User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/30/2001 11:56:50 AM EDT
[#1]
I think that the powers that be kind of half expected that we could intimidate them out of power with some surgical strikes and saber rattling. I can't blame our government from trying that method, after all, if it had worked, it would have been the least costly tactic.
At this point though, the Taliban haven't been intimidated out of the trenches, so it is now time to give'em a real taste of the awful! I just hope that the US population knows that this will probably mean many casualties. Even if there was no shooting, mines would still cause some damage... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2001 12:00:37 PM EDT
[#2]
be patient. the longer the buildup, the more effective the attack will be when it finally comes. i'm sure it will eventually come to ground troops, but i'd rather bomb the heck out of the tali's and al queda first, soften them up so to speak.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2001 1:09:21 PM EDT
[#3]
What would happen if say, the UN blue helmets attacked the Appalachian region of the US? They would be shot at and harried by every hillbilly, right? Well, we're about to fight a war against Afghanistan, and *everyone* there is a hillbilly with a gun or RPG. Who do you bet will win? Anyone? Hint: Think Viet Nam. Think, Soviet Union's worst ass-kicking ever.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2001 1:11:18 PM EDT
[#4]
Actually, word is things are really heating up on those Kabul front lines. I hope we're finally getting to the point of carpet bombing that scum.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2001 1:29:00 PM EDT
[#5]
I tend to believe we are following the right path to winning this war.
The Soviets used groups of special forces, from 1979 through 1986, to take over Afghanistan. The mujahideen left Afghanistan to boardering coutries Then we joined the war, handing out hundreds of stingers, and the Soviets lost air control. Once air support was lost, the Soviets took heavy losses. Today the Taliban receives support of a couple thousand Pakistani supporters, instead of some decent equipment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2001 1:34:18 PM EDT
[#6]
How many bombs is worth a single American soldier's life? How many Afghan civilian deaths?
I say the longer they can bomb the better, and the next run should be every UN/Unicef/World Food warehouse in enemy territory. What do you think the Taliwackers will be eating all winter? Food paid for by Red Cross $'s that we donated to help the WTC/Pentagon victims/families. Any vehicle heading in country is either enemy troop reinforcements or re-supply, should make easy targets as "refugees" will not be heading towards the frontlines. And bomb enemy resupply points, wherever they may be (mistake we learned with Hanoi). That may mean inside Pakistan. Fortunatley we have some good experienced leaders running the show. Rumsfeld has memories of what happened in Vietnam when we tied the military's hands. I doubt Powell would support a bad military option. There are tons of things going on that we are unaware of, and won't know until it's on History channel in 2025. We DID learn from the Russians that a foriegn force on the ground will unite even the Northern Alliance against us, so let's let the Afghans fight it out a long as possible & provide support. Once the Alliance starts making progress more Afghans will support them, as yo do not want to be on the loosing side there, they will play football with your head. Be patient. This will not be like Desert Storm, or Vietnam. It will just take time & everything will be changed over the coming years as a result of the WTC/Pentagon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2001 1:46:55 PM EDT
[#7]
I think you will find that the Taliban is just something to play with untill we can get our hands the right info.
There are still a buch of cowards out there there are still states that help them,we don't know everyhing yet so we stall. Look at how the Taliban troops are set up in the north and the handfull left in the rest of Afghan. it would take us about 3 or 4 hrs. of bombing from a B52 or B1 to kill 6,-7,000 troops. I bet they think Americans would get sick of havving troops over there so they will hold off untill the last min. or they may be saving them for something you don't know about. Think about it,if you could beat the Taliban with out troops and know you will need your troops down the road would you:A, use the for nothing B,hold off? There is more to the story. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2001 1:54:45 PM EDT
[#8]
We should be carpet bombing that shithole 24/7. Not only would it make things easier for us to invade at a later date, but building all of the bombs we would need would help our economy.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2001 2:03:05 PM EDT
[#9]
excerpt from [url]http://www.theonion.com/onion3734/point_americas_response.html[/url]
An obvious paraody site yet making some valid points. [size=6]"We Must Retaliate With Blind Rage"[/size=6] "On Sept.11, 2001, America was hit by an unprecedented attack on its shores. The devastation and loss of life is incalculable. It is clear to me, as it should be to all Americans, what our nation must do: Retaliate with blind, violent rage, striking back with a fury and vengeance the likes of which modern man has never seen. We must launch every available missile at any nation in which the terrorists are rumored to be hiding. We must bomb every square inch of any country that may be harboring them. Then, when the thick, black smoke has finally cleared, we must bomb them all over again, reducing the rubble to its component atoms. If, in the midst of carpet-bombing a country, we find that it had no involvement in the Sept. 11 attack, so be it. Apologies can come later, but vengeance must be immediate. After pummeling the holy living hell out of those fuckers with bombs, we should send in ground troops, armed to the teeth, to sweep through and exterminate anyone still alive who might have been involved. America's soldiers must be under orders to pump round after round into their bodies, pausing only to replace their clips. Only then will closure to this horrible event be possible. If we do not strike back fast and with as much military might as humanly possible, America will never be able to heal. Some people argue that if we capture Osama bin Laden and his co-conspirators, we should bring them to justice before a U.N. tribunal. I say that to bring them before a civilized court is to raise them up to the level of humans. Terrible acts must be punished with terrible retribution. Are we going to humanely execute by lethal injection men who wantonly killed thousands of innocents? Instead, all of those who are guilty must be dipped in boiling fat and fed to dogs. Many say that using a nuclear weapon on the nations that harbor such sub-human filth would be rash and irresponsible. To which I say, "Why use [u][i]a[/i][/u] nuclear weapon when we have hundreds in our nation's silos?" Should nuclear weapons be used? The question, really, is how many should be used, and can I push the buttons?" |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
