• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why is the US preventing Al Qaeda from getting reinforcements?

D

Doggiedog

Lifer
To me it seems like it would be much easier for the US to get rid of them once and for all if they all came to one spot rather than have to search them out one by one.
 


<< What's easier to control, diarrhea or constipation? >>


Hell of an analogy, but effective none the less. True, very true.
-Cyco-
 


<< What's easier to control, diarrhea or constipation? >>

I'm eating fish'n'chips for lunch... fried fish and cole-slaw... I'm suddenly not hungry.

nik
 
I think they are not afraid of reenforcements, but that the existing taliban might run away to Pakisthan. I cant quite understand why we support pakisthan so much
 


<< I think they are not afraid of reenforcements, but that the existing taliban might run away to Pakisthan. I cant quite understand why we support pakisthan so much >>

I don't understand why we support a lot of countries that we do instead of using the same money to help our own people, but it happens anyway :|

nik (hates politicians)
 


<< I don't understand why we support a lot of countries that we do instead of using the same money to help our own people, but it happens anyway >>

Of course you don't.
 
Hmm, though it may seem wise to get them all at once, take also into consideration that those re-inforcements will also bring in fresh supplies and what not. This isn't like doing house work, peoples lives are at risk, increasing the risk makes little strategic or political sense.
 


<< To me it seems like it would be much easier for the US to get rid of them once and for all if they all came to one spot rather than have to search them out one by one. >>



I was kind of thinking the same thing today. Let them all get in one area, then have our troops and allies evacuate the region and bomb it with the most power conventional weapons we have.

But, as I'm no military tactician I can only assume they have their reasons. They certainly know better than me, anyway. 😉
 


<< What's easier to control, diarrhea or constipation? >>


Well...it depends on what's more important to you. Diarrhea is, of course, a lot messier but constipation hurts *much* more.

I think this works with the analogy pretty well 😉...
 


<< Well...it depends on what's more important to you. Diarrhea is, of course, a lot messier but constipation hurts *much* more. >>

Not necessarily. Ever get that incredible burning sensation? :Q 😉 😛

nik
 


<<

<< What's easier to control, diarrhea or constipation? >>

I'm eating fish'n'chips for lunch... fried fish and cole-slaw... I'm suddenly not hungry.

nik >>



Catholic?
 


<< To me it seems like it would be much easier for the US to get rid of them once and for all if they all came to one spot rather than have to search them out one by one. >>



Agree with that.
 


<<

<< Well...it depends on what's more important to you. Diarrhea is, of course, a lot messier but constipation hurts *much* more. >>

Not necessarily. Ever get that incredible burning sensation? :Q 😉 😛
nik >>


I guess...but on the other hand, I've eaten a lot of MRE's...and you don't know pain until you've been plugged up with those for a week 🙁
 
I guess...but on the other hand, I've eaten a lot of MRE's...and you don't know pain until you've been plugged up with those for a week

Man, I despise the thought of MREs to this day. Began chowing down on them while deployed in '82. And to think I once thought 12 year-old C-rats were bad.

Yes, those bad-boys can sure plug things up and keep it that way. Very painful.
 


<< Hmm, though it may seem wise to get them all at once, take also into consideration that those re-inforcements will also bring in fresh supplies and what not. This isn't like doing house work, peoples lives are at risk, increasing the risk makes little strategic or political sense. >>



Agreed, it makes no sense to let them get reinforcements. The smaller the army the easier it is to eliminate.
 


<< I guess...but on the other hand, I've eaten a lot of MRE's...and you don't know pain until you've been plugged up with those for a week

Man, I despise the thought of MREs to this day. Began chowing down on them while deployed in '82. And to think I once thought 12 year-old C-rats were bad.

Yes, those bad-boys can sure plug things up and keep it that way. Very painful. >>


Man...that gum tries its best to help you out...but sometimes, unplugging the MRE is just impossible 🙁
 
by hunting them down one by one, we not only kill then, we crush there moral. Hopefully this will make them think twice before trying to blow us up (most likely it will just inflame them but I am hopeing they will just give up)
 
AHAHAHAHAA. Too many movies guys. Do you think we can put a big blinking ACME sign out in the middle of nowhere that says "Bad guys eat free" with a pile of hot camel wings. Just when they least expect it WHAM! the giant TNT gets them.

These are highly motovated people who are fighting for their lives. I am a service member with many convictions but i do not intend on taking a bullet if i don't have to. These guys strap bombs in themselves.... I think slow is good at this point. We have time, firepower, and a lot of the worlds support.
 


<< Do you think we can put a big blinking ACME sign out in the middle of nowhere that says "Bad guys eat free" with a pile of hot camel wings. >>



Hehehehe "hot camel wings" LOL!

Time magazine has an interesting online article about how this battle is being used by Al-Quaeda propagandists to make a hero out of the commander of the base in the mountains there because his men downed a helicopter and because they killed some of our troops. Funny thing is, this is ground war and we lose what, 8 people and they lose 1000+?
 
I was kind of thinking the same thing today. Let them all get in one area, then have our troops and allies evacuate the region and bomb it with the most power conventional weapons we have.

And meanwhile they are sitting underground, listening to the thumps above them. We still need troops on the ground to put the lasers on target because with the valleys and concealed cave entrances, aircraft cannot paint targets reliably.
 


<< I was kind of thinking the same thing today. Let them all get in one area, then have our troops and allies evacuate the region and bomb it with the most power conventional weapons we have.

And meanwhile they are sitting underground, listening to the thumps above them. We still need troops on the ground to put the lasers on target because with the valleys and concealed cave entrances, aircraft cannot paint targets reliably. >>



But the flip side of that is that our bombing now, while relentless, does not seem to be that heavy because with friendly troops on the ground nearby you can't just carpet bomb the entire area.

Of course, I was just stating a pipe dream anyway, I understand what you are saying.
 


<< And meanwhile they are sitting underground, listening to the thumps above them. We still need troops on the ground to put the lasers on target because with the valleys and concealed cave entrances, aircraft cannot paint targets reliably. >>



hey, do our guys have those cool green laser target markers like in tribes2? 😛
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top