Ok, this worries me...

[Toad]

Dowding,

I'm hopeful, although not REAL hopeful, that the Taliban leaders are "testing the waters".

They've made a pretty large movement on this issue in the last week.

Basically, their whole nation doesn't have "a pot to pee in" as we say. They face losing what little infrastructure they have over this.

Sure, they're talking tough and putting the warpaint on. One has to believe, however, that when the cameras are off and the politicians are in their lair drinking illegal Great Satan booze, watching Great Satan porno flicks and boffing a few of their 70 Virgins before they get to Paradise... (politicians are politicians)

they have to be asking themselves if Bin Laden is worth getting their clock cleaned.

I think we've made it pretty clear we're going to get Bin Laden. Easy way, Hard Way, Some way.

They have to be thinking that they'd prefer that to happen somewhere outside of Afghanistan.

I hope they just give him up. In fact, I pray they give him up and I don't do that very often. (I'm the type that figures the Diety expects us to handle our own little messes; I figure being the Diety and all, he stays pretty busy on the important stuff. But, sometimes we get ourselves in so deep we have to interrupt him.   )

ROE? If we have to go in to get him, I'd guess at a new, improved version of the "air-land battle." Yes, we've gotten better at it in the last decade. Here's my guess.. and that's all it is.

First, all their air assets will go down. Aircraft, radars, anti-air weaponry. That'll take a while.

Second, we'll take out their roads and bridges to hamper force movement.

Third, a serious "anti-armor" campaign against vehicles that are limited in mobility by the second phase. Anything with wheels on it in the whole country is going to be turned into a flower pot. They put MG's on their Japanese pickup trucks, so the all the trucks are targets.

Then we'd probably go in with ground troops, if we have to. You never know, they might wise up. Slow and methodical with maximum air support, in conjunction with their "Northern Alliance".

In a year from now, the focus will be on Iraq.

[Professor Fate]

Well Im no politician or lawyer but if someone or some country is considered to have comitted an act of war against the United States he's not going to trial I'll tell ya that.  He's going to get his arse kicked.

And as far as if he were guilty and could prove it we would've attacked already isn't really possible.  You just don't move carrier groups, troops and supplies in over night and send them in blind.  It takes time to build that force and choose your targets.

[Toad]

Yeah, bless his tongue-tied little soul, he can't speak to save his butt.

Personally, I think it's genetic from his father's side. Bush the Elder isn't/wasn't a public speaker either.

Barb, the Mom, seems pretty good though. Too bad he didn't get his "talking genes" from her side of the family.

However, it's all immaterial. Sometimes a Man finds his Destiny. Othertimes, Destiny finds a Man.

It's his to deal with now.

[Dowding]

Sure, they're talking tough and putting the warpaint on. One has to believe, however, that when the cameras are off and the politicians are in their lair drinking illegal Great Satan booze, watching Great Satan porno flicks and boffing a few of their 70 Virgins before they get to Paradise... (politicians are politicians)

lol   That's pretty much exactly what I was saying to a mate of mine the other day. These zealots who are so austere, severe and cruel when governing their own people, are probably living in some well cushioned pad with a large harem and many 'Western' comforts. It's how the world has always worked.  

As for the ROE - only one issue remains - the treatment of civilians. Like any war, there will be refugees, aid workers etc - how do we still achieve our goals while not killing these people? Even in Kosovo, the RAF bombed a load of tractors and trailers full of refugees by accident. How will this be avoided?

I think it all comes back to Viet Nam and the argument that the only reason the US lost, was that their ROE were too restrictive. I'm not sure how true that is, but there seems to be a lot of scope to kill alot of civilians in Afghanistan.

[Baddawg]

But I find it amusing, in a deeply bitter, non-humorous way, this talk of 'war on terrorism'. Like all of a sudden, terrorism matters. Whatever. I guess finally we'll see some movement on this issue.

 I don’t understand that comment Dowding?
The implications of the terrorist act on the WTC and Pentagon are far reaching and infinitely deep.
 Not only for the USA but the whole world, their(the terrorists) perceived success will not go unnoticed by others of that ilk.
 And the local constable are not going to quaintly walk up their sidewalk and knock on the door and nicely ask them to come out and surrender.
Here is some of my ramblings on the matter.


The whole fabric of free societies is at risk from attacks from terrorist's who use our system against us.
 If caught they adamantly demand the rights our countries give all human beings yet before they were caught they fought for a society that has very little value in human rights. Ironic isnt it?

 So in order for us to live as an open free SAFE society we must take precautions that for a long time we have taken for granted.

 Obviously Intelligence gathering alone does not work.

Neither does our current law process as pertaining to a deterrent to a terrorist.

Middle East peace talks have not been results orientated either.

If these defensive systems have failed us and terrorists can strike the free world at such a grandiose scale, what stops them from continuing, using a small Nuclear bomb, or bio-weapon secretly funded  by say Iraq, or whomever.

 I don’t want to have to live with the terrorist's having Carte Banche on destruction at a massive scale in my country,USA, GB or any  God fearing (SIC) peaceful, productive ,and benevolent country.

 I worry about my child and what the implications of her future might be if these acts go unanswered and continue.
The risk of war makes me worry as well but I will fight to preserve my way of life.
 If people want to go quietly into the night
let them ;but I wager  the majority of people in the free world would rather fight.

 I believe we have to fight on a very multi-faceted front  to defeat this clear and overlooming threat, that now because of the mass destruction that was a result of the WTC has  probably fueled  the insane fires of terrorists who deem our way of life wrong.

I believe that the USA has no war with the Afghan people but are at odds with the Taliban Government.

 I believe that the USA and coalition countrys will opt to not invade and  rule Afghanistan in the traditional sense.
Since history has shown that is futile.
 But that they will try to overrun and eliminate the  ruling Government there.
 Historically that has proven to be Afghans weakness. A known saying is  “What can be done to Afghanistan that Afghanistan hasn’t done to herself?”

I don’t want to live in a cowering defensive posture, always in fear of evil striking.
 I want to face down this threat, and systematically eliminate it though all means necessary. Militarily diplomatically, through intelligence gathering and infiltration, economically through sanctions and world political pressure, these are just some of the actions needed to preserve our states.

These attacks have eviscerated free peoples sense of well- being, certainly we were naïve, and myopic but time has come…

Critics will always rise to the top saying “why now why did you not take action earlier?”
 Well im sure the free peoples of this world apologise for their complacency and lackadaisical attitudes toward what terrorists brought to the table before the events of September 11 2001.

 But No More.

Bin Ladens head on a pike

[ 09-20-2001: Message edited by: Baddawg ]

[Toad]

Originally posted by Dowding:
As for the ROE - only one issue remains - the treatment of civilians. Like any war, there will be refugees, aid workers etc - how do we still achieve our goals while not killing these people? Even in Kosovo, the RAF bombed a load of tractors and trailers full of refugees by accident. How will this be avoided?

If you are looking for a guarantee that "innocent" Afghans are not going to die, it never will come.

As I said in another thread, show me a real war where "innocent" people didn't die. I've never read of one.

The ROE will be structured to avoid killing the "innocent" to the maximum extent possible, consistent with keeping our own troops alive. Nonetheless, accidents, mistakes and possibly enemy tactics will ensure that some "innocents" are going to die. If not in the actual "war", then in the unfortunate aftermath. They're already starving.

Wild example: We do drop the 82nd Airborne in. The Afghans charge into battle with all their remaining armor... except they have strapped children on top of the tanks. What do you think is going to happen? Whose fault will it be? Innocent children will die nonetheless. As I said, this is an extreme "fantasy" characterization to show a possibility.

There is another argument to be considered as well. Can/will a population be held responsible for the actions of its government? Are they in fact "innocent" if they allow their government to aid, abet, promote and/or harbor terrorists?

The Afghans, both politicians and population are being given plenty of time to "do the right thing". I think the US has pretty clearly laid out its position on Bin Laden and I doubt there's anyone left in the world that doesn't believe he needs to be "picked up for questioning by the proper authorities".

The door is still open. There is an "Easy Way".

As far as the aftermath... if we do go in shooting we'll probably rebuild their country better than it was before we attacked. We almost always do. Maybe that's what they're counting on? Forking politicians.

[Syzygyone]

Well, let's assume we (the world) get Bin Laden and kill him, with or without a trial.  What worries me is that it won't end with him or the death of the al-Quieda organizaiton.  There are other terrorists out there who, as some have said, will be emboldned by the "success" of the WTC and Pentagon raids.  I fear that the attacks are not over and that any attempts toget Bin Laden will only produce more attacks.
What's more, we know that Pakistan is real unstable and it's population is real anti-american.  Many Pakistani's support the Taliban.  And guess what, the Pakistani's have nuclear weapons, don't they.  The military situation could be very critical in very short order.

[Toad]

Hey, we're going to get nuked. It's only a matter of time.

Do nothing, it's sooner. Act now, maybe you can delay it a bit.

Cheerful thought, huh? Anyone want to bet against it?

"...and it's 1, 2, 3, ..what are we fighting for?

Don't ask me, I don't give a damn...

Next stop, Afghanistan.

..and it's 5, 6, 7 ..open up the Pearly Gates

ain't no time to wonder why, WHOOOPEE!

We're all gonna die!"  Country Joe & The Fish


Hey man... we're all going to Paradise and we each get 70 VIRGINS! This is GREAT!!!

[Steven]

It may be possible that by providing our best evidence to the Taliban it would tip off our opposition as to how to defeat those intelligence gathering sources.  I'm sure the government is still gathering evidence and trying to track those that have explicitely made war on us and we do not want to undermine that.

Just because there will be future evils you do not turn a blind eye on our current threat.

[fd ski]

And now question for you all.

Since you are willing to put all the faith in the government and it's good will, i assume that you would see Waco as a justifiable nessesity ?

[Baddawg]

Sigh  

[Sunchaser]

WTF has Waco got to do with running airplanes with passengers into buildings full of people??

Well, it's been a week now, way longer than the average attention span of we Americans. Time to get back to being afraid we might offend anyone and catch up on Oprah and Monday night football.

Then the second the heroic, innocent until we got about 40,000 pounds of documents proving them guilty, terrorists are able they will nuke a U.S. city and we can be pissed off at them again for a couple weeks and then do nothing because it might offend someones sensibilities.

edit:
fdski, we do indeed agree the Presidents "Dead or Alive" statement was inappropriate.

"Dead." would have been more appropriate.

[ 09-20-2001: Message edited by: Sunchaser ]

[Hangtime]

Ok fdski.. ante up..

Who's side you on?

Or are you just kickin the tires?

[newguy2]

Here's an Idea,

  Seeing a good number of people believe that we can't win do matter what we do, How's this sound?

  Bush goes live on National TV, Gives the Jim Jones farwell speach. As the screen go's blank, each city in the US with a POP: of +10,000 is nuked. What the hell, we can't win so what's the point.

[fd ski]

Hangtime, i'm on our side, only thing is, i don't like the mass lynchings, which is what people here seem to expect.

In 1938 a Jewish student killed a German Ambasador in Paris. Same sort of outrage you gave Hitler a blank check to kill all Jews without distinction - cause now it is "us vs them".
( i know that jewish prosecution didn't start in 1938, but this was one of the great excuses that Hitler used to justify his sick actions )

This post is made after Bush's speach last night. Makes this particular discussion a moot point. I'm just amazed how many people here can only think in one tracked fashion...