Reprecusions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
>>[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Sep-17-01
>>AT 01:04 PM (GMT)
>>and they think
>>this makes the radical millitant
>>Islamic terrorists LESS dangerous!! Talk
>>about World War III!! IF
>>this is true... Allah help
>>us all.:(
> -Method Man (part of earlier statement)
>
>From what? The Middle East?
> Get real. I
>really hate it when people
>start ranting on about WWIII
>coming from these tiny nations
>with no real international offensive
>weaponry aside from terrorists.
>These countries don't even have
>effective NAVIES people (as if
>that mattered at all)!
>
>-Xotor-

Obviously, World War III would be fought in a completely different manner than what we are used to.

If you read carefully I was simply saying that if the US military is given the right to freeze the assets of private citizens in other countries who MIGHT (a BIG MIGHT and an even bigger untrustworthy intelligence agent) be donating to Usama's organisation (NOT Usama's himself, he has no official accounts we could never be entirely sure of what is his), we are asking for these countries to react in one way... or ANOTHER.

It is true that the majority of Usama's money comes from what we might call "foreign investors" (NOT the the Taliban like some idiot on this board so ignorantly suggested) from Yemen, Saudi, the UAE, Egypt and Sudan to name a few, but freezing the assets of private citizens in those countries (what the US military brass want to do) would NOT be easy, WOULD require military action in those respective nations and would undoubtedly stir up inactive groups of militants to action (kinda like lifting the proverbial desert rock surrounded by scorpions and finding even more scorpions on the damp underbelly).

Groups in these countries who have lost funding and have resorted to small local bombings (remember that the year that the USS Cole was bombed that there were 56 other bombings that year in Yemen alone, countless others in other countries and countless other failures undoubtedly) would all of a sudden be sitting on "cash cow" simpathizers. WE might be able to fend off immigration from those countries but every one terrorists we divert there will be two more willing to go to our allies who have MUCH less finance and infrastructure and therefore less security. Remember that the war is not against the US alone we are simply the Great Satan of the Evil West, attacking a demon is just as honorable and far less dangerous in thier eyes.

Instead of doing all of that the best thing we can do is to cut off all funds and communications going into or out of Afghanistan. Those little guys I was talking about, that have turned thier attentions and small bank accounts to the small bits of the Evil West in thier own country will be taken care of by time and we should leave them to thier respective countries (they're the ones being bombed by the terrorists they created). Our concern should be the Big Dogs like Usama who might actually incite these smaller groups to act upon greater ambitions.

- - --Qoud Erat Demonstradum-- - -
 
thank the russians for mass producing cheap and affective ak-47 (or closely related weapons). Now every militant group and their mothers can afford to supply their army with good firepower.
 
>Middle East supplies us oil, right?
>And they are the people
>of one religion, right? And
>if US will behave in
>inappropriate way with the civil
>population, or yet again try
>to interfere with the politics
>of Islamic nation, that may
>be the last drop for
>our Middle Eastern allies/trade partners
>- money is good and
>all, but Middle East is
>known for its anti-american attitudes,
>and the last thing their
>leaders need is a civil
>uprising.

Money talks bigger than diplomacy. For every nation in the Middle East that decides to bond together and invoke sanctions on us there are many more to replace them. Even Iraq wasn't stupid enough to refuse the oil-for-food deal we offered him.

The closest we ever came to the Middle Eastern nations teaming up against us over oil was when they formed OPEC in the mid-seventies and we had to negotiate with them to receive oil. Now they're even more fractured. If we don't get oil from one nation, we'll get it from another, simple as that.

Furthermore, this is not an attack on Islam. If we wanted to attack Islam we'd blow up the holy city of Mecca. They know it, we know it. We'd be idiots to make war on the fastest growing religion in the world that has the second largest number of followers for a religion in the world.

And again, is Afghanistan even worth it? People think other nations are going to come to the aid of Afghanistan because of principles. Get real. It's like someone coming to the aid of Bolivia or some other nation most people can't even SPELL right. Middle Eastern nations aren't going to tighten their belt over principles unless something is truly violated.

>And we all know
>how much american voters hate
>the rise of gas prices.
>It is possible that US
>might attempt to interfere with
>the politics of our ex-partners,
>which would put us in
>odds with the rest of
>the Western world. Not a
>WW3, but America would still
>be screwed.

Why would we screw with their politics? Over Afghanistan? Shyeah right. Hell, other nations would be feeling the hurt more then the USA. We've got reserves and could get by okay for a while, other nations seriously depend on the Middle East for oil.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
>What good will an ak-47 do
>you if i'm shooting at
>you from a ship miles
>away ? or from a
>plane thousands of feet in
>the air?

Yeah, troops are OLD technology... They're so... so... 20th century.

Hell, for $3000-$5000 I can buy a Barrett sniper rifle and assassinate virtually anyone a kilometer away (provided I trained enough). Also they're less regulated here than any other weapon on the market.

Guns are cheap any way you put it, but what are you going to do with AK-47s against smart bombs and cruise missiles? We did it in Kosovo, we can do it again, only this time we have $40 billion to do it with.

Plus, we have the Northern Alliance rebels to be our ground troops. Even the Iranians (who probably need better weaponry anyway).

Troops nowadays are for maintaining the piece, not fighting for it.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
Sometimes, like in that Bush's quote that you pointed out, the targets are too cheap to waste cruise missiles on them. And let's remember that the world is not a 2-dimensional map - there are numerous caves and hideouts in the Afghanistan mountains, where not even nuclear weapons can get whoever is inside, not to mention the fact that they're impenetrable to the satellite surveilance.

Bin Laden in Afghanistan is like a needle in the haystack. Before you can crush him with the America's war machinery, you have to get through elusive partisans who are familiar with the landscape, and commanded by experienced officers who fought there most of their lives. NEVER underestimate the partisans or (eventually) hostile population, Xotor. They may be hungry zealots, but they are willing to die for their cause, something the well-fed and inexperienced American warriors are not likely to consider.

Let's hope this won't turn out to be America's second Vietnam - it'll be ridiculous to see one poor mountain country to fend off 3 world superpowers, 2 of whom had the most powerful weapons invented by mankind.



http://www.nma-fallout.com/cgi-bin/forum/ForumID5/786.shtml#11

zero-x's bitter words after his encounter with roshambo:

"I agree with you but there comes a fuckin point i dont know who roquirbo thinks he is but I at least you didnt really criticize me and i appreciate that i hate people who fuck with my ideas when i didnt say shit to em and yes he is the kind of guy i would take a scalpel tear his head open the take an hammer use the end to samsh through the medulla and use the nail pull as a pry to pull back the top of the skull revealing a brain (small but brain nontheless)and take desert eagle magnum and blow it through his fucking spine as he still breath and then rip out his heart and show him how black it is before he dies but as you said thats illegal well cya"
 
>Bin Laden in Afghanistan is like
>a needle in the haystack.
>Before you can crush him
>with the America's war machinery,
>you have to get through
>elusive partisans who are familiar
>with the landscape, and commanded
>by experienced officers who fought
>there most of their lives.
>NEVER underestimate the partisans or
>(eventually) hostile population, Xotor. They
>may be hungry zealots, but
>they are willing to die
>for their cause, something the
>well-fed and inexperienced American warriors
>are not likely to consider.
>
That is called air support. No seriously it is what you now do in war, troops are there to laser tag the target for the missiles to hit. Think back to Irak , do you think that they would have been able to drop those bombs so precisely if troop weren't on the groung tagging those buildings?
The north of Pakistan is full of tribals Pakis (not condescentive just shorter to write) Paki laws don't apply to them. Thay are nomadic and tribal. Remind you of something? When you have the power armor and you are a slaver do you even bother to kill the tribals that attack you or do you just walk trough?
I saw those people on TV saying that thay have never been defeated in their own country and that if the americans come here they are (the americans) going to lose that war. But we are not going there for them we are going there to go to Afgan. Stand in they way of a tank in the middle of nowhere.

If one is crushed by a tank in the middle of nowwhere and no one id there to hear the squshing do it still make a noise??

They may all have AK`s but once again what is it good for against a ship or a cruise missile or a bomber.

To quote dubbya we are going to crush those who stand in our way to get the bastard. (ok maybe not a real quote but something like that)

>Let's hope this won't turn out
>to be America's second Vietnam
>- it'll be ridiculous to
>see one poor mountain country
>to fend off 3 world
>superpowers, 2 of whom had
>the most powerful weapons invented
>by mankind.
>

I hope so too.


"I'm Ugly and I AM CANADIAN!"
http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
 
For most of the American soldiers it is and they admit it. Here's a quote: "I just wanna kill legaly"
 
Quote from ATPYP:

"And let's remember that the world is not a 2-dimensional map - there are numerous caves and hideouts in the Afghanistani mountains, where not even nuclear weapons can get whoever is inside..."


As a possible point of discussion (and morbid interest), the Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories have been the tamdem designs labs for the U.S. nuclear weapons program for about the last 50 years. Aside from their present duties as stewards to maintain the operational status of some 8-10,000 bombs in the U.S. nuclear weapons reserve (or "hedge") stockpile, LLNL and LANL continue to make improvements on the existing weapons structure.

About 6 years ago, Los Alamos was largely responsible for the design changes that led to production of the B61 Mod 11 Tactical Bomb - a "burrowing" bomb for the U.S. Air Force, which is capable of penetrating rock and soil to depths of up to 200 feet before detonating. Also, because soil densities vary, the B61-11 is adjustable for yield, which is selectable in mid-flight. The yield range is 0.3 to 340 kt, giving the high side of B61-11 an explosive potential roughly 19 times that of Little Boy, the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima. At present, there are fifty B61-11s in the active U.S. nuclear arsenal, and while some may be dismantled under the terms of the START II treaty, in light of recent events, it is not outside the realm of possibility to think that that process may be postponed for an undertermined length of time.


- Lockout
 
[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Sep-21-01 AT 03:34PM (GMT)[p]And offcourse are we going to crush these primitive fighters cause they only have AK-47.
And that is all they are ever going to need. These people are in better fysikal condition than most of the people in the American army they know the terrain and they have been thought combat by SAS. These people does not carry their supplies with them they have them sthased away in depos all over the mountains so they only need to carry weapons and a little food. They walk as mountains goats so no soldiers with all their equipment can keep upp. Also they fight inn the mountains where there is very bad wheater for helikopers. If we are talking about an ordinary invasion the Invaders will have to change tactics.

"But we have missiles and bombers so we can blast them out of the sky whitout even stepping on their country"
Bomb what? the country has no infrastructure to talk about and no holly monuments. They have no military bases and very few tankses. How can we crush something whit missiles wich we can not see and wich is allways moving.

Then there is another side of things. The partisans where trained by SAS forces during their war with the union they were supplied by the states. This is something that will not happe this time. If it was not for this suport from the states the red army would have crushed the partisans like i smash a anoying fly.

If the states are going to invade they wpuld have to invent new tactics to counter the ones of the partisans or they would have large loses.

PS: Just for the record the missiles that were used during the Gulf war was mostly directed against their targets by targeting planes not soldiers.
And sorry about my poor grammar.
 
[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Sep-21-01 AT 08:19PM (GMT)[p]>Quote from ATPYP:
>...
>About 6 years ago, Los Alamos
>was largely responsible for the
>design changes that led to
>production of the B61 Mod
>11 Tactical Bomb - a
>"burrowing" bomb for the U.S.
>Air Force, which is capable
>of penetrating rock and soil
>to depths of up to
>200 feet before detonating. Also,
>because soil densities vary, the
>B61-11 is adjustable for yield,
>which is selectable in mid-flight.
>The yield range is 0.3
>to 340 kt, giving the
>high side of B61-11 an
>explosive potential roughly 19 times
>that of Little Boy,...
>
>
>- Lockout

Yeah I remember hearing about that... now that to me is much more terrifying than any suicidal militant extremists I can imagine. Thank Allah that that type of power is in our hands and not used against us... lets just hope it stays that way. =(

- - --Qoud Erat Demonstradum-- - -
 
I doubt US will use the nuclear weapons of mass destruction in Afghanistan. This will be a violation of international law, according to whom such weapons can only be used when the very existence of the nation is in danger (the weapons of last resort). Taliban, on the other hand, will have every justification to use these weapons against US if they refuse to hand over bin Laden and be attacked by the US Army.



http://www.nma-fallout.com/cgi-bin/forum/ForumID5/786.shtml#11

zero-x's bitter words after his encounter with roshambo:

"I agree with you but there comes a fuckin point i dont know who roquirbo thinks he is but I at least you didnt really criticize me and i appreciate that i hate people who fuck with my ideas when i didnt say shit to em and yes he is the kind of guy i would take a scalpel tear his head open the take an hammer use the end to samsh through the medulla and use the nail pull as a pry to pull back the top of the skull revealing a brain (small but brain nontheless)and take desert eagle magnum and blow it through his fucking spine as he still breath and then rip out his heart and show him how black it is before he dies but as you said thats illegal well cya"
 
>Sometimes, like in that Bush's quote
>that you pointed out, the
>targets are too cheap to
>waste cruise missiles on them.
>And let's remember that the
>world is not a 2-dimensional
>map - there are numerous
>caves and hideouts in the
>Afghanistan mountains, where not even
>nuclear weapons can get whoever
>is inside, not to mention
>the fact that they're impenetrable
>to the satellite surveilance.

I'm predicting that the USA will enlist the help of the rebel group, the Northern Alliance. There's quite a bit that virtually limitless resources provided to a group of rebels can do... though I just hope that they don't become another bin Laden group, much like what happened during the cold war.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
>And offcourse are we going to
>crush these primitive fighters cause
>they only have AK-47.
>And that is all they are
>ever going to need. These
>people are in better fysikal
>condition than most of the
>people in the American army
>they know the terrain and
>they have been thought combat
>by SAS. These people does
>not carry their supplies with
>them they have them sthased
>away in depos all over
>the mountains so they only
>need to carry weapons and
>a little food. They walk
>as mountains goats so no
>soldiers with all their equipment
>can keep upp. Also they
>fight inn the mountains where
>there is very bad wheater
>for helikopers. If we are
>talking about an ordinary invasion
>the Invaders will have to
>change tactics.

But why walk or march when you can *ride*? Seriously, do you think we're going to do WWII-style infantry attacks? Most of the attacks will come in the form of jets flying in from Pakistan or aircraft carriers. The troops that DO find their way there will merely be guarding bases and riding in tanks.

>Bomb what? the country has no
>infrastructure to talk about and
>no holly monuments. They have
>no military bases and very
>few tankses. How can we
>crush something whit missiles wich
>we can not see and
>wich is allways moving.

Come now, we took out one of bin Laden's headquarters with a few cruise missiles.

Furthermore, if Afghanistan itself gets into the fray because they do not turn bin Laden over, there will be more than enough armies to bomb out.

>Then there is another side of
>things. The partisans where trained
>by SAS forces during their
>war with the union they
>were supplied by the states.
>This is something that will
>not happe this time. If
>it was not for this
>suport from the states the
>red army would have crushed
>the partisans like i smash
>a anoying fly.

That's why we'll use the Northern Alliance's troops as the "infantry" to take out ground troops, only they'll be FAR better equipped.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
>I doubt US will use the
>nuclear weapons of mass destruction
>in Afghanistan. This will be
>a violation of international law,
>according to whom such weapons
>can only be used when
>the very existence of the
>nation is in danger (the
>weapons of last resort). Taliban,
>on the other hand, will
>have every justification to use
>these weapons against US if
>they refuse to hand over
>bin Laden and be attacked
>by the US Army.

Use of them has not been ruled out. Officials continue to refuse to answer any questions regarding the use of tactical nuclear weapons, and tactical nuclear weapons DO yield a greater impact than conventional weapons. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nn20010920a6.htm

Tactical nuclear weapons could be useful in taking out underground installations, and with burrowing weapons like Lockout described, damage could be limited to a relatively small area. In the case of underground explosions outside radiation is virtually ZERO. That would make the USA the only nation in history to use nuclear weapons offensively.

Still, the implications of using nuclear weapons could be political suicide, both on the home front and in the international arena. I have to wonder however, would any country risk action beyond merely condemn the acts? We are the economic backbone of the planet, and withholding trade from us in the form of sanctions is more detrimental to the sanctioning nation than ours. Also, would other countries look the other way because they feel the reason justified?

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
There is a significant danger in that. I hope US will take different approach to this alliance than the one used in other conflicts - I mean, we should learn from our mistakes and never repeat them.

Hah. Cold War legacy biting our asses already.



http://www.nma-fallout.com/cgi-bin/forum/ForumID5/786.shtml#11

zero-x's bitter words after his encounter with roshambo:

"I agree with you but there comes a fuckin point i dont know who roquirbo thinks he is but I at least you didnt really criticize me and i appreciate that i hate people who fuck with my ideas when i didnt say shit to em and yes he is the kind of guy i would take a scalpel tear his head open the take an hammer use the end to samsh through the medulla and use the nail pull as a pry to pull back the top of the skull revealing a brain (small but brain nontheless)and take desert eagle magnum and blow it through his fucking spine as he still breath and then rip out his heart and show him how black it is before he dies but as you said thats illegal well cya"
 
You can not use tankses in mountain areas like that it is to much stones and valleys around. So you will have to use the roads and guess who will be sitting on the side of the road with a big bazooka and some molotov coctails? Take out the first and the last tankses and the otherones can not get away. Use plains to kill the enemies yes? These people do not use tankses or other stuff wich you can blow away with a missile from a plain. They walk you know. Offcourse you can afford to fire missiles at people just to kill a few men but that will be expensive.
There is wery many cawes in these mountains that they can hide inn safe from cruise missiles and artillery.

Just so you people know: Tankses are not a close combat weapon and they can be wery easily deactivated by mines or molotov coctails.

As for those soldiers that get captured by the soldiers in the afghanian army they have never heard of the Geneve konvesjon down there.

I just fail to see how they are going to kill of the taliban infantry when the infantry is hiding in the mountain.

War is like love. It always find a way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top