Does anyone disagree with our military strategy?

[Guerilla poster]

Can anyone tell me why we are wasting time? Why don't we just go in full forces and bomb the Taliban and follow that up with a ground insurgnece? How many missions are we sending each day (20 to 30)? This is a ridiculous strategy. We should wipe them out quickly to prove that our military does not mess around. I think this strategy will just prompt additional war in the future. We need to send the message, if you screw with us, we will wipe you out completely. In addition, if we are worried about civilian casualties, this is the best approach - more will die from a long drawn out confrontation because they cannot get food and water than from a few bombs gone astray.

[Griffin 1]

"Does anyone disagree with our military strategy?"

I'm sure some people do. I don't.

[Guerilla poster]

Griffin, Please explain to me why you think this current strategy will work. If you have superior power you should use it - why mess around.

On 2001-10-26 10:26, Guerilla Poster wrote:
Can anyone tell me why we are wasting time? Why don't we just go in full forces and bomb the Taliban and follow that up with a ground insurgnece? How many missions are we sending each day (20 to 30)? This is a ridiculous strategy. We should wipe them out quickly to prove that our military does not mess around. I think this strategy will just prompt additional war in the future. We need to send the message, if you screw with us, we will wipe you out completely. In addition, if we are worried about civilian casualties, this is the best approach - more will die from a long drawn out confrontation because they cannot get food and water than from a few bombs gone astray.

Because we can't.

This isn't Iraq. The Taliban are too smart to adopt a strategy which is certain to fail. I think the Taliban are the racial group that invented chess. So they're probalby good at strategy.

Name any strategy, short of nukes, and I'll tell you why it fails. Nukes fails too, in another way.

Your bomb and invade strategy fails because there's nothing left to bomb and invasion doesn't equal victory. Don't forget the Russians took over every Afghan city in their war.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Voice of Reason on 2001-10-26 11:18 ]</font>

[Guerilla poster]

We need to fight fire with fire - chemical weapons should be used in those caves.

I think Osama is right - the US will not risk lives and if we are not willing to risk lives we will not get the job done the proper way and the terrorists and future terrorists will strike again. We need to show how swiftly and completely we can finish the job and we are not doing it. These Afghani's know war and they think we are wimpy, the whole Middle East thinks we are wimpy - they know we have the power but know that we are wimpy as a country to use it - it should be help out or die time for the Mideast. We are the most powerful country in the world by far - we should start acting like it.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Guerilla Poster on 2001-10-26 11:28 ]</font>

[Griffin 1]

On 2001-10-26 10:51, Guerilla Poster wrote:
Griffin, Please explain to me why you think this current strategy will work. If you have superior power you should use it - why mess around.

I trust the current leadership to make the decisions they think is best and to carry out those decision. Besides my confidence in our leaders, I am also aware that neither you, I , nor any one else here has the knowledge, information, expertise, and understanding of the goals that they have.

I read in their war the Soviets mounted a 6 month no holds barred campaign and totally cleared out every cave. Didn't accomplish a thing other than killing a bunch of their soldiers.

The best solution is to quietly take our troops out of Saudi Arabia, improve relations with the Arab world and push for a Palestinian state.

[Guerilla poster]

Why? I think we should bomb and destroy all terrorists and terrorists supporting countries and then deal with these countries later (like WWII) with a Marhshall plan type policy. The current policy will never work. We need to use our power effectively instead of worrying about hurting the Pakistani's feelings - the Pakistani gov't is basically controlled by terrorists (the Pakistani military). Why are playing ball with them? We all know that Saudi is full of sh**. They have not done one helpful thing in this fight other than spew statements of support then not do anything to stop terrorism. The Mideast is a mess and we need to do something about now or it will continue to bite us in the ass for years to come. Originally, Bush sounded like he meant business but I think Mr. Powell has had his ear for to long.








<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Guerilla Poster on 2001-10-26 11:36 ]</font>

Well, your strategy might work.

So you're saying we do the same thing the soviets did, that is to completely take over Afghanistan.

Then you're saying we'll be successful at it because Afghans will love us spreading the American way of life to them. They didn't like the Soviets because Soviet culture and government suck, but they'll like us.

This could be true. It's a huge risk, but could have huge rewards. Could you imagine if the United States took Afghanistan and made it into a flourishing country? Talk about something to put on our resume.

Of course being a huge risk it has a large downside also.

[Guerilla poster]

I think their are two ways to do it(and either way could be the right way depending on your opinion)

1) Go all the way (my plan)

2) Don't go at all (your plan, leave Saudi etc.)

If we learned anything from Vietnam, it was either go all out or don't go at all. This half-assed strategy we are using now is always a failure.