World War Three?

[Mountain Man]

Selling off old obsolete weapons makes sense. There are plenty of Third World governments that would be eager to scoop them up.

It's the "secretly selling weapons on the black market" that's the problem.

[Thoughtful Monk]

It looks like this Ukraine thing is going to kick off. Now you may say that it won't turn into a World war, but these things often take on a life of their own - especially if American citizens are killed in the initial attack, and the fact that we have a befuddled and senile leader... As Obama said - never underestimate Joe's ability to screw things up...

I'm reluctantly coming to the conclusion we are in the pre-war stage of WWIII. In WWII terms, we are in the 1930's with the occupation of Manchuria and China in the Pacific and the Anschluss and Munich accords in Europe. Yes, there is still time to change course but I'm not sure the leadership on any side (US, Europe, China, Russia) is capable of bringing it about.

To quote Toranaga: "It will be war this year whether I say 'yes' or 'no'"

[rogue06]

It's the "secretly selling weapons on the black market" that's the problem.

It seems "the black market" is an assumption and gives the impression of some sort of underground auction where anything is available to the highest bidder.

[seanD]

Selling off old obsolete weapons makes sense. There are plenty of Third World governments that would be eager to scoop them up.

If multi billions of dollars of state of the art US DoD weapons and equipment fell so easily into the hands of the Taliban in Afghanistan the day we left, what makes anyone thing the same won't happen (or is happening) in Ukraine?

[rogue06]

If multi billions of dollars of state of the art US DoD weapons and equipment fell so easily into the hands of the Taliban in Afghanistan the day we left, what makes anyone thing the same won't happen (or is happening) in Ukraine?

The government needs that state of the art stuff for their own survival but I wouldn't be very shocked if some does get sold to line this or that person's pockets.

[seanD]

The government needs that state of the art stuff for their own survival but I wouldn't be very shocked if some does get sold to line this or that person's pockets.

Of course. As did the Afghan government prior to the fall. No one is arguing there aren't excuses.

[rogue06]

Of course. As did the Afghan government prior to the fall. No one is arguing there aren't excuses.

One was a civil war, the other an invasion.

[seanD]

One was a civil war, the other an invasion.

One was an invasion (Russia), and the other was a collapse of a government caused by an invasion (US). Only I doubt there was much of a civil war in the aftermath. The fact Taliban so easily took over the government in just one day suggests to me that either US was outright supporting Taliban (keep the enemy threat present to use an excuse to stay for 2 decades and bilk tax payers of 8 trillion dollars and God knows what else they were doing there), or that they did nothing to quell Taliban and Taliban was just waiting in the wings until US forces pulled out. But nothing suggests to me there was any civil war in Afghanistan.

[Ronson]

One was an invasion (Russia), and the other was a collapse of a government caused by an invasion (US). Only I doubt there was much of a civil war in the aftermath. The fact Taliban so easily took over the government in just one day suggests to me that either US was outright supporting Taliban (keep the enemy threat present to use an excuse to stay for 2 decades and bilk tax payers of 8 trillion dollars and God knows what else they were doing there), or that they did nothing to quell Taliban and Taliban was just waiting in the wings until US forces pulled out. But nothing suggests to me there was any civil war in Afghanistan.

For one thing, Pakistan was supporting the Taliban, giving them safe haven. When a US "ally" is supporting a US foe, then that makes for a sticky matter.

And from what I can see, the Taliban hasn't been causing terrorist strikes anywhere since they took over. Just because they're nasty shouldn't make them an eternal US enemy.

[seanD]

For one thing, Pakistan was supporting the Taliban, giving them safe haven. When a US "ally" is supporting a US foe, then that makes for a sticky matter.

And from what I can see, the Taliban hasn't been causing terrorist strikes anywhere since they took over. Just because they're nasty shouldn't make them an eternal US enemy.

Well, war treachery isn't so easy anymore with the advent of the internet, so if I was running the show and wanted to support Taliban, I certainly wouldn't do it directly as an American citizen and federal employee, especially when you have those pesky inquiring internet sleuths poking around. I'd do it through a proxy, and what better way to do it than through one of my nearby middle east buddies.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

For one thing, Pakistan was supporting the Taliban, giving them safe haven. When a US "ally" is supporting a US foe, then that makes for a sticky matter.

And from what I can see, the Taliban hasn't been causing terrorist strikes anywhere since they took over. Just because they're nasty shouldn't make them an eternal US enemy.

I do not think we should forget US military support in the mid 1980s for those in Afghanistan fighting the USSR.

[CivilDiscourse]

And from what I can see, the Taliban hasn't been causing terrorist strikes anywhere since they took over. Just because they're nasty shouldn't make them an eternal US enemy.

I believe that may be because their not in a position to at the moment. They are too busy shoring up the homeland, so to speak.

[seanD]

I do not think we should forget US military support in the mid 1980s for those in Afghanistan fighting the USSR.

US intelligence has always had a knack for covertly supporting dangerous and unpredictable radicals and extremists. It's an extremely thin line to suggest they'd do it to extend a war just for profit.

[Ronson]

I believe that may be because their not in a position to at the moment. They are too busy shoring up the homeland, so to speak.

I just don't they're interested. The Taliban is focused on tormenting the local population, not exporting their torment to the infidels. That was Al Qaida.

[Teallaura]

I just don't they're interested. The Taliban is focused on tormenting the local population, not exporting their torment to the infidels. That was Al Qaida.

Remember, terrorists were one of Afghanistan's major exports. But that was twenty years ago. The rest of the region got the memo that the US has a nasty habit of showing up on your doorstep if you try to export your malcontents that way. As a result, demand of terrorist training camps is way down, and China already got what it wanted in US tech. Even if the Taliban knew what it was doing in terms of governing, Afghanistan's economy is in the crapper and it can't dig its own way out.

Terrorizing the public to prevent the inevitable civil unrest is all they got. They were popular in the countryside where the US did a poor job of building infrastructure. That's likely going to change as the rural folks start figuring out that as bad as US efforts were the Taliban's are going to be non-existent.