Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: MillCreek on September 17, 2012, 10:49:01 AM
-
I have been reading some articles on the recent successful raid by the Taliban on Camp Bastion in Afghanistan. One item caught my eye: the total destruction of six Harriers and the severe damage of two others. They belonged to a Marine squadron. I can't imagine that there were a whole lot of flyable Harriers left, so I wonder if this puts a big dent in our capability. You read about the occasional loss of them in training accidents, so I know that the numbers have been whittled down over the years.
I have always had a fondness for the whole V/STOL concept and have followed these sort of aircraft with interest.
-
Makes me think of Red Dawn, where the Wolverines raid the prison camp and toss grenades into Migs.
Let's just leave there.
-
I don't know how many Harriers we have, but the plane is fifty year old technology. Newer jets are on the drawing board .... and thanks to numerous complexities, procurement of these is unlikely in the foreseeable future. One particular jet was being designed in two basic forms, a straight ordinary jet and a VTOL. That later design may never see actual use.
The Harrier is reputedly hard to fly....one mistake and KABOOM! you have a smoking hole in the ground. They also aren't true VTOL; without ordnance hung they can take off vertically but with any respectable load they need a runway, albeit a short one.
During the Falkland Campaign three decades ago I thought it was interesting that the British used them in an air-to-air role, and their reported ability to VIFF (Vector In Forward Flight) would make them inordinantly agile and hard for an enemy pilot to contend with. I recall being very surprised reading an article in the aftermath of that in a military magazine where the British CAG (Air Group CMDR) stated they didn't use that function in dogfights because the energy lost took to long to regain.
Surprise surprise.
We sorely need a new platform for the Marines....a new VTOL would be nice but it had better be effective and rock solid reliable for the leathernecks.....
-
170ish inventory, so not a huge hit, but big enough that the loss will be felt on airframe usage for the rest of the fleet. Not sure if we completed the deal with Britain to buy up all their de-commed Harriers and spare parts, that would be a big help to keep them flying until 2025 which is the plan. The F-35 will slowly replace the AV-8B and the F-18C for the Marines.
It will be interesting to see how the Taliban penetrated the camp. I'll play the safe money and say help from the inside. Love how they say it was a revenge attack for the video. Probably been planned for months,but it's about a video no one saw. I get the sense that Islam is always an excuse for these tribal idiots, just a good way to maintain power/keep the wimmins in line and/or excuse their barbaric actions.
-
I would suspect that the Harriers did not use much thrust vectoring because there was not much dogfighting. The Argentine planes were long range and low on gas to get out to the British fleet, about 5 minutes time on station when they got to the point of attack. Most likely the Argentines were running in low, or really looow and the Harriers were loitering above looking to interdict them. And, courtesy of us, they had the then latest and greatest Sidewinder, which means they didn't have to say they were sorry.
But in general you are correct, if you pretty much stop in mid-air there is one quick direction to re-gain airspeed. And you don't give up that altitude unless it is the only alternative to getting blown out of the sky.
One of the only redeeming features of Glocktalk, there was a guy on there that had flown in the Argentine air force. He had cockpit/gun camera photo from his Skyhawk during an attack on the British fleet. Holy hell, what a mess.
-
It will be interesting to see how the Taliban penetrated the camp. I'll play the safe money and say help from the inside.
The 15 taliban fighters were reportedly wearing American military uniforms. That certainly had to sow some confusion regarding who to shoot.
ETA: And most likely to the inside help thing. I thought I shared some stories regarding the local nationals that were doing work on FOB Salerno in 2006, didn't it?
-
The 15 taliban fighters were reportedly wearing American military uniforms. That certainly had to sow some confusion regarding who to shoot.
Wait - William Wallace is a Taliban ???
=D
-
:facepalm:
-
The Harrier was a neat idea, but it's a little under armed for it's primary role of CAS. The Marines should look into "trading in" their Harriers and getting some A-10's instead. Much better CAS aircraft.
-
They would love them, but no chance of getting A-10s on and off a boat. With the 25mm gunpack as a primary CAS weapon they make do. The Z model Cobras will probably do way more than the F-35 will for decades.
-
The Harrier was a neat idea, but it's a little under armed for it's primary role of CAS. The Marines should look into "trading in" their Harriers and getting some A-10's instead. Much better CAS aircraft.
The USMC would have to have access to all-grown-up carriers for those, even if the A10 could handle carrier life. I do share your appreciation for the A-10s virtues, though.
-
The USMC would have to have access to all-grown-up carriers for those, even if the A10 could handle carrier life. I do share your appreciation for the A-10s virtues, though.
This.
As bad ass as the A10 is and as much as I think it should be turned over to the Marines.
The role filled by the AV8 is twofold
One, the amphibious carrier is really a self contained fighting force. Only thing missing is air superiority, but otherwise a MEU can conduct a wide range of operations that no other unit in the world can. The harrier is integral to this mission.
Two, who's setup a runway on some abandoned blacktop with orange panels and sat in the back of a Hummer directing traffic? ;)
The STOL abilities of the AV8 are far superior to the A10 when under combat load.
Part of my job as a Marine ATC was establishing forward operating bases for Harriers, c130's and Helos. We also studied how to accommodate other aircraft.
-
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2012/09/6_harrier_jets_destr.php
"The attack commenced just after 10 p.m. when approximately 15 insurgents executed a well-coordinated attack against the airfield on Camp Bastion," ISAF said in a statement that provided additional details on the attack. "The insurgents, organized into three teams, penetrated at one point of the perimeter fence."
The members of the jihadist assault team were "dressed in U.S. Army uniforms and armed with automatic rifles, rocket propelled grenade launchers and suicide vests."
Once inside the perimeter, the assault team "attacked coalition fixed and rotary wing aircraft parked on the flight line, aircraft hangars and other buildings."
Sounds less like 'Red Dawn' and more like 'Zerg rush'
-
I thought I shared some stories regarding the local nationals that were doing work on FOB Salerno in 2006, didn't it?
The thing about the local nationals doing work at bases...it's a *expletive deleted*ing repeat of Vietnam where locals worked on base...then turned around and reported intel to the VC or took part in base assaults. Yeah, I know they do a lot of the menial labor but it is piss poor security.
-
Read an after-action report today that said the J2 folks missed something obvious - perfect cover of darkness for the Taliban.
Here's the explanation from a different perspective:
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/afghanistan-when-the-moon-sets-watch-out.htm
-
The thing about the local nationals doing work at bases...it's a *expletive deleted* repeat of Vietnam where locals worked on base...then turned around and reported intel to the VC or took part in base assaults. Yeah, I know they do a lot of the menial labor but it is piss poor security.
Roger that.
Case in point: I was assigned to the 4th Infantry Division, based in the central highlands around Pleiku. Toward the end of my tour I was in the division base camp, Camp Enari. We lived in hooches, not tents, and we had local mama sans come in every day to make the beds and do our laundry. My group typically got off duty and went back to the hooch about the time the mama sans were loading into deuce and a halfs to be hauled back to town.
One afternoon we got back to the hooch and, as usual, said to our mama san, "See you tomorrow, Mama San."
To which she replied, "No, no. I no come tomollow. GI go 'way, be busy tomollow. No see you tomollow."
It wasn't until several hours later that we were informed there was going to be a MAJOR sweep and clear mission conducted in the vicinity surrounding the camp, for a distance of 10 clicks out. Seems the base commander was getting tired of incoming mortar fire almost every night. Sure enough, bright and early the next morning (well, actually too early to ven be bright yet) we turned out, loaded up, and were trucked out 10 clicks to cordon off the camp, and then we closed the circle until we were back home. Needless to say, we didn't find anything. How could we, when the locals knew all about the bleepin' operation hours before we GIs did, and they had all bleepin' night to move whatever they wanted out beyond the range of our sweep mission?
-
Here's one of my disconcerting experiences...
FOB Salerno, Khost province, Afghanistan. 2006. Working in the S2 shop in the TOC, and the SIGINT guys behind me have an active signal from a known Taliban cellphone. They proceed to DF (Direction Find) this signal. In the span of 4 minutes they watch this signal make a full 360 degree sweep around their DF antenna. Yeah, the Taliban spotter was in our base, and was literally walking the hesco perimeter of the TOC we were inside of about 30 yards from where we were seated. Definitely not a warm-and-fuzzy moment.
-
This....and other current events in the Middle East, bring two words to my mind.....
....Tet Offensive.....
-
We only win total war. Nation building is so much fail.
-
This....and other current events in the Middle East, bring two words to my mind.....
....Tet Offensive.....
What about Tet on an international level? That's a thought that will make your insides quiver.
Embasseys around the globe with minimal guard units constrained by PC rules of engagement...
POTUS more concerned about election polls and his scheduled visit on The View than security briefings...
People in CONUS more worried about the NFL referee strike than the events in the Middle East...
Hundreds of soft civilian targets in CONUS...
May want to check out those Get-home/Bug out bags, just in case...
-
What about Tet on an international level? That's a thought that will make your insides quiver.
Embasseys around the globe with minimal guard units constrained by PC rules of engagement...
POTUS more concerned about election polls and his scheduled visit on The View than security briefings...
People in CONUS more worried about the NFL referee strike than the events in the Middle East...
Hundreds of soft civilian targets in CONUS...
May want to check out those Get-home/Bug out bags, just in case...
Just the [tinfoil] I needed to start my day.* Thanks....
(I'd better scurry to the gas station and top off again today!)
*Don't mean it in a tinfoil-hattery-Alex-Jones kind of way, but in an Oh-*expletive deleted*it! kind of way.
-
I guess I focused on the wrong part of the title for this thread. I don't care about how old the Harrier is or how cool some new replacement is or is not. The Taliban raided one of our camps and destroyed 6 of our airplanes. And the Taliban still walk the earth. What's wrong with this picture?
We have surrendered in defeat to a bunch of pissant Muslims. That they attack us and that we surrender - those are the real points that should be discussed.
-
I guess I focused on the wrong part of the title for this thread. I don't care about how old the Harrier is or how cool some new replacement is or is not. The Taliban raided one of our camps and destroyed 6 of our airplanes. And the Taliban still walk the earth. What's wrong with this picture?
We have surrendered in defeat to a bunch of pissant Muslims. That they attack us and that we surrender - those are the real points that should be discussed.
??? Who surrendered after the attack?
-
I guess I focused on the wrong part of the title for this thread. I don't care about how old the Harrier is or how cool some new replacement is or is not. The Taliban raided one of our camps and destroyed 6 of our airplanes. And the Taliban still walk the earth. What's wrong with this picture?
We have surrendered in defeat to a bunch of pissant Muslims. That they attack us and that we surrender - those are the real points that should be discussed.
Dood, it's okay, thread drift is not a bug here, it's a feature! And we talked about the airplanes because there is no easy answer to the Taliban walking the earth. Some here would say, with much validity, that we shouldn't be there where they can attack us. Personally I'm okay with us killing them there, but our nation building/installation of Jeffersonian democracy is a big pile of "not so much." About the only way to get rid of the Taliban would be to make a glass factory out of every country that ends in -stan and that solution obviously isn't one. So, they're going to be there and find ways to attack us, whether we are there or huddle at home. Welcome to assymetric warfare.
-
I guess I focused on the wrong part of the title for this thread. I don't care about how old the Harrier is or how cool some new replacement is or is not. The Taliban raided one of our camps and destroyed 6 of our airplanes. And the Taliban still walk the earth. What's wrong with this picture?
We have surrendered in defeat to a bunch of pissant Muslims. That they attack us and that we surrender - those are the real points that should be discussed.
Oh unknot your panties sweetheart. Thread drift around here is common and allowed.
-
We invaded a country and the locals are resisting. :facepalm:
-
Hell yeah we invaded a &*$^%^& country that harbored AQ that ATTACKED US!!!`
Maybe we should send countries that attack us sympathy cards. :mad: :facepalm:
-
Hell yeah we invaded a &*$^%^& country that harbored AQ that ATTACKED US!!!`
Maybe we should send countries that attack us sympathy cards. :mad: :facepalm:
Incorrect.
We invaded a country that borders Iran. OK, we invaded 2 countries that border Iran.
Our entire Middle East game plan is focused on Iran, and has been since 2001. Maybe earlier.
-
I'm just trying to figure out why we are so surprised that our enemies fight back ;/
-
Hell yeah we invaded a &*$^%^& country that harbored AQ that ATTACKED US!!!`
Without getting into whether or not the invasion was justified, it still seems like kind of a no brainer that if you invade a country, the folks that live there might object.
-
Without getting into whether or not the invasion was justified, it still seems like kind of a no brainer that if you invade a country, the folks that live there might object.
But we're Americans!
Don't they know that we come in peace ? =D
-
"We came, we saw, He died!"- Hillary Clinton
Oh wait, that's Libya.
-
Incorrect.
We invaded a country that borders Iran. OK, we invaded 2 countries that border Iran.
Our entire Middle East game plan is focused on Iran, and has been since 2001. Maybe earlier.
You get this stuff off of Alex Jones website?
-
Just because I don't subscribe to "NeoCon Warmonger Quarterly?" Now I'm an Infowars troofer?
OK, whatever.
-
Without getting into whether or not the invasion was justified, it still seems like kind of a no brainer that if you invade a country, the folks that live there might object.
Sure, but somehow that misses the point.
Insurgents are sneaking in and experiencing some degree of success blowing up attack aircraft and such. Sure I expect this -- but I also expect our guys to be better at stopping it.
Obama is proclaiming wonderful things are happening in the mideast and in A'stan & Iraq. Great. We're scheduled to go away by 2014. OK, fine.
And I have this dire feeling that the day after we're gone the Taliban will come charging back into A'stan from Pakistan and take over again and all of what we've done will be for nought, all our casualties there will have been for nothing.
And Obama will proclaim victory.
And apologize.....again. [barf]
What the h*** is the point of going to war against a force that caused buillions of dollars in damage to your country and slaughtered 2,973 human beings and not utterly destroying them so they can't get up, dust themselves off, and repeat the ****** all over again? >:D :mad: :mad:
And I don't know why China or Russia or even Iran should fear us if we don't even give a _______ about winning a war. [barf]
-
Just because I don't subscribe to "NeoCon Warmonger Quarterly?" Now I'm an Infowars troofer?
OK, whatever.
Please.....don't act so hurt. It really doesn't become you.
-
Sure, but somehow that misses the point.
Insurgents are sneaking in and experiencing some degree of success blowing up attack aircraft and such. Sure I expect this -- but I also expect our guys to be better at stopping it.
Obama is proclaiming wonderful things are happening in the mideast and in A'stan & Iraq. Great. We're scheduled to go away by 2014. OK, fine.
And I have this dire feeling that the day after we're gone the Taliban will come charging back into A'stan from Pakistan and take over again and all of what we've done will be for nought, all our casualties there will have been for nothing.
And Obama will proclaim victory.
And apologize.....again. [barf]
What the h*** is the point of going to war against a force that caused buillions of dollars in damage to your country and slaughtered 2,973 human beings and not utterly destroying them so they can't get up, dust themselves off, and repeat the ****** all over again? >:D :mad: :mad:
And I don't know why China or Russia or even Iran should fear us if we don't even give a _______ about winning a war. [barf]
Yes. That is what is going to happen, that is what IS happening.
and...
At this point in time, do you still believe it ever was all about "getting terrorists" and protecting America?
-
Sure, but somehow that misses the point.
Insurgents are sneaking in and experiencing some degree of success blowing up attack aircraft and such. Sure I expect this -- but I also expect our guys to be better at stopping it.
Obama is proclaiming wonderful things are happening in the mideast and in A'stan & Iraq. Great. We're scheduled to go away by 2014. OK, fine.
And I have this dire feeling that the day after we're gone the Taliban will come charging back into A'stan from Pakistan and take over again and all of what we've done will be for nought, all our casualties there will have been for nothing.
And Obama will proclaim victory.
And apologize.....again. [barf]
What the h*** is the point of going to war against a force that caused buillions of dollars in damage to your country and slaughtered 2,973 human beings and not utterly destroying them so they can't get up, dust themselves off, and repeat the ****** all over again? >:D :mad: :mad:
And I don't know why China or Russia or even Iran should fear us if we don't even give a _______ about winning a war. [barf]
Dude, you're about 4 years behind the rest of the country in these questions.
stuck in full auto since birth
Find the selective fire switch. Conserve ammo. Marksmanship, not suppression.
-
If we're going to build nations then fine. Let's build the damn nations. I think the British and the Roman Empires would be good examples to follow.
Failing that, let's not throw away lives and treasure invading every sand pit where the locals don't like us aka all of them.
-
If we're going to build nations then fine. Let's build the damn nations. I think the British and the Roman Empires would be good examples to follow.
Failing that, let's not throw away lives and treasure invading every sand pit where the locals don't like us aka all of them.
This x 80. This half-assed stuff we're doing serves no useful purpose, and HURTS us.
-
To do nation-building, you must be willing - not so much to kill more people, but to do like the British did in Kipling's time: decide firmly, as a society, "our culture is better and by God we are going to impose it."
Unfortunately, that is no longer acceptable today, and indeed seen as a form of bigotry.
-
Dude, you're about 4 years behind the rest of the country in these questions.
:facepalm:
Really? Seems like I've been talking like that four about ..... four years.
stuck in full auto since birth
Find the selective fire switch. Conserve ammo. Marksmanship, not suppression.
???
Oh...you take tag lines seriously. :P
-
At this point in time, do you still believe it ever was all about "getting terrorists" and protecting America?
When the war started I did.
God knows what Obama thinks he's doing. I don't think Obama knows what Obama is doing.
-
To do nation-building, you must be willing - not so much to kill more people, but to do like the British did in Kipling's time: decide firmly, as a society, "our culture is better and by God we are going to impose it."
Unfortunately, that is no longer acceptable today, and indeed seen as a form of bigotry.
Yeah, I have no illusions we'll actually do it. I just think it's the only way it'd work.
-
Yeah, I have no illusions we'll actually do it. I just think it's the only way it'd work.
Even that wouldn't work - look at the British now. They figured out early on that local clients are feasible to administer whereas direct imposition is prohibitively expensive. That's why they still profit from Kuwait but got spanked throughout Africa.
Even "threatening extermination" isn't viable anymore - there are too many nations that can exterminate us, so we can't be sending the message that we'll do it to them if they cross us. That makes the math on deciding to preemptively strike too attractive.
Military force can't reorganize a society - ideas can, but we don't have any ideas that would be particularly sane for the locals to adopt.
-
I'm sorry that you only understand military force as 'threatening people with extermination', De Selby.
Military force has been excellent at reorganizing the hell out of Southern society and ending slavery, and at ending Nazism and Japanese militarism.
And if you think we don't have any worthwhile ideas, I am genuinely sorry for you.
-
I'm sorry that you only understand military force as 'threatening people with extermination', De Selby.
Military force has been excellent at reorganizing the hell out of Southern society and ending slavery, and at ending Nazism and Japanese militarism.
And if you think we don't have any worthwhile ideas, I am genuinely sorry for you.
Micro, how exactly did military force reorganize southern society???? De facto slavery and segregation continued on for a solid hundred years following the war. Changing political institutions was done quite rapidly in Afghanistan and Iraq - look how much good that did.
We have great ideas for ourselves - the problem is that our ideas for Iraqis and Afghanis aren't the same. The idea for them is to act as client states that respond to US domestic interests. That's not going to change cultures, and it actually discredits our very good ideas about personal liberty and political freedoms - people who espouse those views get written off as propagandists who just want to implement a client state, which indeed many of them are.
-
No.
The Recosntructionists did quite some work for the blacks right up until 1876, and even later Southern racism had its ups and downs (for example, mass transit at first refused to segregate blacks). None of it even approached the horror that is being physically owned by another person.
We have great ideas for ourselves - the problem is that our ideas for Iraqis and Afghanis aren't the same. The idea for them is to act as client states that respond to US domestic interests. That's not going to change cultures, and it actually discredits our very good ideas about personal liberty and political freedoms - people who espouse those views get written off as propagandists who just want to implement a client state, which indeed many of them are.
This is mostly because 'foreign policy expert' is basically a euphemism for 'Cthulhu'.
-
De Selby, as someone who has personal experience with the South within the time period you assert ( up until 1965, by my calculation), let inform you and anyone who might have read your opinion.
You don't have a bleeping CLUE what you're talking about. Was discrimination bad? Yes. Were blacks routinely denied their rights? Yes. Does this compare to chattel slavery? Abso-frickin'-lutely NOT, and you trivialize the abomination of slavery by drawing any equivalency.
-
De Selby, as someone who has personal experience with the South within the time period you assert ( up until 1965, by my calculation), let inform you and anyone who might have read your opinion.
You don't have a bleeping CLUE what you're talking about. Was discrimination bad? Yes. Were blacks routinely denied their rights? Yes. Does this compare to chattel slavery? Abso-frickin'-lutely NOT, and you trivialize the abomination of slavery by drawing any equivalency.
But, but, but, but....the South is EVIL! At least one Canadian and a multitude of Yankees have said so in songs, so it must be true! Just as colonialism is inherently evil, having zero benefit to the colonials.
-
Is there a Godwin's law that addresses slavery instead of Nazism?
Colonialism and chattel slavery are only similar in that they have both been discredited by the judgement of history. Comparing the plight of British subject in, say, Inja of 1890 to a black slave on a Mississppi plantation of 1850 is disingenuous at best. The moral horror of slavery is exceeded only by outright genocide, imnsho.
If you want to dispassionately dissect racism, as practiced in the former Confederacy from the end of the War between the States until, oh, say 1965 or so, feel free. I'd love to hear how much better it was for black people elsewhere in the US during this period.
My own particular pet peeve is the lack of general awareness of the behavior of Federal forces during Reconstruction, and the resentment that bred, and the effect it had on race relations in the South. The term "DamnYankee" dates back to this period, and is still used, fortunately with less and less cause.
We now return to the original thread...
-
I'm sure Sherman's march to the sea had nothing to do with Southern resentments...
-
Of course not. They hated the Yankees for their freedoms.
-
Of course not. They hated the Yankees for their freedoms.
You sir win one internetz.
-
I'm sure Sherman's march to the sea had nothing to do with Southern resentments...
you need to look at sheridan in the shenadoah valley too
-
If you want to dispassionately dissect racism, as practiced in the former Confederacy from the end of the War between the States until, oh, say 1965 or so, feel free. I'd love to hear how much better it was for black people elsewhere in the US during this period.
Not to mention the life of black people anywhere outside the US.
-
Not to mention the life of black people anywhere outside the US. still
-
??? Who surrendered after the attack?
Did we defeat the Taliban? No. We're pulling out of Afghanistan. In defeat. That's the definition of surrender.
-
Dood, it's okay, thread drift is not a bug here, it's a feature! And we talked about the airplanes because there is no easy answer to the Taliban walking the earth. Some here would say, with much validity, that we shouldn't be there where they can attack us. Personally I'm okay with us killing them there, but our nation building/installation of Jeffersonian democracy is a big pile of "not so much." About the only way to get rid of the Taliban would be to make a glass factory out of every country that ends in -stan and that solution obviously isn't one. So, they're going to be there and find ways to attack us, whether we are there or huddle at home. Welcome to assymetric warfare.
There is a very easy answer to the Taliban walking the earth. Defeat them. Judging your signature of being a navy man, and the Navy Jack in your avatar, I'm assuming you're a military man. Do you think we can't defeat the Taliban easily? Get the politician generals out of the way and the Taliban becomes history as an organization and threat inside of a year. It doesn't take a nuke.
You defeat enemies by overwhelming power, crushing any and all resistance. Saddam Hussein kept control in his country just fine. Most of the mid-eastern dictators did for a long time - until the US intervened by nation building. I have full faith that our military men could completely crush the Taliban in such a way that no other muslim terrorist wannabe would dare to raise his head.
-
Oh unknot your panties sweetheart. Thread drift around here is common and allowed.
I don't care about the thread drift. I care about a bunch of Afghans attacking our soldiers and getting away with it.
-
Hell yeah we invaded a &*$^%^& country that harbored AQ that ATTACKED US!!!`
Maybe we should send countries that attack us sympathy cards. :mad: :facepalm:
No, if we had attacked a country that attacked us, we would have attacked Saudi Arabia - or at least have attacked Afghanistan on September 12. We put a token force in Afghanistan while we attacked a country that didn't attack us.
-
There is a very easy answer to the Taliban walking the earth. Defeat them. Judging your signature of being a navy man, and the Navy Jack in your avatar, I'm assuming you're a military man. Do you think we can't defeat the Taliban easily? Get the politician generals out of the way and the Taliban becomes history as an organization and threat inside of a year. It doesn't take a nuke.
You defeat enemies by overwhelming power, crushing any and all resistance. Saddam Hussein kept control in his country just fine. Most of the mid-eastern dictators did for a long time - until the US intervened by nation building. I have full faith that our military men could completely crush the Taliban in such a way that no other muslim terrorist wannabe would dare to raise his head.
Look, I gave you your overly simplistic solution. Glass factory. Someone said in the Balkans to stamp out the ethnic strife there we'd have to kill all the grandmothers because they kept the children at their knee and reinforced all the bigoted crap that the men were off fighting about. Any war total enough to eliminate islamic extremism from the globe would be brutal enough to destroy this country from the inside out. They will continue to succeed because we value life, perhaps overvalue. Losing several Marines and some aircraft is national news now. 150 years ago we lost 20,000 men in a day and nobody changed what they were doing much. I'm not hoping for a return to those days but maybe we need to harden up just a touch. Note the results of the Taliban's success, only one survivor, and that one captured. And perversely enough that result is almost a recruiting tool to those tools.
-
No, if we had attacked a country that attacked us, we would have attacked Saudi Arabia - or at least have attacked Afghanistan on September 12. We put a token force in Afghanistan while we attacked a country that didn't attack us.
BS.
The thugs that attacked us were Al Qaeda and that was operating in A'Stan and being harbored by the Taliban.
Unless you can show they were operating as agents of, or soldiers in the army of Saudia Arabia their nationality is not a factor. This is a specious,wrong, and dangerous idea that has floated around.
If a gang of German citizens in New York robbed a bank, and shot all the tellers and guards in the process, would you claim Germany had some responsibility in it? If you were responsible you wouldn't without some damn good evidence of the German government being complicit.
-
BS.
The thugs that attacked us were Al Qaeda and that was operating in A'Stan and being harbored by the Taliban.
Unless you can show they were operating as agents of, or soldiers in the army of Saudia Arabia their nationality is not a factor. This is a specious,wrong, and dangerous idea that has floated around.
If a gang of German citizens in New York robbed a bank, and shot all the tellers and guards in the process, would you claim Germany had some responsibility in it? If you were responsible you wouldn't without some damn good evidence of the German government being complicit.
Where is the evidence of Taliban complicity in the September 11 attacks?
-
Where is the evidence of Taliban complicity in the September 11 attacks?
Where is the evidence of Libya's complicity in the terrorist attacks on US troops?
Are we absolutely certain[ that it was Chechen terrorists that attacked Beslan?
-
Where is the evidence of Taliban complicity in the September 11 attacks?
Just like a lawyer. Harbor and complicit are not the same.
-
Just like a lawyer. Harbor and complicit are not the same.
Exactly - their mistake was in thinking they could earn a reward for turning him over. All the evidence we have on the Taliban is that, of those who even know new York exists, none of them cared about it. Bin Laden was there paying them to hang out; they would likely have given him up for a sufficient cash payment, although all we know was ever requested was international recognition of their government.
When you consider that essentially zero operational planning went on in Afghanistan, it's even more odd to link them to the attack.
-
Cite? You're making assertions on where the planning for the sept 11th attacks went down and I'd like to see something backing it up.
-
Cite? You're making assertions on where the planning for the sept 11th attacks went down and I'd like to see something backing it up.
Sure http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch5.htm (http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch5.htm)
-
LOL sure looks like a large portion of it involves Afghanistan to me. Simply considering the elite training camps were housed in Afghanistan is enough. Without that training, pray tell me how in the *expletive deleted*ck they would have pulled the attacks off? But I'm sure you've got some around about justifications as to why deposing the "government" of the country that provided the bulkwork of AQ's training program wasn't a good idea.
-
LOL sure looks like a large portion of it involves Afghanistan to me. Simply considering the elite training camps were housed in Afghanistan is enough. Without that training, pray tell me how in the *expletive deleted* they would have pulled the attacks off? But I'm sure you've got some around about justifications as to why deposing the "government" of the country that provided the bulkwork of AQ's training program wasn't a good idea.
You know, I've thought about this a goodly bit, especially while actually there, and then over the last 5 years since. There is something I saw once that will haunt me for the rest of my life. Video of Taliban government officers dragging women into the middle of a soccer field and shooting them in the head for having the temerity to learn to read. Even if we assume that the Taliban were totally blameless for 9/11, and did not host training camps, or harbor anyone responsible for those attacks, I still can not in good conscience say that killing their leaders and (trying) to throw them out of Afghanistan was wrong. Theirs is a plainly evil institution and none of the tenets of civilization that I adhere to, such as national sovereignty, can reconcile that.
-
Where is the evidence of Taliban complicity in the September 11 attacks?
:facepalm:
Gheeeesh. Just stop it, DeSelby!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
I don't care about the thread drift. I care about a bunch of Afghans attacking our soldiers and getting away with it.
Don't hold your breath for this war to be persecuted in a fashion with winning it being the goal. Hasn't been the case since its inception.
-
You know, I've thought about this a goodly bit, especially while actually there, and then over the last 5 years since. There is something I saw once that will haunt me for the rest of my life. Video of Taliban government officers dragging women into the middle of a soccer field and shooting them in the head for having the temerity to learn to read. Even if we assume that the Taliban were totally blameless for 9/11, and did not host training camps, or harbor anyone responsible for those attacks, I still can not in good conscience say that killing their leaders and (trying) to throw them out of Afghanistan was wrong. Theirs is a plainly evil institution and none of the tenets of civilization that I adhere to, such as national sovereignty, can reconcile that.
Lotta places on this earth fit that description. Which doesn't change the moral point (I am an imperialist after all) but does perhaps beg the question of if it justifies the outlay of treasure and life we've expended on it.
-
Lotta places on this earth fit that description. Which doesn't change the moral point (I am an imperialist after all) but does perhaps beg the question of if it justifies the outlay of treasure and life we've expended on it.
This. Let them rise up and overthrow their own oppressors. If we really feel like getting involved, crates of surplus weapons and ammo can be airdropped cheap.
-
Don't hold your breath for this war to be persecuted in a fashion with winning it being the goal. Hasn't been the case since its inception.
That is not even possible because nobody even has a straight clue of how to define "victory".
-
That is not even possible because nobody even has a straight clue of how to define "victory".
We actually achieved the defined goals of victory quickly, that is overthrowing the taliban and installing a quasi-elected government. But beyond that, the insurgent campagin continues. Pursuing the insurgents into the countries that are harboring them (especially Pakistan) unfettered would be the only way to "win" any more. Instead, we pussy foot around and the insurgents continue to bleed us.
-
This. Let them rise up and overthrow their own oppressors. If we really feel like getting involved, crates of surplus weapons and ammo can be airdropped cheap.
And bikinis for the wimmen =D
-
And bikinis for the wimmen =D
They would make their pubescent boys wear the bikinis.
-
This. Let them rise up and overthrow their own oppressors. If we really feel like getting involved, crates of surplus weapons and ammo can be airdropped cheap.
We did this once. It resulted in the Taliban taking power
Read Ghost Wars. It'll make you face palm all day
-
We did this once. It resulted in the Taliban taking power
Read Ghost Wars. It'll make you face palm all day
I'm all for Jamis' plan. But with the cavat, that we often overlook, of vetting and making sure the people you are supporting aren't as bad or worse then the people they are shooting.
-
I'm all for Jamis' plan. But with the cavat, that we often overlook, of vetting and making sure the people you are supporting aren't as bad or worse then the people they are shooting.
This, of course.
-
I'm all for Jamis' plan. But with the cavat, that we often overlook, of vetting and making sure the people you are supporting aren't as bad or worse then the people they are shooting.
But we seem incapable of this historically. I suspect that's a combination of general cultural bias and specific failures by the type of people (i.e. career diplomats) who do the vetting. A Christopher Stevens is an unfortunately rare bird in U.S. diplomatic service already, and then we sacrifice his kind to political expediency.
-
But we seem incapable of this historically. I suspect that's a combination of general cultural bias and specific failures by the type of people (i.e. career diplomats) who do the vetting. A Christopher Stevens is an unfortunately rare bird in U.S. diplomatic service already, and then we sacrifice his kind to political expediency.
This
We had all the info we needed to KNOW who the moderate faction was when the soviets were there. We threw them under the bus because the radicals were stronger against the soviets, who were on their way out anyways.
-
This
We had all the info we needed to KNOW who the moderate faction was when the soviets were there. We threw them under the bus because the radicals were stronger against the soviets, who were on their way out anyways.
I've read in several sources that the US mostly supported the Northern Alliance/Massood, is that not true?
Either way, in the Cold War the US often supported some truly nasty factions because people saw Soviet victory in the Cold War as the worst thing that could possibly happen. Today we know the USSR was inherently weak and about to collapse, but back then most people expected it to last for generations. Look at the reaction of American press to Goldwater's idea that America should try and bring freedom (that is, capitalism) to the Soviets - capitalism in Russia was ridiculed as a completely impossible notion.
But today the notion that 'we should support awful factions because they side with us' no longer has a moral justification, and the foreign policy experts are running about like headless chickens to try and come up with a new ideology to justify their meddling.
"Spread democracy" doesn't work because then people will ask why America is backing people like Mubarak or the Saudi government- and because an ideology of spreading freedom imposes moral constraints that these people are not willing to operate under.
"Defending against radical Islam" is better for their worldview because most Westerners are completely ignorant about the different branches of Islam and do not want to learn. At any time any faction can be labeled as "radical" or "moderate" Muslims at the whim of a newspaper editor.
-
I've read in several sources that the US mostly supported the Northern Alliance/Massood, is that not true?
Either way, in the Cold War the US often supported some truly nasty factions because people saw Soviet victory in the Cold War as the worst thing that could possibly happen. Today we know the USSR was inherently weak and about to collapse, but back then most people expected it to last for generations. Look at the reaction of American press to Goldwater's idea that America should try and bring freedom (that is, capitalism) to the Soviets - capitalism in Russia was ridiculed as a completely impossible notion.
But today the notion that 'we should support awful factions because they side with us' no longer has a moral justification, and the foreign policy experts are running about like headless chickens to try and come up with a new ideology to justify their meddling.
"Spread democracy" doesn't work because then people will ask why America is backing people like Mubarak or the Saudi government- and because an ideology of spreading freedom imposes moral constraints that these people are not willing to operate under.
"Defending against radical Islam" is better for their worldview because most Westerners are completely ignorant about the different branches of Islam and do not want to learn. At any time any faction can be labeled as "radical" or "moderate" Muslims at the whim of a newspaper editor.
For a while. Then we started playing games and supporting multiple sides, and allowed some very bad things to happen to the "good guys"
I forget all the details... I highly recommend that book i mentioned, Ghost wars. Also "The Human Factor"