage, thus we can not use the "sledge hammer" that is the U.S military but rather the "Scalpel" of the SOF and NSW Communities in conjunction with the CIA, NSA and other agencies Im sure none of us know exists. Our victories will for the large part not be known to the regular public and as always our failures will be broadcast to the furthest corners of the earth, that's just how it is, and that's why our Men who serve in elite units get to have the title, ELITE.

The most important thing is that we keep the Terror groups on the run and we secure our population here at home. In my opinion that means we stay in Iraq, and we go where the Terror is and we kick it between the legs and cut its head off, no matter where it is.

[jonnygreen]

I hate to say it but I think it is unlikely we will get our hands dirty with most of the troubled African nations because there is very little economic incentive to do so...

Like it has been said, Africa is a prime example of the failures of colonialism. Vietnam was/is another example of that. It is amazing the scope of conflicts that have risen out of the European colonial empires of the centuries past....

I totally agree with you on the colonialism issue. It has caused way more trouble than it was worth. (for any nation)

But I'm not sure how you equate colonialism with a temporary peacekeeping force??

I read what you have said before, about the primary reason for Africa having conflicts. You say it's because the british remapping Africa without consideration of ethnic, cultural or religious differences. I agree, that is part of the problem. But only a fraction of it. Look at the U.S., look at the U.K., France... in these countries there is way more ethnic, cultural, and religious differences. So you might wonder, WHat is the true difference between these modernized countries and these poverty-stricken nations that is the primary contributer to Africa's conflicts. Well, I just answered it, ECONOMICS! When it comes down to it, almost every decision we make in life, especially WAR, has to do with our economical standing (how well off we are). The modernized countries, even though they have more reasons to have civil conflict, DON'T, because everyone is well off and not fighting over resources. In Africa, almost every single conflict that has started was/is over natural resources and economical/political power. the example I used before, DARFUR, the genocides were not started primarily for their cultural differences, but because of water shortages. When there is not enough food or water to go around, somebody must die to make room. In turn, groups (ethnic or religious) come together to kill the other group for fundamental resources. Overtime, this behaviour becomes such the norm, that hatred and violence occurs in times that may not be related to economic well being... I agree, that the british colonialism played it's part, but the most significant factor is that Africa has too many people for too little resources!

That said, read this..

We have helped stabilize Nigeria, stop the genocide in Somalia and countless other operations in Africa. In the past they have all proven successful, or at the very least had no blowback for us. In the first Gulf War, when we were protecting Kuwait from Iraq... that was not colonialism and it had no blowback, other than our mistake of putting troops in Saudi Arabia (that was a mistake).

My point is, is that we have conducting a lot of missions in the past to help the innocent, to protect the weak, and those have been the least costly and most beneficial "conflicts" for us. And like I said before, Conducting peacemaking operations in Africa has no similarity with vietnam. In vietnam we were trying to mold the government how we wanted it, even though the large majority of the population disagreed with us. That war was about american control(influence) around the globe. It had nothing to do with national security and it had nothing to do with human rights.

In Africa, it actually has become an economic resource for us and China. It will soon be both China's and our largest sources of cheap labor. Conducting peacekeeping and stabilization opertations can prove beneficial to us in the near future. (what goes on over there, effects us over here) Not including, it's just the RIGHT thing to do.

[pipelinesurfer]

I agree, that the british colonialism played it's part, but the most significant factor is that Africa has too many people for too little resources!

[/B]

but one factor to consider is that colonialism instituted an underclass status on native populations. this included, forcing subsistence farming cultures into growing cash crops for export to the benefit of the mother country(and not the one growing the crops), taking the best farmland over for the growing of these cash crops, and encouraging a dependence on imported foods. all these methods, over generations, produced cultures that were depended on their "mother country."

[TAMU_2008]

IIn Africa, it actually has become an economic resource for us and China. It will soon be both China's and our largest sources of cheap labor. Conducting peacekeeping and stabilization opertations can prove beneficial to us in the near future. (what goes on over there, effects us over here) Not including, it's just the RIGHT thing to do.

I would agree...but if the United States went around the world taking military action on PeaceKeeping Missions because it was simply "the RIGHT thing to do" our military would be streched so thin it would probably just make things harder on us and them..

[jonnygreen]

I just wont to make the purpose of this forum clear... It's about possible future conflicts and wars (2010-2020)... not whether you think it's a good idea.

And to me, the words...

CONFLICT= medium and low intensity conflicts (not full out WAR)

WAR= WAR (such as Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam)

[jonnygreen]

I would agree...but if the United States went around the world taking military action on PeaceKeeping Missions because it was simply "the RIGHT thing to do" our military would be streched so thin it would probably just make things harder on us and them..

I agree with you there, we have to choose our battles wisely. But, it is important to take note, that in the past our humanitarian conflicts have proven to be significantly more beneficial and waaay less costly and have taken waay less military force than our fully committed and drawn out Wars have. Somalia and Nigeria conflicts combined didn't even cost 0.025% that the Iraq war alone has costed us, and we aren't even done with Iraq yet. Even though Iraq has been more than 40 times more costly than those two conflicts combined, we are still able to fight a war in Afghanistan! Well,, when we are done with Iraq (2, 5, or 10 years from now) we will be able to do a sh*t load of peacekeeping missions, huh?:)

[jonnygreen]

but one factor to consider is that colonialism instituted an underclass status on native populations. this included, forcing subsistence farming cultures into growing cash crops for export to the benefit of the mother country(and not the one growing the crops), taking the best farmland over for the growing of these cash crops, and encouraging a dependence on imported foods. all these methods, over generations, produced cultures that were depended on their "mother country."

That is definitely worth consideration, and I'm sure it played a significant role in the economic situation there. I would probably agree with you further, about British colonialism being the primary factor of the downfall of Africa, if it were not for the simple example of India. India is practically a mirror image of Africa, yet it draws a significantly different conclusion. (not saying India's perfect)

On another note, the whole point of my argument was not whether or not colonialism is bad, or the effects British colonialism had on Africa. My point was as simple as this...You can't equate colonialism to quick peacekeeping and stabilization operations. They aren't equal! That's like saying apples and oranges are the same, because they are both fruit.

But let's stay on subject from here on out... Please! :)

[pipelinesurfer]

ONE more:

dude, almost 50% of the worlds starving populations live in India. not the best example to produce. plus you have the mass suicides taking place there everyday in order to "pay off" the massive debts caused by colonialism.

[jonnygreen]

Here's my input:
Sudan- Because of the genocide, the amount of refugees and IDPs, the government corruption, the militias freely roaming and killing, etc. The Sudanese government is supplying and backing militias that kill innocent civilians. So far the largest/most powerful militia is called Janjaweed, and is doing a lot of the damage. It's a mess in Sudan.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48943-2005Mar19.html
read that article, it's very informative.

There are so many places in Africa that need help. To see all the failed states in Africa and all of their problems, google 'Failed States Index' and click on the first one, which should be fundforpeace.org then find the failed states index and just check everything out.

Thanks for the link and your input Mike!

Much appreciated,
Jonny G.

[jonnygreen]

ONE more:

dude, almost 50% of the worlds starving populations live in India. not the best example to produce. plus you have the mass suicides taking place there everyday in order to "pay off" the massive debts caused by colonialism.


Dude to you, lol... Your statistic on India of 50% is completely false!!

you can look this stuff up on CIA factbook dude, here's a link...

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/in.html

and check out this map, it shows that Africa is a lot worse than India...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Percentage_population_undernourished_world_m ap.PNG


According to the CIA, only 24% of India's population is under the poverty line (that doesn't mean starving), and they have a better employment rate than the U.S. And their economy has been booming over the past decade.

Plus, India has the 2nd largest population on earth, the U.S. has the 3rd largest.... yet, India still has 4 times the population than the U.S.... So, even if your statistic were true(which it's not) of course India would have a considerable amount of the world poverty! India is roughly a quarter of the world population!

And, I didn't say anything about malnourishment... I was comparing Violence, Political Stability, and economic growth between Africa and India (no more, no less) --- It's really easy to win an argument when you change the argument to your convenience, doesn't it???

NOW, I am starting to get irritated with people pushing the topic off subject, then taking it further by making arguments based up on Fake statistics.

STOP IT!! lol

[pipelinesurfer]

Dude to you, lol... Your statistic on India of 50% is completely false!! you just made that up...

you can look this stuff up on CIA factbook dude, here's a link...

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/in.html

According to the CIA, only 24% of India's population is under the poverty line (that doesn't mean starving), and they have a better employment rate than the U.S. And their economy has been booming over the past decade.

Plus, India has the 2nd largest population on earth, the U.S. has the 3rd largest.... yet, India still has 4 times the population than the U.S.... So, even if your statistic were true(which it's not) of course India would have a considerable amount of the world poverty! India is roughly a quarter of the world population!

NOW, I am starting to get irritated with people pushing the topic off subject, then taking it further by making arguments based up on Fake statistics.

STOP IT!! lol
wish i did make it up bro:

http://www.wfp.org/country_brief/indexcountry.asp?country=356

what i said was not "50% of indians are starving"

i said that 50% of all starving peoples in the world live in India

[jonnygreen]

wish i did make it up bro:

http://www.wfp.org/country_brief/indexcountry.asp?country=356

what i said was not "50% of indians are starving"

i said that 50% of all starving peoples in the world live in India


Look at my last post again. I added to it while you were writing. I stated this about my initial argument...

I didn't say anything about malnourishment... I was comparing Violence, Political Stability, and economic growth between Africa and India (no more, no less) --- It's really easy to win an argument when you change the argument to your convenience, doesn't it???

Plus, India has the 2nd largest population on earth, the U.S. has the 3rd largest.... yet, India still has 4 times the population than the U.S.... So of course India would have a considerable amount of the world poverty! India is roughly a quarter of the world population!

Think about it... your statistic does not necessarily represent how well India is doing... If you divided the world's population 55% to 45%, and both of those populations had the exact same poverty rate or malnourishment rate.... That 55% is going to have 55% or more of the malnourshment rate.

That said, because India has more than 25% of the world population. It's expected that it would have more than 25% of the worlds poverty and malnourishment even if it was a very hospitable country. SO, India having 48% (more or less) of the world malnourishment rate is not all that bad! And YOUR Statistic is an Awesome misrepresentation of how well India is doing compared to Africa and the rest of the world.

[pipelinesurfer]

hey man, i was just responding, in a friendly manner, to the topic you brought up(colonialism in India). You then went ahead and accused me of making **** up and trying to change the argument??? i was stating that India is not the best example of a formerly colonized country "making it." I mean how many countries have "suicide hospitals"? but w/e, its your thread

[jonnygreen]

hey man, i was just responding, in a friendly manner, to the topic you brought up(colonialism in India). You then went ahead and accused me of making **** up and trying to change the argument??? i was stating that India is not the best example of a formerly colonized country "making it." I mean how many countries have "suicide hospitals"? but w/e, its your thread

you're right, i was being kinda a d*ckish... it just seems like every other person on this forum wants to go off topic and argue with me on frivolous issues to this forum... that's not why I created it. Your statistic was correct. But if you did read my rebuttal, and asked any statisitican about it, you would see that that statistic doesn't really show anything... It shows that India has a big a** population more than anything else...

And you're right, India is not the perfect example, but that is precisiely why when I used it as an example, I did this.... (I know, India's not Perfect)

The reason why I used India was because it was I mirror image of British colonialism in Africa. And India is doing by faaar better than Africa. Especially with what I was comparing, which was Violence, Political Stability, and the economy. That's all

Most of the arguments that have been started on this forum have nothing to do with the initial objection... Such as, I made about 10 arguments for why it wouldn't be that bad of an Idea for the U.S. to get involved in Africa in the future... In turn, instead of sticking to the ACTUAL discussion of, which what I just stated... I go off on tangents like colonial crap and Statistics on India.

I don't mean to offend, it's just a little annoying because I am trying to do some online classes and get some good info. from this forum... yet I find myself needing to defend myself, other people, or get people back on topic... Very frustrating

[pipelinesurfer]

i gotcha, and i agree with you, it would be great to see America get involved with helping Africa. i just don't see it happening anytime soon

[jonnygreen]

totally agree with you on that... (what were we arguing about lol).. I think it would be nice, but I don't see it happening for years to come...

But keep in mind, this forum is dealing with the years 2010-2020. So, I would place my bets that we would conduct some military operations in Africa with in the next 12 years.

[pipelinesurfer]

oo yea, i wouldnt say we wont conduct any "operations" there. i just dont see any of them being geared toward helping Africa.

[jonnygreen]

oo yea, i wouldnt say we wont conduct any "operations" there. i just dont see any of them being geared toward helping Africa.

lol... yeah, my whole point from the beginning was, whether or not we are going to conduct missions there- not why we are going to. I just threw that out there for an example. (I need to work on my examples-LOL)

We're actually in Africa right now, for the global war on terrorism effort. Since 2005 we have been conducting Peace operations. Djibouti is our main location I believe. And it's primarily Humanitarian aid to increase Pro-Americanism and boost the economy in those sensitive area's. So helping Africa, especially in Muslim African nations, has been the policy of the U.S. military since 2005 to prevent the spread of terrorism

[jonnygreen]

One more time for new people:

I want to make the purpose of this forum clear... It's about possible future conflicts and wars (2010-2020)... not whether you think it's a good idea.

And to me, the words...

CONFLICT= medium and low intensity conflicts (not full out WAR)

WAR= WAR (such as Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam)

PS. I second issue that would be interesting as well... What Languages other than (Arabic, Farsi, and mandarin) would you find the most desirable in the SEAL Teams?

[mdwelke]

I wanted to stimulate a discussion about the near future. (2010-2018)

What countries and regions would have the greatest conflicting interests with the U.S. and WHY?

and What countries are we most inclined to use SEALs and SOF in combat operations in and WHY? (2012-2018) Try to back up opinions with FACTs please... Thanks!

~Jonny G.


I am in the Automotive industry. I believe w/o a doubt, that our next conflict(s) will be with oil bearing nations and oil consumption nations on par with us. China is growing at an astounding rate, but more important, the avg chinaperson is available to buy a car. Housing is very expensive, so a car is a status symbol.

I am with Toyota and will tell you, $4+ dollar a gallon for gas caught even us by surprise. All the long term planning did not ever take $4+ into the equation. Another conundrum is capacity to produce the hybrid technology. We cannot produce the batteries fast enough. 4 new plants are scheduled to be built in Japan in the next 4 years. Another issue is Japan gets $42,000 per Prius in Europe vs $27,000 in America. While we can convert a plant in America to Pruis/hybrid production, all the above will take minimum 5 years. Can America take $5+ dollars a gallon? Who knows. It is a more serious problem than many are letting on. How can a person making $10.00 an hour, pay $5.00 per gallon in gas? In cities, public transportation can help, but that is in a few select cities.

This is why I think the next hot areas are going to revolve around oil production countries and countries that rival America's demand.

[pipelinesurfer]

We're actually in Africa right now, for the global war on terrorism effort. \

yea, those are the kind of things i was talking about- capturing/killing terrorists there, maybe some FID(hopefully were training/helping the right guys this time though).

as to the humanitarian aid youre talking about, i dont know of it, so i cant comment, but some pro-Americanism definitely wouldnt hurt!

mdwelke, i know exactly what you mean. i have some connections with the airlines, they going insane! that industry is built on maximum $65 oil. were at what? ~$134! thanks for the info

[jonnygreen]

Everyone should read this article...

http://navyseals.com/analysts-call-soft-power-tactics-future-conflicts

JG

[laney]

Future conflicts?

I doubt Iran, they always back down when necessary - they aren't stupid.

North Korea? Na, they are in talks with South Korea for the first time ever. They are too poor to wage any kind of conflict and seem to only want reconciliation to come.

China? Never, we are too economically tied - China owns the majority of our national debt and we are the primary purchaser of their goods. If we went to war both of economies would collapse, it would be suicide.

No two nations with a McDonald's operating in both nation shave gone to war with one another. Globalization essentially eliminated large scale warfare.

I see no major conflicts in the future.

[Aram]

I like the use of McDonalds as a war-thwarter :).

But again, what you're saying is very accurate, we're up to our ears in Iraq and unless we have international support any type of conflict is going to be iffy. I'm not saying that we would ignore an attack, but I think whomever would be declaring war or authoring force will be weighing the literal cost very heavily.

[laney]

I like the use of McDonalds as a war-thwarter :).

But again, what you're saying is very accurate, we're up to our ears in Iraq and unless we have international support any type of conflict is going to be iffy. I'm not saying that we would ignore an attack, but I think whomever would be declaring war or authoring force will be weighing the literal cost very heavily.

Exactly, no nation state can survive a direct nation war with America. Only guerrilla non-nation forces can. They effectively render I technological superiority useless.