WHAT???? Bin Laden appointed as Commander-in-chief of TAliban troops last month?????

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
S

SJ

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,151
0
0
I believe it to be credible, as Ive been trying to tell people on the board for the past few hours...

It originated out of Pakistan, the Talibans #1 supporter. And two, Russia condemed the move.
 
J

jehh

Banned
Jan 16, 2001
3,576
0
0
If this is the case, and Iraq financed it...

Then we're at war...

BTW, I don't use the term war lightly... I've seen people toss the term war around all day long, but the truth is a simple terrorist isn't something you can declare war against (any more than you can declare war against a drug dealer), HOWEVER... You can declare war against a state, and this sounds like we may already be at war with two states...

May God have mercy on our souls for what we're going to do to both of them...

Jason
 
R

RossGr

Diamond Member
Jan 11, 2000
3,383
1
0
There is no way we can even contemplate a full ground war in Afganastan. Think about it, if the USSR at the peak of its power could not win a war there when they have common borders how can we possibly do any better from half way around the globe. About all we could do is sacrfice more Americans to no real gain. This war will need to be fought with brains and technology if we are to have any hope of punishing the correct people.
 
S

SJ

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,151
0
0
Well there is a possibility of Pakistan yanking support from the Taliban and helping the US/World. Pakistan officals are already en route to try and get the Taliban "spiritual leader" to hand over Bin Laden. If Pakistan yanks support from the Taliban, the Taliban would be sitting ducks. The Taliban depend upon Pakistan for survival, that is how they took and kept control for the past 5 years.

Also Afganastan is greatly changed since the USSR was fighting them.
 
R

Rage187

Lifer
Dec 30, 2000
14,276
4
81
"There is no way we can even contemplate a full ground war in Afganastan. Think about it, if the USSR at the peak of its power could not win a war there when they have common borders how can we possibly do any better from half way around the globe."


But that was the USSR...


We are talking about the entire Nato forces+ coming for that ass..
 
G

gopunk

Lifer
Jul 7, 2001
29,239
2
0
But that was the USSR...


We are talking about the entire Nato forces+ coming for that ass..

no this is foolish thinking. for the past few centuries numerous forces have attacked afghanistan. i haven't heard of a single one winning. the brits and russians were both throughly routed and had their asses handed to them on a platter.
 
J

joohang

Lifer
Oct 22, 2000
12,340
1
0
He actually got a very good point.

Afghans will likely defend themselves with guerrilla tactics.
 
S

SJ

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,151
0
0
whoops wrong thread. Yeah they will, as they have cover. There will be american blood shed in any ground assault, but we could feasibly go in and occupy them if Pakistan cuts of support and helps us.
 
J

joohang

Lifer
Oct 22, 2000
12,340
1
0


<< no this is foolish thinking. for the past few centuries numerous forces have attacked afghanistan. i haven't heard of a single one winning. the brits and russians were both throughly routed and had their asses handed to them on a platter. >>


Yup. Americans should really think back to Vietnam. Both Vietnam and Afghanistan have a good history of fighting with guerrilla tactics against any foreign ground "invaders" (in their sense; for lack of a better word).
 
J

joohang

Lifer
Oct 22, 2000
12,340
1
0


<< Why not? We feasibly have the power and most of the world behind us. Whatever countries that were involved will likely be invaded. >>


I still believe that diplomatic pressure is the best way to resolve this. Just my opinion.
 
J

judgejudy

Senior member
Nov 15, 1999
458
0
0
that's why you tomahawk and bomb their ass into submission... just like we did with Bosnia and Iraq.
 
J

joohang

Lifer
Oct 22, 2000
12,340
1
0


<< whoops wrong thread. Yeah they will, as they have cover. There will be american blood shed in any ground assault, but we could feasibly go in and occupy them if Pakistan cuts of support and helps us. >>


Long-time Taleban-supporter is going to fully support the Americans? I doubt it. I wouldn't trust Pakistan. They have a stronger history as Taleban-supporters than American allies.

Another 2¢ from me.
 
S

SJ

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,151
0
0
Well, its a different Afghanistan. There is the Northern Alliance and the Taliban. The Northern Alliance will likely take sides with the US/World, as they dont like the Taliban. And as I said before, the Taliban need Pakistan to survive, without them, they have no food, or supplies(weapons, ammo etc). Sure they can use gurriella tactics, but they would only be able to sustain that for a short time...
 
P

Pennstate

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 1999
3,211
0
0
The Irony is here is that IRAN sides with the Northern Alliance. Ad they had came very close to send its troops into Afghanistan
 
J

jehh

Banned
Jan 16, 2001
3,576
0
0


<< "There is no way we can even contemplate a full ground war in Afganastan. Think about it, if the USSR at the peak of its power could not win a war there when they have common borders how can we possibly do any better from half way around the globe."

But that was the USSR...

We are talking about the entire Nato forces+ coming for that ass.. >>



This is true... and our technology and military are much better than the USSR's ever was...

Jason
 
S

SJ

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,151
0
0
You never know, they could. Simply because if they don't they end up on the wrong end of a big whooping stick.
 
J

jehh

Banned
Jan 16, 2001
3,576
0
0


<< He actually got a very good point.

Afghans will likely defend themselves with guerrilla tactics. >>



Won't matter if we fight to win.

If we treat it as a "win at any cost" war, we'll win... A hell of a lot of Afgans will die, but we'll win.

As is said in the movie "The Seige", "The most commited wins..."

Jason
 
J

joohang

Lifer
Oct 22, 2000
12,340
1
0
Exactly. Why not persuade Pakistan to stop their Taleban support for reasons such as this horrific terrorist attack?

With diplomatic pressure from countries around the world, I'm this could be possible without bombing any more innocent civilians.

The only problem I see is that they might end up starving to death, but I won't go into too much details since I'm not very familiar with Afghanistan.
 
J

jehh

Banned
Jan 16, 2001
3,576
0
0
In addition, the USSR was fighting for a very differnt reason...

Vietnam was jungle, with lots of places of food and fox holes...

Afgan is just a bunch of rocks from what I've seen...

FAE bombs and nalpam should do the trick...
 
S

Soybomb

Diamond Member
Jun 30, 2000
9,506
2
81
We're not talking a ground war here folks, our strike would be aerial. No guerrilla tactics help too much when a bomb is falling on all the military and political buildings. Pakistan won't stand behind them if things come down to it either.
 
Hamburgerpimp

Hamburgerpimp

Diamond Member
Aug 15, 2000
7,464
1
76
I still believe that diplomatic pressure is the best way to resolve this. Just my opinion.

joohang,

that's the most logical idea I've heard here in a few days. How come so many people want revenge with War? Thank God there are some intelligent people surrounding Bush who will keep us out of WW3. Do you have any idea what could happen when you declare war on countries who have nothing left to lose?
 
P

Pennstate

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 1999
3,211
0
0
It will DEFINATELY not be just a ground war. They've learned the lesson from Kosovo. A HUGE Difference is that this war will be OUR war, in that case, we'll be less concerned about casulties.


THe pakistanis PM have already hinted their support of military action against those responsible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom