1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.

America going to kick ass? Doubt it (Long)

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by OICW, Sep 26, 2001.

  1. OICW

    OICW Reason & Logic > Religion

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2000
    Messages:
    2,374
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  2. Mason

    Mason Self appointed voice of reason

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2000
    Messages:
    1,216
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  3. Uppity

    Uppity New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2001
    Messages:
    454
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  4. Excelsiore

    Excelsiore Binary Liberation Front

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2001
    Messages:
    434
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  5. The_Fur

    The_Fur Back in black

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2000
    Messages:
    6,204
    Likes Received:
    0
    I doubt that they will learn, if you look at history tactics will only change during conflict, not after or before.
     
  6. RogueLeader

    RogueLeader Tama-chan says, "aurf aurf aurf!"

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2000
    Messages:
    5,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  7. the vrrc

    the vrrc noexistant user

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2001
    Messages:
    1,849
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  8. Mason

    Mason Self appointed voice of reason

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2000
    Messages:
    1,216
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  9. Hypenotist

    Hypenotist Catharsis hypothesis

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    Messages:
    254
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  10. Keganator

    Keganator White as Snow Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2001
    Messages:
    5,262
    Likes Received:
    0
    hypenotist said
    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... :D
     
  11. The_Fur

    The_Fur Back in black

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2000
    Messages:
    6,204
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
  12. Uppity

    Uppity New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2001
    Messages:
    454
    Likes Received:
    0
    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: Sep 27, 2001
  13. Uppity

    Uppity New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2001
    Messages:
    454
    Likes Received:
    0
  14. Hypenotist

    Hypenotist Catharsis hypothesis

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    Messages:
    254
    Likes Received:
    0
    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...
     
  15. Uppity

    Uppity New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2001
    Messages:
    454
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oo! Sorry 'bout that - I'll go and fix it.
     
  16. Keganator

    Keganator White as Snow Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2001
    Messages:
    5,262
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     

Share This Page