Here you can view your subscribed threads, work with private messages and edit your profile and preferences Registration is free! Calendar Find other members Frequently Asked Questions Search Home

Go Back   BeyondUnreal Forums > Mods > Infiltration > Off Topic

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 26th Sep 2001, 06:20 AM   #1
OICW
Reason & Logic > Religion
 
OICW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar. 18th, 2000
Location: New South Wales, Sydney Australia
Posts: 2,374
Post America going to kick ass? Doubt it (Long)

Ok, these are MY views and they may be unpopular but I don't care. Btw, please don't turn this into a Bush administration debate.

America has recently started a massive buildup of military equipment near the Pakistan-Afghanistan borders and the Middle East.

Bush says that it's a crusade against terrorism. Someone had better point out history to him because winning it is going to be pretty damn hard. Ditto if he wants to start a war with Afghanistan.

Terrorists have no clear territory or common ground. Usually we don't know of their plans or activities until it's too late. America has spent a lot of money on satellites and UAVs. But what is needed against terrorists is on-the ground intelligence. Fooling satellites isn't as hard as you think.

Cruise missiles against the training camps? Yes, there is little warning with cruise missiles before their impact, but we don't really know if they are actual training camps, or decoys. These people are not stupid. Far from it. They probably have many underground contacts and safehouses set up years in advance.

That's how they can survive so long without being carbombed by Mossad or being assassinated by another intelligence agency. hell, we don't even know if it's Bin Laden responsible. There are worse terrorists than him out there.

All this military force in my opinion is out to scare the other nearby countries into co-operating. It's working. Besides, no army on earth could defeat the USA in a CONVENTIONAL CONFLICT.

But a war against terrorism is not. Think of it as like guerilla warfare. it's very difficult to defend against these kind of people. If you can't stop people from committing suicide, then you can't stop dedicated fanatics with nothing to lose.

Vietnam. The soviets and Afghanistan. America would be making a huge mistake in invading Afghanistan. guerilla warfare would wreck havoc on the American troops, even with all their technology, their Paveway 24 and 27 LGBs, their air support. Mobility is the key in guerilla warfare. They don't have to hold terrain. But normal armies do. They are wide open to attacks of this kind.

Besides, many of the normal Afghans might be drawn up into a war, even though many of them do not support the Taliban.

There has been talk of supporting the rebels fighting against the Taliban. That is the better way to go. These people are experienced in the type of warfare suited to the terrain. But the Taliban fighters are just as good as well. Also, with regular contacts over a long period of time, special operations raids and guided weapons would also be the way to go.

The airpower might take out "some" key terrorist targets, but i doubt it. without proper intelligence it would most likely create larger collateral damage and just stir up more Afghans against America. The key word is intelligence. And America doesn't have that much at all, if any.
__________________


"If there is a country that has committed unspeakable atrocities in the world, it is the United States of America" - Nelson Mandela, at the International Women's Forum
OICW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th Sep 2001, 06:24 AM   #2
Mason
Self appointed voice of reason
 
Mason's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec. 14th, 2000
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 1,215
I think we should wait and see if the U.S. (or 'we', as I like to put it) does indeed attempt those kinds of strikes. I firmly beleive that they realize ALL of what you said and will most definitely be taking those and many other things into account before any DIRECT military action takes place. The main key to winning this 'war' against terrorism is the unity of 'free' countries alongside the U.S. Time will tell.
__________________



"I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who endowed us
with sense, reason and intellect had intended for us to forgo their use"- Galileo
--May the souls of all those who have lost their lives on 9-11-01 rest easy with the love and sorrow expressed by a largely mournful world.
Mason is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th Sep 2001, 06:41 AM   #3
Uppity
Registered User
 
Uppity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr. 17th, 2001
Location: NE England (We hang monkeys)
Posts: 454
Its been reported that many 4-man SAS squads are already operating in Afghanistan on intelligence gathering missions.

They are working with local anti-Taliban forces, with the intention of gaining intelligence form them, training them, arranging supply routs with them and finding terrorist camps with their help.

Maybe that US/UK strikes will only be aimed at these places while the rest of the force only gets involved in sabre-rattling to divert the Taliban while the now better equipped anti-Taliban forces gain ground (with US air support).

I don't believe that a full scale military campaign against Afghanistan will happen.
Uppity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th Sep 2001, 06:48 AM   #4
Excelsiore
Binary Liberation Front
 
Excelsiore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar. 23rd, 2001
Location: Sweden
Posts: 434
Post

I read today that the US is finally going to be paying it's debt to the UN.

It amazes me that 7000 people had to die for the US government to start participating in international politics.
__________________
"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying."
Excelsiore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th Sep 2001, 06:52 AM   #5
The_Fur
Back in black
 
The_Fur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov. 2nd, 2000
Posts: 6,205
I doubt that they will learn, if you look at history tactics will only change during conflict, not after or before.
__________________
"States are not moral agents; those who attribute to them ideals and principles merely mislead themselves and others."
-Noam Chomsky

"Ignorance, and admiration arising from ignorance, are the parents of devotion and obedience"
-Dostoyevski
The_Fur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th Sep 2001, 02:28 PM   #6
RogueLeader
Tama-chan says, "aurf aurf aurf!"
 
RogueLeader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct. 19th, 2000
Location: Indiana. Kill me please.
Posts: 5,314
I doubt even G.W. is dumb enough to attempt a full invasion. I expect we will bomb them and send in a few special forces teams. A lot of the nationalism of the attack is dying down and people are thinking reasonably again, and more people are starting to not want an all out war.
__________________

<SaraP> I have no interest in putting pocky, of any flavor, in my panties
RogueLeader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th Sep 2001, 02:39 PM   #7
the vrrc
noexistant user
 
Join Date: Jun. 16th, 2001
Posts: 1,834
Human thought, oxymoron? Hopefully we'll not think we are so big and bad and try to use conventional soldiers or anything. Against guerilla suicide warriors, we won't have much of a chance.
__________________
If you are ever given a chance to pick up a quater, run. Run with whatever speed God has given you and pray "They" don't catch you.
the vrrc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th Sep 2001, 06:10 PM   #8
Mason
Self appointed voice of reason
 
Mason's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec. 14th, 2000
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 1,215
I think everyone involved realizes the potential for disaster where a full invasion is concerned. Special force incursions will probably go a longer way than cruise missiles will, not to mention they will undoubtedly result in far fewer civilian casualties...also, it is MUCH easier to keep an SAS raid a secret than a Tomahawk missile hit.
__________________



"I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who endowed us
with sense, reason and intellect had intended for us to forgo their use"- Galileo
--May the souls of all those who have lost their lives on 9-11-01 rest easy with the love and sorrow expressed by a largely mournful world.
Mason is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th Sep 2001, 09:00 PM   #9
Hypenotist
Catharsis hypothesis
 
Hypenotist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar. 15th, 2001
Posts: 254
I heard about the SAS but they were training rebel afghans to fight the russian forces some 20 years ago. There are factions in Afghanistan willing to ally with US and other troops to get the job done. From what I've heard they "afghan taliban extremists" are allready dug into the mountains. It's like vietnam but instead of being dug underground in tunnels they have caves and caches of food buried everywhere to maintain a defensive. It's a special forces ground mission that will take them out period. Sending thousands upon thousands of reservists and ground forces untrained for that type of fight will be a disaster. In my mind we have a couple options. 1. Send in the l33T guys and hope they can dig them out from under the rocks. 2. wage a massive offensive with full on bombing, ground forces-tanks-planes, everything and hope to win by attrition.
Hypenotist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th Sep 2001, 01:52 AM   #10
Keganator
White as Snow Moderator
 
Keganator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun. 19th, 2001
Location: PR's Barracks
Posts: 5,261
hypenotist said
Quote:
...wage a massive offensive with full on bombing, ground forces-tanks-planes, everything and hope to win by attrition.
You can't be serious. The US has already f*cked up once by naming their operation "Infinate Justice." (I think they said that in the Islamic faith, only God can dispence infinate justice). There are no winners in war. What will destroying a country do? Nothing good.

Look what happened when we messed with Iraq. For the last 10 years, the population has heard nothing but bad things about the US. The common man on the street agrees with the governent propaganda. And for what? So we americans can all drive our SUV's that get 6 miles to the gallon while only paying 1.55(and 9/10) a gallon. Kids growing up in this time won't know of anything but hate. And look where hate got us with Osama Bin Laden.

The US must NOT, I repeat, must NOT invade another country. We have NO right to. War on terrorism...what a joke. As OICW said, it's a crusade. And how many crusades did christianity win? Oh wait, that's right...none.

One thing I've figured out is never attack a country on it's home turf, especially geurillas. Every war where that happened, the attackers have lost. Napoleon invading Russia, England trying to keep the Colonies, America in Vietnam.

This 'war' breaks down to the stupid, stupid puritian ideas of america's founding fathers, especially how we must be a 'city upon the hill' and set an 'example' to the world about our 'grand experiment'. Policing the world ... how pompus is the United States??? The U.S. have no right! Trying to fix everything is what got us Osama Bin Laden in the first place!

...hmm...a little more steam to blow off than I expected...
__________________

--|| Sluggy Freelance || The Infiltration Forum Guidelines || Kegnet || Clan Phoenix Rising ||--
PsychoMoogieBagpuss: "...we are implementing an updated [forum] policy."
ZenPirate: "I suggested that we not only ban [offenders], but also ban the forumer next to them."
Arethusa: "So you're (at least largely) a diest?" NTKB: "No im a logical thinking christian"
Keganator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th Sep 2001, 02:47 AM   #11
The_Fur
Back in black
 
The_Fur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov. 2nd, 2000
Posts: 6,205
I see some people CAN look further then what they are told to see. Too bad they are only a minority, by the time the majority realises it the damage will have been done and there will be no way back, just like it happened in Vietnam.

/me pats keganator
__________________
"States are not moral agents; those who attribute to them ideals and principles merely mislead themselves and others."
-Noam Chomsky

"Ignorance, and admiration arising from ignorance, are the parents of devotion and obedience"
-Dostoyevski
The_Fur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th Sep 2001, 04:28 AM   #12
Uppity
Registered User
 
Uppity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr. 17th, 2001
Location: NE England (We hang monkeys)
Posts: 454
Quote:
Originally posted by Keganator

Look what happened when we messed with Iraq. For the last 10 years, the population has heard nothing but bad things about the US. The common man on the street agrees with the governent propaganda. And for what? So we americans can all drive our SUV's that get 6 miles to the gallon while only paying 1.55(and 9/10) a gallon. Kids growing up in this time won't know of anything but hate. And look where hate got us with Osama Bin Laden.

The US must NOT, I repeat, must NOT invade another country. We have NO right to. War on terrorism...what a joke. As OICW said, it's a crusade. And how many crusades did christianity win? Oh wait, that's right...none.

One thing I've figured out is never attack a country on it's home turf, especially geurillas. Every war where that happened, the attackers have lost. Napoleon invading Russia, England trying to keep the Colonies, America in Vietnam.

This 'war' breaks down to the stupid, stupid puritian ideas of america's founding fathers, especially how we must be a 'city upon the hill' and set an 'example' to the world about our 'grand experiment'. Policing the world ... how pompus is the United States??? The U.S. have no right! Trying to fix everything is what got us Osama Bin Laden in the first place!

...hmm...a little more steam to blow off than I expected...
While I agree with what you are saying, some points arn't really true.

Many contries have been attacked on their home ground and beaten. Most of Europe in WW2, Most of the known world in Roman times, The American Indians, + many more. They can be beaten - its just more difficult.

Also IIRC the first 2 or 3 crusades were won by the christians - who then set up 'crusader states' - lands of their own in the middle east - and held on to them for a few hundred years.

But yeah, attacking a whole country.... Lets look at the results:

If you attack a country to take it over and rule as a part of your own country and bring prosperity and stability to it, then over a few generations peace will start to reign - especially if their children have been 'educated' properly.

If you attack and then withdraw - leaving its poeple to whats left of the ruins, then all that results is a magnified hatred in subsequent generations.

The US would never attack to 'take over' a country. That leaves attacking then withdrawing which would only leave more hatred and hence more terrorism...

The only other option is to NOT launch a full scale military campaign.

Last edited by Uppity; 27th Sep 2001 at 09:09 AM.
Uppity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th Sep 2001, 08:53 AM   #13
Uppity
Registered User
 
Uppity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr. 17th, 2001
Location: NE England (We hang monkeys)
Posts: 454
This guy makes sense :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/...00/1566329.stm
Uppity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th Sep 2001, 09:02 AM   #14
Hypenotist
Catharsis hypothesis
 
Hypenotist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar. 15th, 2001
Posts: 254
Wink

Uppity you quoted me wrong, that quote was Keganator. Just wanted to make that clear.

Originally posted by Keganator
hypenotist said <----No I didn't
You can't be serious. The US has already f*cked up once by naming their operation "Infinate Justice." (I think they said that in the Islamic faith, only God can dispence infinate justice). There are no winners in war. What will destroying a country do? Nothing good.

Look what happened when we messed with Iraq. For the last 10 years, the population has heard nothing but bad things about the US. The common man on the street agrees with the governent propaganda. And for what? So we americans can all drive our SUV's that get 6 miles to the gallon while only paying 1.55(and 9/10) a gallon. Kids growing up in this time won't know of anything but hate. And look where hate got us with Osama Bin Laden.

The US must NOT, I repeat, must NOT invade another country. We have NO right to. War on terrorism...what a joke. As OICW said, it's a crusade. And how many crusades did christianity win? Oh wait, that's right...none.

One thing I've figured out is never attack a country on it's home turf, especially geurillas. Every war where that happened, the attackers have lost. Napoleon invading Russia, England trying to keep the Colonies, America in Vietnam.

This 'war' breaks down to the stupid, stupid puritian ideas of america's founding fathers, especially how we must be a 'city upon the hill' and set an 'example' to the world about our 'grand experiment'. Policing the world ... how pompus is the United States??? The U.S. have no right! Trying to fix everything is what got us Osama Bin Laden in the first place!

...hmm...a little more steam to blow off than I expected...
Hypenotist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th Sep 2001, 09:08 AM   #15
Uppity
Registered User
 
Uppity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr. 17th, 2001
Location: NE England (We hang monkeys)
Posts: 454
Oo! Sorry 'bout that - I'll go and fix it.
Uppity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th Sep 2001, 05:14 PM   #16
Keganator
White as Snow Moderator
 
Keganator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun. 19th, 2001
Location: PR's Barracks
Posts: 5,261
Thanks Fur for that comment.

I really don't want the US to screw up again. Every time we've tried to 'help' out countries, all we get is more enemies.

Uppity: that guy in the article is talking about treating the symptons of terrorism, not the cause. The reason there ARE terrorists who hate the U.S. and it's allies is because we've offended someone badly enough that they want to take action. The US needs to fix their relations with the rest of the world. The US needs to stop acting like rich pompus idiots. We didn't even pay our UN dues for years! The UN is supposed to be on our 'side'!

If our leaders stopped acting like we are better than everyone, maybe people wouldn't hate us so much. Maybe if we stop consuming 1/3 of the worlds resources when we consist of 1/20th of the world population, we could be more respected. Maybe.

Or maybe we'll do what we always do, and invade a country, call it a 'war for freedom' and rally 'us' against 'them'. That last option is what it looks like we're headed to.
__________________

--|| Sluggy Freelance || The Infiltration Forum Guidelines || Kegnet || Clan Phoenix Rising ||--
PsychoMoogieBagpuss: "...we are implementing an updated [forum] policy."
ZenPirate: "I suggested that we not only ban [offenders], but also ban the forumer next to them."
Arethusa: "So you're (at least largely) a diest?" NTKB: "No im a logical thinking christian"
Keganator is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Copyright ©1998 - 2012, BeyondUnreal, Inc.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
Bandwidth provided by AtomicGamer