PDA

View Full Version : AMERICA STRIKES BACK - The attack on Afghanistan has begun!!!



antfarm007
10-07-2001, 09:20 AM
FROM NBC NEWS (In my words from watching on TV)


The United States and Great Britain have started bombings on Afghanistan, in the capitol, Kabul, power is knocked out, we do not know what we have hit, the Taliban's headquarters has no power, may have been destroyed. Now all I have to say is to help the Northern Alliance out and stop humanitarian aid until Bin Laden is handed over.

Note: The last succesful invasion of Afghanistan by outside forces was by Alexander the Great.

birderboy
10-07-2001, 09:24 AM
Crazy. I really hope this'll be another air war like Kosovo and we don't need ground troops.

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/10/07/gen.america.under.attack/index.html

Aaron
10-07-2001, 09:27 AM
I go away from the forums for an hour, I come back, and I see this! Well, the Taliban had it coming to them. I wonder how long this attack will last before the Taliban gives up? This story is unfolding really quickly. There's been a lot of developments within a day or so.

Anaconda
10-07-2001, 09:37 AM
Yes, America has struck back, and President Bush has said that we hit terrorists training camps and the Taliban has said that all we hit was desert sand. The Taliban's time has run out, and now the punishment has begun.

Coastercameron
10-07-2001, 10:06 AM
I cannot tell you how gidy and happy I am after this attack! The Taliban didn't comply with our simpleists requests and now they will face the conciquences of there actions.

ForceCoaster
10-07-2001, 10:24 AM
YAY!!! i found about it on the chat, i was on there earlier and somebody said that Bush was on, so i flipped on the TV, and there it was.

RCTfreak
10-07-2001, 10:25 AM
I think it was about time that US would strike back against the Taliban.

Natelox
10-07-2001, 03:16 PM
osma said he will attack the us again (basically). good luck peoples.

Kraken
10-07-2001, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by Natelox
osma said he will attack the us again (basically). good luck peoples.

How can he attack with no money, and with his stuff bombed to oblivion?

I'm so happy! This is awsome! Kill the Taliban!:rolleyes:

Coastercameron
10-07-2001, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by Kraken


How can he attack with no money and with his stuff bombed to Oblivion? Guess the "cowards" aren't so cowardly after all!

I'm so happy! This is awsome! Kill the Taliban!

He has money! I'm SO glad we are gonna kill the Tallibna! Bring the Jahad on! :D

Chip
10-07-2001, 05:20 PM
Jeez! What is going to happen with this world? Did you people see the video bin Laden made? Those stupid Taliban morons are blaming the US on all the world's problems! They are so stupid! I am sort of glad that we are bombing them, but I just think things are going to get worse! Bin Laden is saying (in that tape) that it's the US' fault that bad things have been happening to them over the past 50 years or whatever. Idiot! This enrages me so much, and they call it a holy war! Why in the world would God want people to kill? It's insane! AHH! I'm going nuts up in this, yo! Stupid Taliban! Tell them I hate them!

CrystalKat
10-07-2001, 06:19 PM
The world is a darker place today.

While retaliation is certainly deserved and necessary, it is unfortunate that the world works this way.

Joe17123
10-07-2001, 06:36 PM
It is good that we are attacking the terroists but there is a 100% chance that we will have another attack in the U.S..

Kraken
10-07-2001, 07:20 PM
Originally posted by Melissa
The world is a darker place today.

While retaliation is certainly deserved and necessary, it is unfortunate that the world works this way.

I think of it more as defense then retaliation.

MST3K_FREAK6666
10-07-2001, 07:40 PM
So you think killing people is a good thing? Yeah, it's good we're bombing bin Laden and the stubborn Taliban to smithereens, but the innocent people of Afghanistan? We're at war with terrorism, not Afghanistan or Muslims! It's sad it has to end this way, but then you think of the World trade center and you say, KILL THE DAMN BASTARDS!

PS Sorry about all the cursing!

Kraken
10-07-2001, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by MST3K_FREAK6666
So you think killing people is a good thing? Yeah, it's good we're bombing bin Laden and the stubborn Taliban to smithereens, but the innocent people of Afghanistan? We're at war with terrorism, not Afghanistan or Muslims! It's sad it has to end this way, but then you think of the World trade center and you say, KILL THE DAMN BASTARDS!

PS Sorry about all the cursing!
But we aren't bombing innocent people intentionally...

MST3K_FREAK6666
10-07-2001, 08:28 PM
We are trying to bomb the Taliban. But we are also killing Afghani citizens.

Kraken
10-07-2001, 09:08 PM
How we know this how?

CrystalKat
10-07-2001, 10:52 PM
Guys, just a friendly warning... Let's keep the arguing outside, okay? Everyone has their own opinions but this could quickly get out of hand.

Aaron
10-07-2001, 11:05 PM
Well spoken Melissa. This could easily get out of hand.
I'm sure that the U.S. is trying to minimize civilian caualties, because they know the Taliban will try to frame the U.S. for the "senseless slaughter of innocent people", or something like that, even though that's exactly what bin Landen did on September 11. But most of the Afghans have fled into the wilderness, away from all the U.S. targets. If I had the threat of U.S. military action hanging over my head, I'd also try to get as far away as possible.
It is sad, however, that we have to retort to violence to solve this conflict. The Taliban should have given into the demands of the U.S. and her allies. We've tried diplomatically, but when diplomacy doesn't work, military action is pretty much the only other option.
But the Taliban has no one to blame but themselves; they brought this upon themselves. They harbored and supported terrorists, and now they will pay the consequences.

Catherine
10-08-2001, 06:58 AM
I hope they catch Osama and his punishment should be that he be given a sex change and forced to live as a woman under that oppressive regime! ;)

MST3K_FREAK6666
10-08-2001, 08:39 AM
Originally posted by Catherine
I hope they catch Osama and his punishment should be that he be given a sex change and forced to live as a woman under that oppressive regime! ;)
Cruel and unusual punishment. BTW, what ARE they going to do to him? Kill him? Will that really do that much?

CrystalKat
10-08-2001, 01:53 PM
CedarFairMaster has it right. This whole situation is unfortunate, but what other solution do we have? Is there any solution at all? Certainly not for the innocents of the World Trade Center or the Pentagon, or the planes that were forced to become bombs at the hands of madmen. But there is no solution either for the innocents that are certainly dying in Afghanistan tonight -- those people didn't harbor terrorists, their government did. A fine distinction, but whenever there is massive violence, innocent lives are lost.

As to what we will do with him... Probably try him for massive homicide, destruction of property, violations of international treaties, war crimes, etc. and put him to death. Of course, death in a holy war as a Muslim is immediate ascension to heaven. So, we'd make him a martyr and give him something that to his eyes would be desireable -- death by heathen hands fighting for a holy cause.

Again, I don't think there is any good solution, if there is any at all.

coasterqueen
10-08-2001, 02:16 PM
Hey guys! Remember to keep our troops in your prayers.......they are fighting for our freedom! They are fighting against people who hate freedom. Also, I am not calling anybody a hatemonger on here but remember that not all Muslims are radicals. I keep seeing people take out their anger at any Afgan that comes to close to them.

Bin Laden follows a perverted version of what HE thinks is the true Muslim religion, kind of the way Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson follows a perverted version of what THEY think is true Christianity........

I am behind our Pres. 100%! These sickos will get what's coming to them. We can't just sit around and take it. On the other hand we can't sit around in sheer paranoia and wait for the next terrorist attack.


Tina N.

Coaster Boy
10-08-2001, 02:18 PM
I have only two things to say:

1. It has begun.

2. It will end with the blood of Osama bin Laden.

Zach
10-08-2001, 02:27 PM
Am I the only one worried about the threat of chemical/nuclear weapons being put on the US?

Zach

Andy Rathe
10-08-2001, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by CedarFairMaster
Well spoken Melissa. This could easily get out of hand.
I'm sure that the U.S. is trying to minimize civilian caualties, because they know the Taliban will try to frame the U.S. for the "senseless slaughter of innocent people", or something like that, even though that's exactly what bin Landen did on September 11. But most of the Afghans have fled into the wilderness, away from all the U.S. targets. If I had the threat of U.S. military action hanging over my head, I'd also try to get as far away as possible.

Most of the Afghans haven't gone anywhere. Remember that it's one of the world's poorest countries and these people eek out a living in complete and abject poverty that we simply cannot imagine. There will be civilian casulaties; it's impossible to drop thousands of bombs and missiiles and not have a few of them go astray.

Also, regarding the above post about chemical weapons, the threat now is exactly the same as it has ever been. Due to the USA's dominant role in world affairs for the past 50 years, certain governmants, countries and organisations consider it their enemy, so the Sept. 11th attack could just as easily have happened five, ten or perhaps even twenty years ago.

edh101985
10-08-2001, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by Brogium
Am I the only one worried about the threat of chemical/nuclear weapons being put on the US?

Zach


I am sure everyone is worried about that. I would be scared even to go to school if they threatened us. We should just blow up the whole country and kill Benladin. We also should free the people who cant get out of that country.

Amy
10-08-2001, 06:41 PM
Yes, nuclear weapons scare me to death. If anyone drops a nuclear bomb on New York, I'm killed instantly. Not to mention the fact that nuclear weapons cause terrible effects where MANY people are affected, with some of the effects continuing for years after the bombs are dropped.

CrystalKat
10-08-2001, 09:37 PM
But Osama Bin Laden is not a citizen of Afghanistan -- he's a citizen of Saudi Arabia, only one of our largest suppliers of petroleum. The Taliban government allowed him to stay in Afghanistan without handing him over to us. I have nothing but compassion for the innocent people of Afghanistan -- they didn't ask him to come to their country, and their government didn't ask them if it was all right for him to stay.

But Kraken is right about the rules of war, and that's the most unfortunate thing of all. That, quite frankly, is why it's war.

FutureRCdesigner
10-08-2001, 10:18 PM
http://www.terroristjokes.com go to that site for oshama bin laden jokes.

They are FUNNY.

mrk468zz
10-09-2001, 12:33 AM
Originally posted by Melissa
I have nothing but compassion for the innocent people of Afghanistan -- they didn't ask him to come to their country, and their government didn't ask them if it was all right for him to stay.

Not to mention the fact that the Taliban never bothered to ask the Afghani people if it was all right to rule over them. They came to power without (surprise) elections.

Of course, now the Northern Alliance is going to use this opportunity to take the country. And while they may be the enemies of our enemy, who's to say they'll be any better than the Taliban in a decade.

The thing is, there's no way al Queda can really lose this war, even if the entire organization is eventually obliterated. There's so much hatred among extremists in the Mid-East over American policy that ANY action by the US will fuel the anger. The very act of terror on 9/11 forced us into a situation where there is no real winner, because we're forced into a response. The only thing we can do is hope to disable as many terrorists groups as possible and delay the inevitable--more attacks.

Erik Johnson
10-09-2001, 01:05 AM
I'm glad the retaliation is going on in the manner that it is. Bombing terrorist training camps is exactly the right way to do it and sending the care packages to Afgani citizens really gets our anit-terrorism not anti-Muslim message across. The really scary thing was when Bin Laden said that there will be no peace in America unless there is peace in Afganistan. Unfortunately, I fear we may have another horrible attack in the future, and that scares me.

Ste
10-09-2001, 01:26 PM
Religion is the source of all evil, if people could accept life for what it is and not go around trying to explain "the meaning of it all" then none of this would ever happen

Coaster131
10-11-2001, 07:25 PM
OK....I can't take full credit for this one here. I heard my mom talking on the phone mention it. I'm just going to elaborate it a little:

You know how we are saying that we will "smoke" them all out of their holes and caves? Well, forget about that! This is the new plan:

We'll throw a little Jet Fuel down into their holes and light a match! That'll get them running out REAL fast!


Sorry....I thought that it was very funny...thought I'd share it!

Raptor
10-11-2001, 10:30 PM
One problem.. we don't really know where their holes are.

Bort
10-11-2001, 10:40 PM
Take Osama Bin Laden, make him have a sex change, and put him back in Afghanistan. Or.....Put him in a room full of the victims familys.

Limacoasterboy
10-11-2001, 10:45 PM
actualy Coaster131, I heard on the Bob ans Sheri show ( a national funny news show) that the reason why Bi Laden hates the US was because he was attracted to an US military man and when he "hit" on the the military man, the military man beat the crap out of Bin Laden. From then on, he's hated the US so he might actualy like a sex change :rolleyes:

Cuddy
10-11-2001, 10:56 PM
Just bomb the entire country...use a few A-Bombs, hell I'll be a damn suicide pilot on one of those missions, just so we can rid the world of that *******!!

mrk468zz
10-11-2001, 11:03 PM
yeah, get rid of bin laden...and what's left is a fully functioning terrorist organization with a martyr. don't get me wrong, bin laden deserves to be brought to justice for the role in the 911 attacks, but the problem is far deeper than him. take him out, and do little. take al queda out, and do a lot. bin laden isn't THE demon, he's A demon. there are a lot more.

mforce45
10-12-2001, 03:24 PM
Or just make him ride on a Vekoma SLC clone a bunch of times. That'd probably do the job.

antfarm007
10-12-2001, 04:02 PM
Here are some facts.

1. It is VERY, VERY LIKELY that we will never get osama bin laden.
2. Even after bin Laden, there are many people who are will ing to die for The Cause.
3. The people of the United States are some very ignorant people - everyone here is going to be Gun-Ho for the attack until a C-17 brings back a cargo of body bags.
4. Bombing from the air really doesn't do any good, in the words of President Bush "They may have destroyed steel..."
5. Just a side note, but United States Intelligence officers have done sex changes before, cruel and unusual punishment comes after getting intelligence, and some captured terrorists teeth have been pulled out to get them to reveal stuff, usually in this orded 1. fingers 2. teeth 3. whuteva they please, most of you don't realize that the United States DOES teach torture to its agents.

Now to the fun stuff!!! My opinions!!!
I think that bin Laden will not be caught, despite the $5 million reward.
I heard that a terrorist told his girlfriend not to go on flights on sept 11 or into malls on Halloween DONT GO TO MALLS ON HALLOWEEN
I gotta go, ill finish later

Bort
10-12-2001, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by CedarPoint_Mark
Just bomb the entire country...use a few A-Bombs, hell I'll be a damn suicide pilot on one of those missions, just so we can rid the world of that *******!!

And this makes you better than the terrorists how?

How would bombing the whole country help any? They are not all terrorists. They were already bombed back to the stone age by Russia. Most of the people in Afghanistan hate the Taliban anyways, and we should not kill all of the people in Afghanistan just so we can kill Osama and some others.

Also, if we a-bomb them, thats just asking for the end of the world. It would start a chain reaction of other countries bombing us, and then bombing other countries. I dont wanna be a piece of rock floating in space.

Andy Rathe
10-12-2001, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by antfarm007
Here are some facts.

1. It is VERY, VERY LIKELY that we will never get osama bin laden.

I agree. No-one has gotten hold of Saddam Hussein yet, and we know where he is! Bin Laden could be anywhere within thousands of square miles of mountainous terrain that his people know well and our forces don't.


2. Even after bin Laden, there are many people who are will ing to die for The Cause.

Yup, true as well. Whether you think it's justified or not, in some quarters the US is viewed as a global bully, using it's economic and political might to get it's way. Also, it's backing of Isreal has alienated thousands of Palestinians, some of whom will be prepared to die for their beliefs.


I think that bin Laden will not be caught, despite the $5 million reward.

I agree with this too, much as I would like to see him brought to justice.


I heard that a terrorist told his girlfriend not to go on flights on sept 11 or into malls on Halloween DONT GO TO MALLS ON HALLOWEEN

IMO, this is an urban legend, the same sort of stuff that always starts after a major disaster.

Andy Rathe
10-12-2001, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by CedarPoint_Mark
Just bomb the entire country...use a few A-Bombs, hell I'll be a damn suicide pilot on one of those missions, just so we can rid the world of that *******!!

I'm just hope that no-one as brazenly ignorant as you is making proper decisions regarding military strategies in Afghanistan. To say that an A-bomb would solve anything is one of the most breathtakingly stupid statements I've read in a long time!

Also, do you seriously think that the Afghan people ELECTED the Taliban? Hell no; they just took control of the country. Right now, as I'm writing this, it's illegal for women to be educated, show any part of their bodies at all, have any freedom or rights. I've just watched a TV documentayr which showed a young Afghan woman being shot in the head in front of thousands of people for "killing her husband". More likely she put his dinner on the table about 6 seconds too late.

This sort of thing happens all the time. I feel desperately sorry for them; they try to earn a living, exactly the same as you and me, in conditions that we simply can't imagine, surrounded by constant war.

Even killing Bin Laden won't do any real good; he'll simply become a martyr to his followers and there are plenty of others waiting to take his place.

Also, I've merged the two topics, (so that's why I've got two successive posts!).

Cuddy
10-12-2001, 08:05 PM
I made a comment. Don't crucify me for it. Maybe whoever started this thread (no disrespect) should have stated only sane replies only.

RagingBull#1
10-13-2001, 11:09 AM
i think the airstrikes have been good so far. maybe there could be more. i hope we go after sadam next

Flix
10-13-2001, 04:11 PM
i think it is quite funny that who ever started that UL, put it on halloween...surely to the Taliban, it wouldn't matter when they hit, halloween has nothing to do with they're religion. and halloween is a much used date for UL...like dialing 666 at midnight from a payphone on a crossroads is particularly funny!

Sethar
10-13-2001, 04:26 PM
Our bombs are killing civilians. We're no better than the terrorists. We've lost any sort of moral authority that we had.

I'm no longer proud to be an American. I want to hide my head in shame for being part of the country that thinks killing civilians is an appropriate response.

:(

RagingBull#1
10-13-2001, 04:44 PM
omg what are you talking about. we are exterminating terrorism, not killing civilians. i dont want anyone ever say again that theyARE NOT PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN. you want to talk about killing civilians, how about 6000 in new york. you sicken me.

edh101985
10-13-2001, 04:48 PM
i think he means that we are also killing innocent people in afghan, and what we are doing or no better then what they did.

Sethar
10-13-2001, 04:53 PM
I'm sorry that I sicken you. I am sickened by American bombs -- bombs for which I helped pay through my taxes -- killing Afghan civilians. I grieved the loss of the people in the Sept 11th attacks, and to try and argue otherwise is insulting to me. And I certainly want to see the people responsible for those attacks brought to justice. But not at the cost of killing more civilians.

I won't even get into the humanitarian cost of our bombs cutting off UN food aid. I'm speaking directly of our bombs that are killing civilians. Earlier today (or perhaps it was yesterday), the Pentagon admitted that a 2,000 pound bomb missed its target at the Kabul airport and landed in a residential neighborhood. In one of the first couple days of bombing, the UN announced that it appeared that one of our bombs had killed four of their humanitarian workers near a radio tower in Afghanistan.

That is the killing of civilians that I am ashamed about. Of course, because that's occuring in some far-off land, and they're not related to any of us, it's going to be shoved aside and ignored. So that we can go on bombing and killing in our blind fury. :/

RagingBull#1
10-13-2001, 04:53 PM
well that is not really true, b/c all of the innocent people we kill are by accident. they all hate america anyways. its just sad that he doesnt realize how lucky he is to be in this country. that is the saddest thing ever.

antfarm007
10-13-2001, 05:18 PM
You sicken me too!!!
To think there are people who hate America because we do not want terrorism to occur again disgusts me. If you hate America so much, lets all pay to send you to Afghanistan so we can "bomb" you and the "innocent" (and by innocent I mean bin Laden's puppets, not civilians)

We are fighting a war!!! Im not going to be the one to let terrorists keep destroying our buildings and killing American's! I say bomb what has to be bombed, innocent people will die, but it will be accidental, the U.S. is at wasr with the Taliban, not the Afghan people. Do we need to remind you of Hiroshima??? Thousands were killed so that thousands would be saved!!!
(steps off soap box)

Here's an interesting tidbit:
We all know about Nostradamus's 'prophecy' if you don't it is "In the New City, brothers (WTC)will be torn apart by chaos, but the fortress (pentagon) will endure, at first (blah blah blah) but then the great leader (Dubya) will succomb.

Here's where it gets good though

Tecumseh's Curse was first placed on William Henry Harrison who slaughtered the Shawnee at Tippecanoe. Tecumseh, considered a prophet by his people, pronounced that every President elected in a year with a "0" in it would die. Harrison died one month after his election. Since then Lincoln (1860), Garfield (1880), McKinley (1900), Harding (1920), F.D. Roosevelt (1940), Kennedy (1960), have all died in office. Ronald Regan broke Tecumseh's curse, although he was shot and came very close.

Who Want's to run for President in 2020???

antfarm007
10-13-2001, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by Andy Rathe



IMO, this is an urban legend, the same sort of stuff that always starts after a major disaster.

It was on CNN is all I can say

antfarm007
10-13-2001, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by CedarPoint_Mark
I made a comment. Don't crucify me for it. Maybe whoever started this thread (no disrespect) should have stated only sane replies only.

Oops!!! You're right, my bad, here it is!

Please only SANE replies
lol

Andy Rathe
10-13-2001, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by CedarPoint_Mark
I made a comment. Don't crucify me for it. Maybe whoever started this thread (no disrespect) should have stated only sane replies only.

I'm sorry if I appeared harsh. But to suggest that an A-bomb would solve anything is to bury your head in the sand. Pakistan and India, just two of the countries whose citizens aren't exactly thrilled with the bombing of Afghanistan, both have nuclear weapons, the same as the US.

I don't think I need to say what would happen if anyone sent an A-bomb to Afghanistan.

DyingDutchman
10-14-2001, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by Sethar
I'm sorry that I sicken you. I am sickened by American bombs -- bombs for which I helped pay through my taxes -- killing Afghan civilians. I grieved the loss of the people in the Sept 11th attacks, and to try and argue otherwise is insulting to me. And I certainly want to see the people responsible for those attacks brought to justice. But not at the cost of killing more civilians.

I won't even get into the humanitarian cost of our bombs cutting off UN food aid. I'm speaking directly of our bombs that are killing civilians. Earlier today (or perhaps it was yesterday), the Pentagon admitted that a 2,000 pound bomb missed its target at the Kabul airport and landed in a residential neighborhood. In one of the first couple days of bombing, the UN announced that it appeared that one of our bombs had killed four of their humanitarian workers near a radio tower in Afghanistan.

That is the killing of civilians that I am ashamed about. Of course, because that's occuring in some far-off land, and they're not related to any of us, it's going to be shoved aside and ignored. So that we can go on bombing and killing in our blind fury. :/

DUDE WE ARE ACCIDENTALLY KILLING CIVILIANS!!!! THEY DID IT ON PURPOSE!!

Andy Rathe
10-15-2001, 01:07 PM
Please turn off your caps lock when posting. It looks like YOU ARE SHOUTING, and it's far better for the board if we keep things civil between us.

Metalhead 777
10-15-2001, 09:00 PM
Sethar, what are we supposed to do, just bury our heads in the sand and let the terrotists kill thousands, if not millions more Americans? We aren't trying to kill civilians, but, it's war, and we do make mistakes. If we don't fight terrorism, it will continue to get worse. If we had this after the embasy bommings or the first WTC attacks, This attack wouldn't even have happened!

Coaster Boy
10-16-2001, 03:01 PM
Sethar, you are a moron and a coward. The US is trying their best not to kill civilians, but it is impossible to avoid innocent deaths in an attack such as this. Dozens of jets scrapped their entire mission(meaning they didn't drop a SINGLE bomb) because there was the SLIGHTEST chance of civilians being in the area.

You ought to be a shamed of yourself! How dare you compare the US military to the bastard terrorists of the Al Qaeda(sp) network! We are fighting for freedom! We are not only fighting for ourselves, but for the entire free world!

I for one am glad we decided to respond to the attacks this way. This way, few, if any of our soldiers will be killed.

I would like to point out two more things:

1) Most of the civilian death cannot be confirmed. The damn Taliban now states that well over 300 civilians have been "murdered". This cannot be confirmed, but the US is calling them "accomplished liars".

2) The Taliban has killed many more civilians that US bombs ever will. Let me show you how evil they are: As a token of goodwill the UN had a Football(soccer to the US) stadium built in Afghanistan(not sure what city). No games have ever been played there. Insted it is used as an area for public exicutions!! People are hung from the goals!

RagingBull#1
10-16-2001, 04:48 PM
those were my thoughts exactly

Erik Johnson
10-16-2001, 04:58 PM
Come on, let's simmer down a little bit. There's nothing wrong with expressing our opinions on this matter. The thing you have to remember is that others are entitled to their opinions just as you're entitled to yours. Please be respectful. We encourage debate, but namecalling will not be tolerated.

antfarm007
10-16-2001, 08:07 PM
So Erik, you don't agree with any of what we say I take it? This is justified here, just like what we are doing to Afghanistan. Here's some more fun stuff :-)

When winter arrives in Afghanistan, I think that there will be no ground forces there, simply because the public will not stand for a C-17 full of bodies and quickly denounce the war, which the Bush administration will not stand for (I hope), but the war will shift to another country sheltering/acting in terrorism, such as Iraq, Iran, Syria, or another terrorist state. The US people are very ignorant, and when hundreds die in Afghanistan, they won't want to fight in the war, just like Vietnam. I would consider Afghanistan a 'Vietnam with snow' in the winter, with victory just within reach, but still light years away. I think it would be in our best interests to just help the Northern Alliance, and make sure that they are able to unite the country, but wait theres more. USA policy has barred assainations since 1976, well, we are in a war now, and I think this needs to change. Although I believe we will never get bin Laden (see earlier posts) assasinations will be the way to get it done, but after there will still be people willing to die for the cause, so it will be a long war. The major point here is that Afghanistan is a poor-a** country, and many follow bin Laden because he has money.

mrk468zz
10-16-2001, 09:55 PM
Originally posted by antfarm007
The US people are very ignorant, and when hundreds die in Afghanistan, they won't want to fight in the war, just like Vietnam. I would consider Afghanistan a 'Vietnam with snow' in the winter, with victory just within reach, but still light years away.

If you're gonna equate this conflict to Vietnam, you need to come up with some support. Many people disagreed with Vietnam from the start. They didn't feel Vietnam was worth it, nor did they agree with the excuse about containing the soviet/communist threat. They felt the risk to Americans soldiers wasn't worth any perceived benefit. That's why they didn't support it, and that's why discontent grew as the years rolled by.
The situation now could not be more different. Why are we in this war? Because six THOUSAND civilians were killed. It was the worst single attack on American soil in history. People support this war because its viewed as retaliation and protection against future attacks. People WILL accept the death of even hundreds of American soldiers, just as they did in WWII. When this country is attacked, its citizens get a high sense of patriotism that lasts for a suprisingly long while. If they feel a real threat, they will support even drastic actions to contain and even eliminate that threat.

Sethar
10-17-2001, 12:11 AM
Erik, I appreciate your level-headed comment. I don't like being called names any more than anyone else.

Let me clear up some things:

After calling me some names, Coaster Boy made a few points:

He said that we've avoided killing more civilians than we could have by some of our pilots not dropping bombs if they thought there might be civilians in the way.

I appreciate that, and I'm glad that our military is attempting to avoid killing civilians. But it's not good enough. We spend an almost incomprehensible amount of money on our military. And yet we continue to make mistakes like these. If they cannot be more accurate with their weaponry, what's the point in spending money to make those weapons accurate?

He also pointed out the fact that many civilian deaths have not been verified by anyone but the Taliban.

That is a point that I'm well aware of. And if you will notice, I do not ever use the Taliban as a source for my criticism of the US military action. I don't know how much clearer I can be than this -- I absolutely do not support in any way the government of the Taliban or the actions of Osama bin Laden's terrorist network. I think they are evil and I hope to see the entire world freed from the violence they perpetuate upon Afghans and humanity as a whole. I do find it frustrating that the only time the US military admits to accidently hitting civilians is when a respected international organization (UN, ICRC) makes that claim first.

Finally, Coaster Boy points out the horrendous human rights record of the Taliban.

And like I said above, I think the Taliban is evil. I've noticed that many people don't seem to understand -- criticizing the military action in Afghanistan does not make you a terrorist supporter or a Taliban supporter. This is not a dichotomy. I can oppose the Taliban AND US bombs killing civilians without being inconsistent.

Kraken tells me he would like to have given me the middle finger. I'm glad that he can form his arguments so well.

Finally, let me point out an irony that I notice. Many Americans these days have expressed violent feelings towards people who dared to speak out against the military actions. Often times the argument is made that "if you don't like it here, maybe you should move to Afghanistan." Have some people forgotten the whole point of this? It's freedom. And freedom includes the right to disagree, and speak publicly of your disagreement with the government. That is what makes America beautiful. We can criticize an aspect of our government and still respect the freedom that allows us to do so. It just makes me sad to see people forget about freedom in their rage after September 11th. :(

mrk468zz
10-17-2001, 12:32 AM
Originally posted by Sethar
He said that we've avoided killing more civilians than we could have by some of our pilots not dropping bombs if they thought there might be civilians in the way.

I appreciate that, and I'm glad that our military is attempting to avoid killing civilians. But it's not good enough. We spend an almost incomprehensible amount of money on our military. And yet we continue to make mistakes like these. If they cannot be more accurate with their weaponry, what's the point in spending money to make those weapons accurate?

You need to be more specific, because I'll argue til i'm blue in the face that we aren't spending an 'incomprehensible' amount of money on the military. for the past decade, military spending has been cut drastically. Not to mention the fact that, as the only superpower/hegemon, we have a desire and a responsibility to maintain a global military presence (both independently and through NATO and the UN). to say nothing of the fact that there is not one--not ONE--technology in the history of the planet that has been perfect all the time. how accurate can you expect the smart-bomb technology to be, given you extend the iteration of use long enough?



Originally posted by Sethar
Have some people forgotten the whole point of this? It's freedom. And freedom includes the right to disagree, and speak publicly of your disagreement with the government. That is what makes America beautiful. We can criticize an aspect of our government and still respect the freedom that allows us to do so. It just makes me sad to see people forget about freedom in their rage after September 11th. :(

I couldn't agree more with you here. War doesn't change the nature of our country, nor is it off limits as a topic of debate. In a free society, the actions of the government should always be analyzed and questioned. There's still accountability to be had, not simply an assumption of total blind support.

Having said that, I still don't see what your alternative is. I don't like seeing innocent Afghanis killed in the conflict, but I don't see a feasible resolution to the issue without relying on the type of war we're fighting now. It's simply the only way, sadly. What is your alternative?

Andy Rathe
10-17-2001, 05:23 PM
Firstly, I'd just like to echo Erik's call to respect other's opinions. You can't have it both ways, defend your freedom when it's threatened, as is occuring right now, yet jump on someone who exercised that right to freedom because their thoughts on a subject are different to your own.

I agree with Sethar on his point about objecting to the bombing: just because you think the bombing should stop does not mean you support the Taliban! There are plenty of other ways that Bin Laden could be caught, espionage, covert operations, etc. Personally, I think that these will be more successful in the long run in catching him, as you can bomb seven shades of crap out of Afghanistan, but rest assured, Bin Laden will be safely holed up somewhere.

Also, there is this comparison. When the IRA tried to assassinate the British cabinet by bombing the Grand Hotel in Brighton in 1984, no-one suggested that Britain should bomb Ireland. Instead, every resource was ploughed into finding the bombers, which took about 8 or 9 years, but the two of them were ultimately found and jailed for life.

Therefore, by suggesting the bombing should stop doesn't mean you support the Taliban, it merely means you're using your brain to think of possible alternatives.

RagingBull#1
10-17-2001, 07:06 PM
well bombing terrorist camps is verrry productive, and bin laden will be caught in time. im just glad we had the wapons inspectors in iraq b/c saddam would have capitalized on this opportunity if he had the weapons he had 12 yrs ago

mrk468zz
10-18-2001, 12:05 AM
Originally posted by Andy Rathe
Also, there is this comparison. When the IRA tried to assassinate the British cabinet by bombing the Grand Hotel in Brighton in 1984, no-one suggested that Britain should bomb Ireland. Instead, every resource was ploughed into finding the bombers, which took about 8 or 9 years, but the two of them were ultimately found and jailed for life.

you oversimplify the situation. It is the position of the US government that foreign governments who willfully support and harbor terrorist networks will 'share in their fate,' as president bush stated it. The taliban allow bin laden to stay in afghanistan--they harbor and protect his network. The purpose of the bombing is to cripple the talibans communications and military strength, thereby rendering the governemt useless. this will be a HUGE help when the active search for bin laden begins. also, the bombing is meant to cripple terrorist training camps, as well.

to say nothing of the fact that the situation in northern ireland is complicated to a spectacular degree. so is the afghani situation, but in completely different manners. context is everything.

Andy Rathe
10-18-2001, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by mrk468zz


you oversimplify the situation. It is the position of the US government that foreign governments who willfully support and harbor terrorist networks will 'share in their fate,' as president bush stated it. The taliban allow bin laden to stay in afghanistan--they harbor and protect his network. The purpose of the bombing is to cripple the talibans communications and military strength, thereby rendering the governemt useless. this will be a HUGE help when the active search for bin laden begins. also, the bombing is meant to cripple terrorist training camps, as well.

to say nothing of the fact that the situation in northern ireland is complicated to a spectacular degree. so is the afghani situation, but in completely different manners. context is everything.

I know it's different, but it was the best comparison I could think of, to demonstrate my point! Also, I do support the bombing that is presently occurring, BUT, and I'll be totally honest, (and gladly be proved wrong too) , I'll be surprised if Bin Laden is caught.

TITAN GIRL
10-18-2001, 09:28 PM
I don't like war by any means but the Taliban more than deserves it! One thing that I have to say that I like the way the US is handling it! They do not want to kill innocent people and they are dropping food to the civilians to help! Now what other country would do that! And as for the ********* Taliban them SOB's had plenty of warning- all they said before we attacked was that we wouldn't do it cause the US was chicken!! Please!! They were the chickens, they were the ones that killed us and gave us no warning at all - they just killed and hid, they are the chickens! As for Osama bin Laden I wanna see him die but in time, I first wanna see him captured and put into a US Prision- I want to see him suffer and get the crap kicked outta him by all the prisioners- he is all big now but put him there with a bunch of pissed off American prisioners!! After he gets the crap kicked out of him he deserves the death penalty!!

Kraken
10-19-2001, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by Andy Rathe


I know it's different, but it was the best comparison I could think of, to demonstrate my point! Also, I do support the bombing that is presently occurring, BUT, and I'll be totally honest, (and gladly be proved wrong too) , I'll be surprised if Bin Laden is caught.

And how long has the IRA been attacking you? 50 years?

In a criminal act, you go and arrest who commited the crime. The Trade Center attacks were not crimes. They were acts of war! People need to start treating this like the attack it was, and not as a crime.

Zach
10-19-2001, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by TITAN GIRL
I first wanna see him captured and put into a US Prision- I want to see him suffer and get the crap kicked outta him by all the prisioners- he is all big now but put him there with a bunch of pissed off American prisioners!! After he gets the crap kicked out of him he deserves the death penalty!!

Believe me you don't. The hassles of getting him actually into US Court and in prison or put to death will be big. You want him dead.

Zach

Andy Rathe
10-19-2001, 05:47 PM
Now, bear with me on this one - it is on topic! I read in todays paper that a geologist recognised the rock in the background of the video of Bin Laden that we all saw last week. Apparently, that particular rock strata is only found in one particular part of Afghanistan. So, right now I expect covert op's are going on in that area to find Bin Laden; after all, they're not going to announce it!

Wackokid
10-19-2001, 05:52 PM
yeah i heard that too

RagingBull#1
10-19-2001, 08:00 PM
we have ground troops capturing a city right now

antfarm007
10-20-2001, 12:26 PM
As much as I want to see it happen, you have to look at the facts.
_
It is 99.9% positive that we will not get him. We will try, but we probably won't suceed

MST3K_FREAK6666
10-20-2001, 03:41 PM
I'm so confused! Is Pakistan on our side our there's? Hm...

Andy Rathe
10-20-2001, 07:04 PM
Originally posted by TITAN GIRL
I don't like war by any means but the Taliban more than deserves it! One thing that I have to say that I like the way the US is handling it! They do not want to kill innocent people and they are dropping food to the civilians to help! Now what other country would do that!

This isn't exactly as helpful as it first appears. The food contained in the packages that the US is dropping isn't staple food, like rice or pasta, that the people really need. Instead, it's strawberry jam, peanut butter, and a few other things that the average Afghan refugee won't ever have seen, and therefore won't know whether to eat it, brush his teeth with it, or use it as a toy.

I wish I was making this up, but I'm afraid I'm not - the packs even contain a moist towelette - like the ones on planes - that'll really come in handy! Plus, the languages on the packs are English, Spanish & German - again not what the average refugee is likely to be fluent in.

I know that these are US army rations (I think so anyway), and at least the US and other countries are doing something to help the millions of people who will starve to death if nothing is done, but I think there are far better things that we could be giving them, stuff they need, recognise and could use, rather than the things I've mentioned above.

Kraken
10-20-2001, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by Andy Rathe


This isn't exactly as helpful as it first appears. The food contained in the packages that the US is dropping isn't staple food, like rice or pasta, that the people really need. Instead, it's strawberry jam, peanut butter, and a few other things that the average Afghan refugee won't ever have seen, and therefore won't know whether to eat it, brush his teeth with it, or use it as a toy.

I wish I was making this up, but I'm afraid I'm not - the packs even contain a moist towelette - like the ones on planes - that'll really come in handy! Plus, the languages on the packs are English, Spanish & German - again not what the average refugee is likely to be fluent in.

I know that these are US army rations (I think so anyway), and at least the US and other countries are doing something to help the millions of people who will starve to death if nothing is done, but I think there are far better things that we could be giving them, stuff they need, recognise and could use, rather than the things I've mentioned above.


Actually, we are dropping MRE's-Meals Ready to Eat. They are like one meal contained inside a small package, and are rations used by the United States army. These DO contain simple foods, like Rice, Noodles, and other average stuff. The reason there are moist towelettes is because they are contained in the MRE's, along with the food. BTW, I didn't hear of England dropping any food.

Andy Rathe
10-20-2001, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by Kraken

Actually, we are dropping MRE's-Meals Ready to Eat. They are like one meal contained inside a small package, and are rations used by the United States army. These DO contain simple foods, like Rice, Noodles, and other average stuff. The reason there are moist towelettes is because they are contained in the MRE's, along with the food. BTW, I didn't hear of England dropping any food.

I'm well aware that the USA is currently the only country doing the aid drops (though that doesn't mean that other countries haven't supplied any of the food being dropped), and I'm not criticising them for that at all. All I'm demonstrating is that not all the stuff being dropped is as useful as it could (and should) be. In less than four weeks time, winter will be setting in - think Wyoming in January and you'll have some idea of what it'll be like. EVERY country should be doing more to help the Afghan refugees, as they didn't ask for this war, and are merely caught up in it.

Kraken
10-20-2001, 10:41 PM
Well I think it's foolish of countries to criticize the U. S. dropping food, while they aren't helping the refugees in any way.

Coaster Boy
10-20-2001, 11:20 PM
U.S Speacial Forces(The Rangers) have landed in Afghanistan!

Their mission? Intelligence gathering. No, they are not capturing a city. They are storming a Taliban C&C building that has not been destroyed, looking for any info they may be able to use. While they were there they also destroyed abandoned weapons left by the Taliban forces. They met with little resistance.

In a related note(I sound like a newscaster, I know) a U.S blackhawk helecopter has crashed in Pakistan, killing two US soldiers. The Pentagon says it was an accident, caused by a "brownout", or large amounts of dust blocking the pilot's view.

The damn Taliban reported that it shot down the helecopter. They also claim to also have beaten back U.S forces that attacked their C&C center. They are terrible liars, no?

Things are finally starting to get interesting!

Go to the games section, I am starting a virtual pool on when the war will end.

Andy Rathe
10-21-2001, 08:53 AM
Originally posted by Kraken
Well I think it's foolish of countries to criticize the U. S. dropping food, while they aren't helping the refugees in any way.

I clearly said in my above post that I'm not criticising the US for dropping food. I merely said that, IMHO, it is not as practical as it should be. Yes, MRE's may be being dropped, which is fine, but so is stuff such as jam and peanut butter, which for a refugee is next to useless. However, I do agree that at least the USA is doing something.

RagingBull#1
10-21-2001, 08:58 AM
can you find any proof that we are dropping jam. all we are dropping are the yellow packet MRE's

Coaster Boy
10-21-2001, 12:38 PM
Among other things, the U.S is dropping wheat, flour, sugar, bread, water, and assorted canned food. Want proof? Turn on CNN for a while. Eventually they will show the refugees gathered around one of the drop sites gathering as much stuff as they can carrry.

-PEACE THROUGH POWER!

Kraken
10-21-2001, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by Andy Rathe


I clearly said in my above post that I'm not criticising the US for dropping food. I merely said that, IMHO, it is not as practical as it should be. Yes, MRE's may be being dropped, which is fine, but so is stuff such as jam and peanut butter, which for a refugee is next to useless. However, I do agree that at least the USA is doing something.

The reason they contain Jam is because the MRE's contain Jam! Would it be better to open them up, remove the Jam, and the repackage it, eventually making the costs go sky-high? Or should we give it to them anyway, and have it thrown on the ground, while they eat the other food? We aren't dropping 50 pound crates of Penut Butter! It's contained and sealed in the MRE's!

Andy Rathe
10-21-2001, 05:01 PM
In that case, I take back that part of what I said; I didn't know that that was what was included as standard in the MRE's. Plus, like I mentioned, at least the USA is doing SOMETHING to aid the normal food programmes going on in the region.

MST3K_FREAK6666
10-21-2001, 06:22 PM
Hey, but if there is also bread in the MRE's they could make PB&J! Anyway, dropping the MRE's is not making the Taliban hand over bin Laden. We are just doing it out of... what? Pity and sympathy? Hm... maybe not. But then again, maybe SO...

Kraken
10-22-2001, 05:19 PM
Originally posted by Andy Rathe
In that case, I take back that part of what I said; I didn't know that that was what was included as standard in the MRE's. Plus, like I mentioned, at least the USA is doing SOMETHING to aid the normal food programmes going on in the region.

Yes, it's standard. A sample MRE would contain:

Noodles
Bread
Napkin
Green Beans
Saltine Crackers
Butter

The media might report "They are dropping Napkins and crackers! The Afghans don't need that!" However, what they don't report is that they always contain basic foods, and jam and penut butter as a side snack.

antfarm007
10-22-2001, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by Kraken


Yes, it's standard. A sample MRE would contain:

Noodles
Bread
Napkin/ Moist Towelet for meat
Green Beans
Saltine Crackers
Butter

The media might report "They are dropping moist Towelet's and crackers! The Afghans don't need that!" However, what they don't report is that they always contain basic foods, and jam and penut butter as a side snack.

A moist towelet for MEAT???? -=LOL=-
Ummm, in case you didn't know (which i hope you didn't) the MREs we are dropping are vegetarian to conform with Muslim diet laws, yes everything else in the list is standard in what we drop, but we do not send any meat.

Since I guess no Muslim laws prohibit suicide and murder, why don't these Arab leaders declare war on terrorism???

We should take the humanitarian aid as a carrot to these countries untill they hand over these terrorists.

I hear that the generals have authorized lethal force against bin Laden and co. ; guys, lets wait til we get there!

SixFlagsGreatAM_Rocks
10-23-2001, 06:28 PM
on the news they said they dont no what certain food is and hey much rather have rice and beans

Kraken
10-23-2001, 06:31 PM
Trust me, we are dropping tons(really) of Rice and Beans.

DyingDutchman
10-27-2001, 02:05 PM
i say put a bomb in some bean soup and drop it in an obvious place for taliban to intercept it.

cedarpointfreak
10-27-2001, 03:51 PM
I don't think we will ever get Bin Laden. back about 10 yrs ago one of bin laden's assistants needed to escape a country so he had plastic surgery and he walked right out of the country. so Bin Laden could of got surgery and be living in the US right now.

Andy Rathe
10-27-2001, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by cedarpointfreak
I don't think we will ever get Bin Laden. back about 10 yrs ago one of bin laden's assistants needed to escape a country so he had plastic surgery and he walked right out of the country. so Bin Laden could of got surgery and be living in the US right now.

I agree. The guy is head of a huge terrorist organisation, so whatever you think of him/it, they have got a heck of a lot of resources at their disposal. Also, I recall everyone saying at the start of the Gulf War how Saddam Hussein was going to be killed, and he's still around. The same goes for Colonel Gaddafi (sp?).

On a second note, I think the USA needs to be a bit more careful with what it's bombing. Another Red Cross depot was hit last night - I think that's the third or fourth that has been hit, destroying thousands of tons of much-needed food. Also, I've just watched a Sky News report of a village that was bombed, killing 15 civilians and injuring dozens more, including a couple of children who had limbs blown off.

I'm sure these are accidents, after all, if you drop thousands of bombs a few are going to go astray, but if this carries on then countries such as Pakistan, who have supported the US so far, will perhaps start to have second thoughts.

mrk468zz
10-28-2001, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by Andy Rathe
I agree. The guy is head of a huge terrorist organisation, so whatever you think of him/it, they have got a heck of a lot of resources at their disposal. Also, I recall everyone saying at the start of the Gulf War how Saddam Hussein was going to be killed, and he's still around. The same goes for Colonel Gaddafi (sp?).

Saddam would have been easy to get at. In fact, he's easy to get at RIGHT NOW. Thing about the persian gulf war was that Bush Sr. made the decision to halt the campaign after Saddam had left Kuwait. Why? a: the US felt the objectives of preventing Iraqi expansion was met, b: we didn't have the coalition behind us for a full-scale overthrow of Saddam, and c: we didn't want to be left in a situation of having to occupy Baghdad and indeed all of Iraq. However, had the decision been made, getting Saddam would have been relatively easy.

getting bin laden is the opposite situation. we definately WANT to kill him/capture him, we just can't seem to find him.


Originally posted by Andy Rathe
On a second note, I think the USA needs to be a bit more careful with what it's bombing. Another Red Cross depot was hit last night - I think that's the third or fourth that has been hit, destroying thousands of tons of much-needed food. Also, I've just watched a Sky News report of a village that was bombed, killing 15 civilians and injuring dozens more, including a couple of children who had limbs blown off.

I'm sure these are accidents, after all, if you drop thousands of bombs a few are going to go astray, but if this carries on then countries such as Pakistan, who have supported the US so far, will perhaps start to have second thoughts.

its the second red cross facility to be hit, but we've also hid a UN facility in the past, as well. But come on--the Taliban have been looting/destroying these warehouses themselves since our campaign began. this doesn't justify our mistakes, but it does put them in perspective. also, the US takes great pains in choosing their targets, but when a 2000-lb bomb is hurling at the earth from miles above, even the best technology isn't gonna be perfect.

and on the idea of villages and civilians being destoryed and killed: i agree that the civilian body count should be kept at an absolute minimum. but with the taliban placing tanks and personnel in villages right next to civilians, they literally CREATE these images. we bomb their tanks near a house, or a meeting place near a mosque, and they parade dead bodies of young children around decrying the evils of the American oppressors. but what can we do? certainly we've lost the propaganda war in the region years ago, and those that hate us won't listen to us anyway--especially since the taliban spins a web of lies.

and keep this in mind: you've got the US lobbing bombs, the northern alliances using artillery, and the taliban attacking both them and our planes with anti-aircraft fire. none of the latter have hit our planes, and they need to come down SOMEWHERE. so when we see images of a village having been demolished, it could easily be from any one of these four sources (though less so from the northern alliance).

Andy Rathe
10-29-2001, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by mrk468zz
its the second red cross facility to be hit, but we've also hid a UN facility in the past, as well. But come on--the Taliban have been looting/destroying these warehouses themselves since our campaign began. this doesn't justify our mistakes, but it does put them in perspective. also, the US takes great pains in choosing their targets, but when a 2000-lb bomb is hurling at the earth from miles above, even the best technology isn't gonna be perfect.

and on the idea of villages and civilians being destoryed and killed: i agree that the civilian body count should be kept at an absolute minimum. but with the taliban placing tanks and personnel in villages right next to civilians, they literally CREATE these images. we bomb their tanks near a house, or a meeting place near a mosque, and they parade dead bodies of young children around decrying the evils of the American oppressors. but what can we do? certainly we've lost the propaganda war in the region years ago, and those that hate us won't listen to us anyway--especially since the taliban spins a web of lies.

and keep this in mind: you've got the US lobbing bombs, the northern alliances using artillery, and the taliban attacking both them and our planes with anti-aircraft fire. none of the latter have hit our planes, and they need to come down SOMEWHERE. so when we see images of a village having been demolished, it could easily be from any one of these four sources (though less so from the northern alliance).

I agree with what you've said. But IMHO, regardless of the propaganda war having been lost years ago, the coalition that presently exists won't survive if there are many more errors. Some of the countries that are supporting the bombing at present, like Pakistan, are doing so against the opinion of their populations. They are not going to risk domestic upheaval just to support the USA.

antfarm007
10-30-2001, 06:57 AM
Originally posted by Kraken
1©They have plastic surgery facilities in the middle of the desert? Wow, I had no idea!

2©We will get Osama bin Laden© People think we have no idea were he is, but we do© He can only go so far, and we will only try to get him when the risk is least©

3©The Red Cross Bombings? Yeah, it sucks that we bombed OUR food that we sent to Afghanistan© We'll send them some more© It's not like it's the only food we have©

4©Pakistan turning against us? That will be pretty sucky if they did turn against us© For Pakistan, that is© Pakistan knows that if they turn against us, we're kicking their ass, too©

5© We didn't get Saddam Hussein? That is because we didn't want to© The goal of NATO was to drive Sadaam Hussein out of Kuwait, and to ensure he didn't take over any other lands© We succeded with those goals©]

6© The Taliban is hurting their own villages© Like the above post stated, Shells don't dissapear into space© They fall down, and explode©

1© Osama bin Laden is a rich guy, he could bring a plastic surgery expert there if he wanted©

2© We have NO idea where bin Laden is© Since the day of Gengis Khan, Afghan people have been digging tunnels in the Afghan mountains© There are electric plants down there now, weapons, supplies, and al-Qaeda/Taliban leaders, terrorists, and soldiers© These tunnels are thousands of miles long, so it will be VERY hard© We have all seen pictures of planes bombing the mountains, well those are heat-seeking missiles looking for people in the mountain© This is the main reason the Soviets never defeated Afghanistan©

3© We KNOW we are hitting Red Cross facilities© the same Red Cross warehouse in Kabul has been directly hit a few times© We are targeting the warehouses because they have supplies in them that the Taliban could use, and we all know that we can rebuild a warehouse a few years down the road©

4© Pakistan isn't going to be in the coalition very long, the people there are angry, and 100,000 Pakistanis have crossed into Afghanistan to fight the US© Pakistan's government may be overthrown as a result of their American support, but Pakistan would be wise not to, if they ever want to get anywhere with India and that region whose name slips my mind©

5© We didn't succeed with Hussein at all, he still has weapons of mass distruction, and is now developing biological weapons, one of which is anthrax ¥The Iraqi government has confirmed it¤ After Afghanistan we will shift to somewhere else with terrorism, maybe Iraq or Syria or Sudan, or Libya© We are now starting to plan for something in the Phillipines© The future could even hold something for the Basques, Palestinians or even Iraq©

6© Yes, the Taliban is hurting their own villages, but they really don't care, and once the anti-aircraft fire gets so high, it will explode in the air© We fly too high to get hit though©

Andy Rathe
10-30-2001, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by Kraken

4.Pakistan turning against us? That will be pretty sucky if they did turn against us. For Pakistan, that is. Pakistan knows that if they turn against us, we're kicking their ass, too.

Do me a favour! Pakistan and it's people have a right not to support the USA if they choose to do so. It's exactly this sort of attitude that results in the USA being known as "the global bully" in many countries around the world.

mrk468zz
10-30-2001, 10:04 AM
Originally posted by antfarm007


2© We have NO idea where bin Laden is© Since the day of Gengis Khan, Afghan people have been digging tunnels in the Afghan mountains© There are electric plants down there now, weapons, supplies, and al-Qaeda/Taliban leaders, terrorists, and soldiers© These tunnels are thousands of miles long, so it will be VERY hard© We have all seen pictures of planes bombing the mountains, well those are heat-seeking missiles looking for people in the mountain© This is the main reason the Soviets never defeated Afghanistan©

4© Pakistan isn't going to be in the coalition very long, the people there are angry, and 100,000 Pakistanis have crossed into Afghanistan to fight the US© Pakistan's government may be overthrown as a result of their American support, but Pakistan would be wise not to, if they ever want to get anywhere with India and that region whose name slips my mind©

2. We have an IDEA where bin laden is, just not a particularly good one. the govt is fairly certain that he's somewhere in this massive network of caves, but even with the bunker-buster bombs we may not hit the caves very well at all. however, ever since al queda (and particularly bin laden himself) stopped using satilite (sp) phones and other forms of tracable communication, the network has relied heavily upon direct verbal communication. so if we can keep the al queda network hiding in the mountains, unable to communicate with one another or their foreign cells, they're as good as dead.

4. there is no coalition. this is a myth. the US has many separate deals with many different countries (pakistan included, of course), but the idea that there's one binding coalition that could fall apart is wrong. plus, while there are many people in pakistan who do not support the actions of the government, there really is a so-called 'silent majority' of moderate pakistani muslims who do support it (or at least, don't not support it, i guess). the region's kashmir, by the way. and i agree that this is pakistan's main reason for offering help to the US.

and here's a rather interesting theory i heard the other day (but not one i necessarily subscribe to): polling has shown that many americans feel that the point of this war is to get bin laden. this is, of course, not true--the main point is to cripple al queda and other terrorist networks. bin laden is merely a part of it. however, if bin laden was killed, the american people might not support an ongoing war, thinking 'the enemy' was defeated. so if the military had succeeded in killing bin laden, they wouldn't report it, for fear of its meaning being misconstrued by the american public.

a stupid theory, but an interesting one nonetheless.

mrk468zz
10-30-2001, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by Andy Rathe


Do me a favour! Pakistan and it's people have a right not to support the USA if they choose to do so. It's exactly this sort of attitude that results in the USA being known as "the global bully" in many countries around the world.

of course pakistan has a right to this. i think his point (however well he delivered it) was that the real reason pakistan is supporting the US is that it wants our sympathy in the region in regards to pakistani-India relations. Up until now, the US has really supported india in the region, but with the help of pakistan we've shifting to a more open approach, something that will clearly help pakistan in the future (what with both countries wanting kashmir and having nukes to toy with). so his point--or at least my point--is that pakistan will lose any favorable status in the US's eyes if they cut off support. this would place them in a real pickle, since they'd have pretty much no real friends in the region.

Kraken
10-30-2001, 04:41 PM
1.The point about the ongoing war against terrorism is correct. Many people don't understand that Osama is simply a part in this thing, not the main goal. We need to kill/capture him, but that will NOT be the end of things.

2. We have an idea of were he is. We know he can't leave Afghanistan. He has to go out in the open to move from place to place. We know where he was, say, 2 days ago, by looking at tracks in the sand. By using this system, we can eventually track him.

3. Yes, we are hitting Red Cross warehouses occasionally. I guess we'll have to spend thousands of dollars more to replace the food that was there first, which we also supplied.

4. The Gulf War didn't fail! Our goal was to drive Iraq out of Kuwait, and to keep him from aking over more countries. We acomplished those goals.

5. I guess America is the only nation that will feed the people of a country who they are at war with. We probably are also are the only country who people will complain and hate, because we didn't do it perfectly. Like it or not, our goals would be acomplished much faster if we simply carpet-bombed Kabul until nothing is standing. This would not be the right thing, but the most affective.


6. Yes, Pakistan does have the right to side with the Taliban. However, if they do, they are sideing with those who want to completly destroy us. However, all they have to do is say they will not support the Taliban, and everythings ok. For instance, you don't hear about Norway doing anything, yet they are helping us simply by not helping the Taliban. Like Bush said, "You are either for us or against us".

7. Pakistan will continue to support the US. Keep in mind Andy, that the controversey loving media will only show the protesters, not the people who dislike the Taliban. We all know about the people who crossed the border, but this means that only those people think the Taliban is worth fighting for! I don't understand how individuals such as yourself can continue to bash every single thing we do to stop these people! This was the deadliest terroist attack in Englands history, as well as the U.S.!

P.S. Yes, I suppose he will contact a plastic surgeon using his Cell Phone. Then, He can have a missle shot right at him. Osama has no forms of communications on his hands! Besides, Afghanistan has problems with paved roads, let alone plastic surgery.

Andy Rathe
10-31-2001, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by Kraken

5.
7. Pakistan will continue to support the US. Keep in mind Andy, that the controversey loving media will only show the protesters, not the people who dislike the Taliban. We all know about the people who crossed the border, but this means that only those people think the Taliban is worth fighting for! I don't understand how individuals such as yourself can continue to bash every single thing we do to stop these people! This was the deadliest terroist attack in Englands history, as well as the U.S.!

I haven't bashed everything that you're doing! I first wondered why jam and peanut butter were being dropped: you told me that they were standard contents of MRE's. Fine. You're also right about the media; regardless of the story they will always put on the most visually striking parts of it i.e. people demonstrating against the bombing versus the "silent majority".

They are also fair points about the lack of a coalition - it's all individual deals instead, and Kashmir. I hadn't thought of those things this way. I also do support the bombing 100% - but that doesn't mean I necessarily agree with HOW it is being done.

Kraken
10-31-2001, 03:42 PM
Sorry, I was using exageration. I was under the impression you were against the bombing, though.

I hate how some people don't want us to attack Afghanistan, and instead spend the cash on food. Sure, that will work. Maybe if we just drop millions of dollars of food and have the Taliban take it all, they will realise how nice we are. The government hates us, dispite the fact we are their largest source of aid. Dropping just food will acomplish nothing. Besides, why are they even critizing us in the first place? Never has a war been fought in which we feed the population of the the government we are at war with! And all this "stop doing it, you are blowing up civillian targets"? Yeah, people dieng isn't good. But in an all-out war, you bomb the cities. Back in World War 2, when the allies wantef to attack the target, they bombed the whole city. Thousands od bombers would fly overhead, just dropping bombs and erasing the city of the face of the planet. One time, The Americans and British Fire-Bombed a city so much, it caused a giant swirling stom, due to the cold air coming in contact with the fire! That was war. Now, we have the media going over there, interveiwing a person. "They attacked my home! The bomb went astray and exploded on my home!" I think all the members of the media should go and interveiw the families of the thousands of people dead and buried in the World Trade Center.

Andy Rathe
11-01-2001, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by Kraken
Sorry, I was using exageration. I was under the impression you were against the bombing, though.

I hate how some people don't want us to attack Afghanistan, and instead spend the cash on food. Sure, that will work. Maybe if we just drop millions of dollars of food and have the Taliban take it all, they will realise how nice we are. The government hates us, dispite the fact we are their largest source of aid. Dropping just food will acomplish nothing. Besides, why are they even critizing us in the first place? Never has a war been fought in which we feed the population of the the government we are at war with! And all this "stop doing it, you are blowing up civillian targets"? Yeah, people dieng isn't good. But in an all-out war, you bomb the cities. Back in World War 2, when the allies wantef to attack the target, they bombed the whole city. Thousands od bombers would fly overhead, just dropping bombs and erasing the city of the face of the planet. One time, The Americans and British Fire-Bombed a city so much, it caused a giant swirling stom, due to the cold air coming in contact with the fire! That was war. Now, we have the media going over there, interveiwing a person. "They attacked my home! The bomb went astray and exploded on my home!" I think all the members of the media should go and interveiw the families of the thousands of people dead and buried in the World Trade Center.

We've found some common ground at last! I agree with pretty much all of this; though at the risk of us going round in circles, I still reckon that all the Western countries, especially the USA, need to be careful with how they proceed with the war. Now that carpet bombing has started, they need to be even more cautious. One wrong co-ordinate of where to carpet-bomb, and half of the Norrtern Alliance would be wiped out!

I also believe that the only way to get Bin Laden, in the long term, is to use political means. I remembered earlier today about the Pan-Am plane that exploded over Scotland in 1988. Instead of bombing Libya, where the two terrorists who planted the bomb that caused the explosion were believed to be hiding, diplomacy was used. OK, it has taken over 10 years, but the two perpetrators of what was previously one of the worst terrorist attacks on US citizens, prior to Sept. 11th of course, were brought to trail, found guilty, and jailed.

Andy Rathe
11-07-2001, 02:41 PM
According to all the media over here, carpet bombing started several days ago. I do also take your point about the attacks being the opening salvo of a war, as opposed to a criminal attack.

mrk468zz
11-07-2001, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by Andy Rathe
According to all the media over here, carpet bombing started several days ago. I do also take your point about the attacks being the opening salvo of a war, as opposed to a criminal attack.

you are correct. we've been carpet-bombing the Taliban front lines for a week now, directly helping the Northern 'Alliance.' According to them, they've been making incredible gains because of it. According to the Taliban, they've been totally ineffective. The truth is probably somewhere in between.

as for whether this is an act of war or a criminal act, i argue that its both. since it was state-sponsored (or at least state-supported, we beleive), it was an act of war. however, the nature of the crime and the targets also show that this was a criminal act. The most successful US victory in all of this would be to bring bin laden and his goons back to the states and try them in federal court. we'd be using the democratic system--everything they're against--to gain victory over them.

of course, this won't happen. in the unlikely event that we'd be able to get bin laden alive and bring him back here, i'd be impossible to publicly try him without exposing national security secrets. it'd still be nice, though.

Kraken
11-08-2001, 08:36 PM
I'm sorry. I meant carpet bombing Afghan cities-completly destroying everything-As opposed to only using extremly accurate strikes against specific targets.

Metalhead 777
11-10-2001, 04:34 PM
Yay!!! The Northern Allience took Maz-a-ri-sharif(sp?)!!!!!!!!!!!

Coaster Boy
11-10-2001, 09:53 PM
Yes, even the Taliban has confirmed that they have lost the city of Mazar-e Sharif to the Northern Alliance. As well as several provences around the city. The Northern Alliance also claimes to have captured 100 Taliban soldiers, while killing 90 in the attacks.


Now I'm gonna say something I haven't said since they took the flag out of my sig: PEACE THROUGH POWER!!!!

Aaron
11-13-2001, 07:35 PM
Well, another developement. According to the local newspaper, the Northern Alliance took control of the capital, Kabul. And if I remember correctly the group that controls Kabul traditionally is the ruling group. Now that the Taliban has been forced to Southern Afghanistan, it'll be very interesting to see how long it takes before the Alliance takes control of the whole contry.

Kraken
11-13-2001, 08:06 PM
The Northern Alliance just said they have taken over Khandahar and Jallalabad, as well as Kabul and Mazar-e Sharif! This is great! The Taliban, of course, ran away like little girls into the mountains.

The_Evil_Tediz
11-13-2001, 08:21 PM
Actually, I think the Taliban is headed for Kandahar, which is a city just north of the Pakistan border. I expect we will take it within the next 3 weeks.

Kraken
11-13-2001, 08:39 PM
I just saw on the news the Northern Alliance claimed they are taking them over..

intamin101
11-13-2001, 08:45 PM
This is great, but no one has been hurt right? I hope that this battle can be fought without any more bloodshed.

Inferno
11-13-2001, 10:14 PM
Not too many people have been killed yet. But if this turns into a guerrilla war in the mountains with the Taliban setting up boobytraps, things could get bad.

Andy Rathe
11-14-2001, 10:13 AM
Merged with existing Afghanistan thread.

I'm very surprised, but still pleased, that the Taliban have been removed this quickly. It's great that men can shave off their beards, women can remove their face veils and travel in the same buses as men, and girls can go to school. These were all among the things that were illegal under Taliban rule.

Hopefully, the Al-Queda network and Bin Laden will follow.

birderboy
11-14-2001, 07:01 PM
I've heard that the Taliban have taken Jalalabad AND KANDAHAR! It hasn't been verified yet though. http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/11/14/ret.afghan.attacks/index.html

antfarm007
11-17-2001, 08:42 AM
now that i am able to post once again. ;-)

I believe the Taliban is preparing for a guerilla war from the mountains in all of their tunnels and caves, launching sneak attacks and rushing back to them. These terrorists are very smart. Entrances to the system of tunnels are at right angles, rendering cruise missles useless. There are bunkers down there with their own power plants! There are tunnels built next to underground rivers for water also. These bunkers are thousands of feet down into the mountains, rendering our biggest bunker-busting bombs useless. Even if a atom bomb was dropped, it is so far down that the explosion and radiation wouldnt reach. To defeat the 'cowards in the caves' we must get the help of Afghans to take us to entrances and ventalation shafts. With access to the ventalation shafts we actually could "smoke them out of their holes" or better yet, knock them out and take them back home to the USA where they can have a trail. (Who says the gas can't kill a few for the gipper anyway)

RagingBull#1
11-17-2001, 11:17 AM
the taliban is dead and gone. totally wiped out in a few days, and they are not coming back. the only thing left to do it take out al qeda. we killed bin laden's number two guy in a bombing as well as dozens of al qeda army cheifs. it was said that the number 2 guy is usually the brains for all the terrorist attacks. it is only time before we get bin laden himself.

mrk468zz
11-17-2001, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by antfarm007
now that i am able to post once again. ;-)

I believe the Taliban is preparing for a guerilla war from the mountains in all of their tunnels and caves, launching sneak attacks and rushing back to them.

agreed. i think we're fooling ourselves if we think that the taliban were wiped out this easily. with little or no resistance in taking the major cities, its becoming painfully clear that the taliban will launch guerilla war-like attacks from their hiding places in the caves. and since the so-called northern 'alliance' is only a loosely-tied together band of competing groups, they don't have the ability to stop it themselves. even with us special forces assisting, the picture may be rather grim.

RagingBull#1
11-17-2001, 11:45 AM
not really. our bombing killed the talibans troops. why do you think they aren;t fighting. we killed tousands of them. others defected to the northern alliances side. there is none of them left

Kraken
11-17-2001, 01:01 PM
antfarm, how do you know about these caves? They are simply rumors. If they do try and use Guerilla attacks...we will just kill them.

Andy Rathe
11-17-2001, 03:08 PM
Antfarm is correct about the caves. I'm not sure about water sources or power plants, but there are extensive underground complexes in the Adghan mountains, which do extend thousands of feet below the surface.

Also, the Taliban hasn't been completely wiped out. Removed from governmant and severly depleted yes, but I'm sure there will be enough of them left to resume a guerilla war. That's what every other losing army has done in that region for the last 25 years!

RagingBull#1
11-17-2001, 03:14 PM
yes but every other losing army isnt the most dominant country in the history of the world. the truth is that with our help, the taliban was ousted in a week. if our forces really went in there we would have done it in a matter of days.

Anaconda
11-21-2001, 06:16 PM
Yeah, there are caves, but if they can't come out, then they can't gather food, and water resources will soon run out so they'll be under siege and they'll all die of hunger and starvation.

antfarm007
11-24-2001, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by Andy Rathe
Antfarm is correct about the caves. I'm not sure about water sources or power plants, but there are extensive underground complexes in the Adghan mountains, which do extend thousands of feet below the surface.

Also, the Taliban hasn't been completely wiped out. Removed from governmant and severly depleted yes, but I'm sure there will be enough of them left to resume a guerilla war. That's what every other losing army has done in that region for the last 25 years!

No outside force has conquered Afghanistan since Alexander the great. The Taliban hasn't been wiped out, they've only been severely downsized, but even if you look in the newspaper this stuff in the caves is amazing. Entrances are at right angles so cruise missles are useless and at the end of teh right angle there are turrets dug into the caves (I saw this on abc a month or so ago) The caves are thousands of feet into the mountains and it was claimed that the bunkers could support thousands.

RagingBull#1
11-24-2001, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by antfarm007


No outside force has conquered Afghanistan since Alexander the great. The Taliban hasn't been wiped out, they've only been severely downsized, but even if you look in the newspaper this stuff in the caves is amazing. Entrances are at right angles so cruise missles are useless and at the end of teh right angle there are turrets dug into the caves (I saw this on abc a month or so ago) The caves are thousands of feet into the mountains and it was claimed that the bunkers could support thousands.

its called bunker buster bomb and the taliban army is almost wiped out

another thing, america is more dominant than alexander the great ever was

antfarm007
11-25-2001, 03:56 PM
The bunker busters can't go down that far kid!
the Soviets couldn't do it (they <u>were </u> more powerful than us>
We think we have defeated the Taliban, but we will see as they start their guerilla warfare and we pull out. We think we have won, but we have only just begun...

mrk468zz
11-25-2001, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by antfarm007
The bunker busters can't go down that far kid!
the Soviets couldn't do it (they <u>were </u> more powerful than us>
We think we have defeated the Taliban, but we will see as they start their guerilla warfare and we pull out. We think we have won, but we have only just begun...

i agree that the Taliban are far from wiped out, but much has been made of the resiliancy of Afghanis when there isn't much to it. Did they keep the Soviets at bay? Yes. But the U.S. was giving them detailed intelligence info on how and where to hit the Soviets. Of course, this made a huge difference.

In any event, the Taliban are still aroung, they're just more fractured and disorganized than ever before. Of course, this will actually make them harder to wipe out.

RagingBull#1
11-26-2001, 07:21 AM
Originally posted by antfarm007
The bunker busters can't go down that far kid!
the Soviets couldn't do it (they <u>were </u> more powerful than us>
We think we have defeated the Taliban, but we will see as they start their guerilla warfare and we pull out. We think we have won, but we have only just begun...

the soviets stronger than america, that is why they won the cold war right. and after that was over their country went down the tubes and ours kept on growing lightyears ahead of everyone. the soviets stronger than us ha. we will see an apache take out 20 soviet tanks in 16 second and see who is stronger. the fact is that america is so much stronger than the rest of the world that it isn't even funny. when someone attacks us these days they have to hide b/c were coming for em and they have nothing to do about it. and another fact is that WE DID what the soviets couldn't do in 10 years in a matter of about a month and a half. who is stonger now. you keep telling us all oh wait and see they are all in mountains ready to attack and it hasn't happened and it won't. this is because americas far superior bombing to the soviets took care of that.

antfarm007
11-30-2001, 08:43 PM
Originally posted by RagingBull#1


the soviets stronger than america, that is why they won the cold war right. and after that was over their country went down the tubes and ours kept on growing lightyears ahead of everyone. the soviets stronger than us ha. we will see an apache take out 20 soviet tanks in 16 second and see who is stronger. the fact is that america is so much stronger than the rest of the world that it isn't even funny. when someone attacks us these days they have to hide b/c were coming for em and they have nothing to do about it. and another fact is that WE DID what the soviets couldn't do in 10 years in a matter of about a month and a half. who is stonger now. you keep telling us all oh wait and see they are all in mountains ready to attack and it hasn't happened and it won't. this is because americas far superior bombing to the soviets took care of that.

The Soviets lost because of poor leadership, low morale, and a failure to invest in consumer goods instead of heavy industry. They <u>did</u> have a more powerful army than us and the downfall was when weak leaders took over, with a strong leader like Lenin or Stalin, the Soviet Union would still be a very large threat. If the Soviets had the money, they would be the super power, but their investing in only heavy industry and not consumer products fried them. America did beat the Soviets eventually, but has failed to learn that friendship ends when the money runs out...

before anyone says anything, Stalin, Lenin, and even Hitler were some of the greatest leaders ever (I don't admire them or anything though)

RagingBull#1
11-30-2001, 09:04 PM
The fact is that America is Way stronger than any country or anything in history. If we wanted to we could take over the world and no one could say anything about it. but we are nice and not mean so we wont. A predator killed Osamas number two man. An unmaned vehicle we are talking about here. we have so much technology that no one can handle us. The soviets army was stronger than ours WHY, give me a reason i will give you some of mine.
F22 Raptor
B 2 bomber
U2
Apache helicopter
Smart bomb
UAV
Predator
Most advanced night vision by far
Heat sensors
the list goes on and on and the fact is that america right now rules the world. The soviets lost b/c of bad leadership, no, the soviets lost because we were so much better than them. and then lets talk about what happend after the war AMERICA had the power to split up germany and split up the devistated soviet union i dont see the russians coming over here and making texas its own country b/c they said so do i? no why you ask because we are light years ahead of the world.

mrk468zz
12-01-2001, 02:03 AM
Originally posted by antfarm007


The Soviets lost because of poor leadership, low morale, and a failure to invest in consumer goods instead of heavy industry. They <u>did</u> have a more powerful army than us and the downfall was when weak leaders took over, with a strong leader like Lenin or Stalin, the Soviet Union would still be a very large threat. If the Soviets had the money, they would be the super power, but their investing in only heavy industry and not consumer products fried them. America did beat the Soviets eventually, but has failed to learn that friendship ends when the money runs out...

before anyone says anything, Stalin, Lenin, and even Hitler were some of the greatest leaders ever (I don't admire them or anything though)

two things:

one, your argument is self-defeating. Their army wasn't more powerful during the cold war BECAUSE of the lack of strong leadership, cohesion, and morale. I'm not quite sure what you're measuring to determine 'power,' anyways. size? technology? mobility?

second, how was hitler a great leader? i'll grant that he had the amazing ability to rise to power in germany, but given the socio-economic conditions at the time, some argue it could have been anyone. beyond this, he pretty much ultimately failed at every objective he set forth. sure, his army had sweeping early successes, but much of that was due to appeasement. the man didn't have a military strategy to speak of. he was blinded by hate and conquest, which is why he made the critical error of fighting on both fronts at once. a great leader he wasn't.

though i agree with you on lenin and (particularly) stalin.

Andy Rathe
12-01-2001, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by RagingBull#1
The fact is that America is Way stronger than any country or anything in history. If we wanted to we could take over the world and no one could say anything about it. but we are nice and not mean so we wont. A predator killed Osamas number two man. An unmaned vehicle we are talking about here. we have so much technology that no one can handle us. The soviets army was stronger than ours WHY, give me a reason i will give you some of mine.
F22 Raptor
B 2 bomber
U2
Apache helicopter
Smart bomb
UAV
Predator
Most advanced night vision by far
Heat sensors
the list goes on and on and the fact is that america right now rules the world. The soviets lost b/c of bad leadership, no, the soviets lost because we were so much better than them. and then lets talk about what happend after the war AMERICA had the power to split up germany and split up the devistated soviet union i dont see the russians coming over here and making texas its own country b/c they said so do i? no why you ask because we are light years ahead of the world.

Boy, this has to be one of the most arrogant posts I've ever read! I'm not even going to comment on the US taking over the world bit; even if they tried, all the other armies would band together and trounce them!

Singularly, the US does have the best army resources at it's disposal, and this does reflect it's position as the most powerful country in the world. However, it is not true to say that the USA rules the world - I don't remember voting for any Americans in the last General Election in the UK. As for all the hardware that you listed - what do you think other countries possess - rusting hulks of planes and submarines and plastic 3D glasses?

Finally, the SAS and SBS from the UK are stationed in Afghanistan at the moment because the USA asked for them to be there. This is because they knew that these two groups are the best in the world in their particular areas of expertise. A good piece of sensible judgement from the US, whic presumably wouldn't have happened if you had been in charge.

Kyle L
12-02-2001, 12:37 AM
I have a feeling theese post are doing some wrong for us, But I think that george bushes quote " your on our side, or your the enemy" ( or somthing else) is totally redicoulius! O yea, Mexico doesnt allie with us, were gonna bomb them too.............

avalancheboy
12-02-2001, 01:20 AM
yes i agree, america may be the most powerfull country, but it is also the most vunrable.

Kyle L
12-04-2001, 08:31 PM
Have u heard about that guy that joined the taliban...yea..he lives like 20 mins away from me.......Im lockin my doors at night!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

RagingBull#1
12-04-2001, 11:14 PM
Okay i got carried away sorry. I will agree with Andy that the UK has some really good troops. But the US is still number one with England second and the Israel third. And its kind of funny b/c all three are really good allies.

RagingBull#1
12-04-2001, 11:15 PM
Also, Antfarm was right, the Taliban is staging a killer attack¿ That will be the day :rolleyes:

Andy Rathe
12-06-2001, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by RagingBull#1
Okay i got carried away sorry. I will agree with Andy that the UK has some really good troops. But the US is still number one with England second and the Israel third. And its kind of funny b/c all three are really good allies.

Thanks for the humility - it's becoming a bit of a rarity on parts of the boards!

antfarm007
12-06-2001, 06:52 PM
In no ways am I saying that the Taliban is going to obliberate us, I'm just saying its likely the Taliban is just going to move into the mountains

RagingBull#1
12-06-2001, 07:55 PM
Originally posted by antfarm007
The bunker busters can't go down that far kid!
the Soviets couldn't do it (they <u>were </u> more powerful than us>
We think we have defeated the Taliban, but we will see as they start their guerilla warfare and we pull out. We think we have won, but we have only just begun...

oh yea you were just saying that they were going into the mountains...

chilled
01-05-2002, 01:17 AM
Originally posted by Raptordude
Have u heard about that guy that joined the taliban...yea..he lives like 20 mins away from me.......Im lockin my doors at night!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


man. that must be scary