RebelKev Wrote:https://www.cia.gov/library/publications...l#Military

Mentions only those eligible or fit to serve... nothing of the #'s or their piss poor weaponry.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:Can you explain to me why it is necessary to overthrow and occupy a country to go after a small terrorist organization?

DON'T SAY it's to spread Democracy, because we've been holding up Democracy in Pakistan by propping up a military dictator ... and that's about to be our THIRD total ****-up in the region this decade.

Well, when said country harbors the terrorist organization and its leader who were responsible for an attack on our soil that killed over 3,000 Americans and refuses to give them up, then you are left with few options than to invade.

In reality there was no difference between Al Queda and the Taliban. Both were/are terrorists. The Taliban harbored and aided Bin Laden in his efforts. When we invaded they ran for the hills, leaving a power vaccum that had to be filled. So we aided in setting up a democracy to help fill it.

Amazing how quickly ideology trumps the basic facts of history. Even worse when history is only 6 years old.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:https://www.cia.gov/library/publications...l#Military

Mentions only those eligible or fit to serve... nothing of the #'s or their piss poor weaponry.

Ok,

http://www.milnet.com/Iranian-Military.html

As I said, Ron Paul doesn't know jack ****.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:Well, when said country harbors the terrorist organization and its leader who were responsible for an attack on our soil that killed over 3,000 Americans and refuses to give them up, then you are left with few options than to invade.

In reality there was no difference between Al Queda and the Taliban. Both were/are terrorists. The Taliban harbored and aided Bin Laden in his efforts. When we invaded they ran for the hills, leaving a power vaccum that had to be filled. So we aided in setting up a democracy to help fill it.

Amazing how quickly ideology trumps the basic facts of history. Even worse when history is only 6 years old.

There is a difference between sending in troops to get him and his little band of psychos ... and overthrowing an ENTIRE COUNTRY. Might I add we still haven't gotten him in our many years occupying the entire country, and the country could be more destabilized in our absence now than it was previously.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:There is a difference between sending in troops to get him and his little band of psychos ... and overthrowing an ENTIRE COUNTRY.

Well let's see. Those who governed the country at the time wouldn't hand him over. They also weren't going to let us come in and get him. So in your world I guess we just let him go and not even try. Cause the moment we go in without their permission then they attack us, we fight back and kick the sh!t out of them, and we're right back where we are today.

Quote:Might I add we still haven't gotten him in our many years occupying the entire country, and the country could be more destabilized in our absence now than it was previously.

Well unfortunately gts back in 2001 when this all happened we didn't have the benefit of hindsight like you do now.

And the country is a budding democracy, has held several elections and is working towards self reliance and self rule. While I realize you seem to share the moronic view of may of the libs on here that democracies should form instantaniously in countries that had spent decades under tyranical rule, the real world works a little different.

I have read some articles about Tora Bora and the big debate over how much US force was needed to "close the back door" to Pakistan.

The only thing the US had on the ground in the Tora Bora area were some Green Berets teams and CIA Paramilitary forces. Under 500 total. Of course we had B-52's flying race track patterns over the mountains just waiting for the radio calls.

To go frontal assault AND to close the "back door" to Pakistan it was estimated to require at least a brigade of light infantry/ airborne. Now I guess you could have dropped in the 82nd and the 75th Rangers, but still you would need guys to go "cave to cave" to flush them out. There we some elements of the 101st and the 10th Mountain at K2 in Uzbekistan, but none of those units were within 24 hours of deployment to the area.

In the end, we were sold out by an Afghan Warlord. UBL had more cash on him and bought safe passage out.

Outside of a mini-invasion of the NW Tribal areas of Pakistan, it would have been next to impossible to get UBL with what we had in the area at the time. Of course, if we really wanted him dead and to hell with politics, we could have used tac nukes on the mountain range....

Who would the Afghan gov't send after us if we went in to get him? A mountain goat with a belt of TNT? WMD Owl makes the only real valid point against it, but I think dropping in Brigade is still more effective than taking over the whole country.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:Who would the Afghan gov't send after us if we went in to get him?

The same fighters they sent after us when we invaded in the first place

See gts the same soldiers that existed in the actual world would still have existed in your made up one.

And you, like your boy Paul, also conveniently ignore the fact that the government of Afghanistan, the Taliban, provided support and safe harbor for Al Queda. I guess you'd have just left them in power, swooped in and out, and then allowed Al Queda to simply reform under their watchful and more than willing to support regime.

That's what's dangerous about you and Paul's pie in the sky view of this country's foreign policy. It's long on ideology and short on pragmatism and an acknowledgement of how the world really works.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:The same fighters they sent after us when we invaded in the first place

See gts the same soldiers that existed in the actual world would still have existed in your made up one.

And you, like your boy Paul, also conveniently ignore the fact that the government of Afghanistan, the Taliban, provided support and safe harbor for Al Queda. I guess you'd have just left them in power, swooped in and out, and then allowed Al Queda to simply reform under their watchful and more than willing to support regime.

That's what's dangerous about you and Paul's pie in the sky view of this country's foreign policy. It's long on ideology and short on pragmatism and an acknowledgement of how the world really works.

A few hundred towel heads with RPGs and old AK-47s? No match for any modern well equipped armed force.

Safe harbor? Yes. But that doesn't mean we can't go in with the necessary forces -- take them out -- and leave. And even if they start to reform when we leave .... you can always go back in and mop up, or drop a cruise missile into their little cave.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:Who would the Afghan gov't send after us if we went in to get him? A mountain goat with a belt of TNT? WMD Owl makes the only real valid point against it, but I think dropping in Brigade is still more effective than taking over the whole country.

One big problem.. US Administrations have no “political guts” when it comes to high casualties. In Somalia, during “Black Hawk Down”, we had less than 20 KIA (but a bunch of wounded) and that was big enough to make Slick Willy pull the plug on the operation.

Assuming that the US inserted a “blocking” or containment force on the back door of the Pakistan/Afghanistan border, at Tora Bora, it would have best and safely done by helicopter, but we didn’t have the necessary aircraft in theater.

Look at the number of helicopters it took to airlift just a couple of battalions of the 101st into Objective Cobra during Desert Storm—we would have needed at least double that to go into Tora Bora.

If we dropped airborne solders by parachute into mountainous terrain on the border, the injury rate on the airdrop would go through the roof. Say 15-20% based upon WW II statistics. Then there would be expected casualties from the fighting. And since the airdrop operation was put together on a moments notice, you wouldn’t have enough medical units set up to receive casualties, as well as Casevac aircraft to transport them. So some WIA would become KIA’s …

Then add in casualties from cave to cave fighting. In Tora Bora the solders would have had to gone into the caves and cleaned them out…compare that to Operation Anaconda in March 2002 when they called in airstikes on caves and sealed in the enemy.

To go into Tora Bora, on a moment’s notice by parachute you might have a total 35-40% casualty rate (combined killed and wounded in total from all factors) Politicians might not think that is acceptable, based on history.. But if that is what it took to kill UBL, I don’t think you would hear many complaints from the voters.

I love seeing people who know absolutely nothing about military operations talk about.....military operations.

We don't need divisions in Afghanistan. Why? We have the Afghani government on our side and you can't send a division into a bunch of caves. It takes a bunch of spooky f'ers better known as Green Berets, to train indigenous personnel who know the region.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:A few hundred towel heads

Wow. You do realize you just dropped one of the Arab equivalents of the "n-bomb/n word" right? I can see why you are such big Ron Paul fan now.

RebelKev Wrote:I love seeing people who know absolutely nothing about military operations talk about.....military operations.

We don't need divisions in Afghanistan. Why? We have the Afghani government on our side and you can't send a division into a bunch of caves. It takes a bunch of spooky f'ers better known as Green Berets, to train indigenous personnel who know the region.

It is quite funny to watch him pull stuff out of his ass. Especially when he talks about Israel. I hope these threads are still around when/if reality ever hits him.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:A few hundred towel heads with RPGs and old AK-47s? No match for any modern well equipped armed force.

Tell that to the Army Reserve and National Guard logistics units that had to deal with the Fedayeen Saddam in 2003. They massively screwed up the OIF time tables and some combat units ran short of fuel and ammo because of them.

Classic mistake. Your boy W. opened up two theatres when one was needed. The war that was started at our time and choosing drained critical resources that were needed in Afghanistan. So now we have Mahdi Army Shia hit squads drilling holes into people foreheads and ripping out their eyeballs and raping their wives and daughters in front of their families all the while you neo cons cream your jeans with the surge. What will happen when we have to pull back from our current numbers? Do you think the Sunni's will just say all is forgotten. Do you think Sadr had a talk with Jesus when he told his army to stand down during the surge? or do you think like I do that they will just wait us out. Or better yet, are we just arming the Sunni's now for the upcoming civil war with our awakening councils? Nice ancillary benefit for military industrial complex. Do you really believe Sunni's will be able to go back to their prior jobs in the govt. when many of them witnessed or personally were the victims of the Shia transgressions. I'm sure the Shia will welcome back Sunni's who can personally finger them into crimes against humanity. You neocons have opened Pandora's box and your belief in the cause won't allow you to see it.

Machiavelli Wrote:What will happen when we have to pull back from our current numbers? Do you think the Sunni's will just say all is forgotten. Do you think Sadr had a talk with Jesus when he told his army to stand down during the surge? or do you think like I do that they will just wait us out.

Or better yet, are we just arming the Sunni's now for the upcoming civil war with our awakening councils? Nice ancillary benefit for military industrial complex. Do you really believe Sunni's will be able to go back to their prior jobs in the govt. when many of them witnessed or personally were the victims of the Shia transgressions.

I'm sure the Shia will welcome back Sunni's who can personally finger them into crimes against humanity. You neocons have opened Pandora's box and your belief in the cause won't allow you to see it.

We already have a defacto partition up north with the Kurds. I think the Sunni tribes we armed will form the nucleus of the Sunni security services once there is a Sunni partition as well. There is oil in southern Al-Anbar, but it is hard to get to.

All 3 groups "don't play well with others" and since the idea of a unified Iraqi Government won't work without compromise.. and compromise isn't going to happen "Plan B" is to split them up.

While the Iranians will try to exercise control over the Shia in the south, I think al-Sistani will keep them out as much as possible. He doersn't like the Iranians meddling in Iraqi affairs.

Mookie al-Sadr is a problem, but I think the US will get some excuse to take him out before we leave. Car bombs work wonders.

ccs178 Wrote:

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:A few hundred towel heads

Wow. You do realize you just dropped one of the Arab equivalents of the "n-bomb/n word" right? I can see why you are such big Ron Paul fan now.

I'm un-PC. Deal with it. If you want a snuggly world of ultra PC, go to the Hillary camp. I'm quite fine with calling terrorists, Islamic extremists, et al .... towel heads.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Date: December 31, 2007

Contact: Fergus Cullen, Chairman, New Hampshire Republican Party

NH REPUBLICANS: DON’T LIMIT DEBATE PARTICIPANTS

CONCORD – New Hampshire Republican Party Chairman Fergus Cullen releases the following statement regarding primary weekend debates:

“Limiting the number of candidates who are invited to participate in debates is not consistent with the tradition of the first in the nation primary. The level playing field requires that all candidates be given an equal opportunity to participate – not just a select few determined by the media prior to any votes being cast.”

“Therefore, the New Hampshire Republican Party calls upon all media organizations planning pre-primary debates or forums for both parties to include all recognized major candidates in their events.”

“The New Hampshire Republican Party has notified FOX News of our position, and we are in ongoing discussions with FOX News about having as many candidates as possible participate in the forum scheduled for January 6.”

==============================

I was delighted I could crap on your parade of "there is no forum", GGniner.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:

ccs178 Wrote:

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:A few hundred towel heads

Wow. You do realize you just dropped one of the Arab equivalents of the "n-bomb/n word" right? I can see why you are such big Ron Paul fan now.

I'm un-PC. Deal with it. If you want a snuggly world of ultra PC, go to the Hillary camp. I'm quite fine with calling terrorists, Islamic extremists, et al .... towel heads.

Towel head is a derogatory racial term against Arabs. It's not being "un-pc" it is being blatantly bigoted towards a particular race. You are not making yourself look good in this thread. You are hurting your cause more than you are helping it. If you were wise you would bow out while you are behind.

RebelKev Wrote:I love seeing people who know absolutely nothing about military operations talk about.....military operations.

We don't need divisions in Afghanistan. Why? We have the Afghani government on our side and you can't send a division into a bunch of caves. It takes a bunch of spooky f'ers better known as Green Berets, to train indigenous personnel who know the region.

Except that you can't trust the indigenous personnel. Because of that, you at least need enough US forces to seal off whatever cave exits there are, if you can find them all. And since there are a lot of caves, the more of them you can attack at one time, the less chance of the lunatics being able to escape from one cave complex to another nearby one. I think indigenous forces can only be used in concert with or as advisors to, US forces.

Why can't you send a division into caves?