Anti-kerry Film Sparks Dnc Response
- Thread starter atabuy
- Start date
Fly,
WRT Bin Laden and the war in Afghanistan. Let me breifly explain the situation to you. I know a little bit about it. I've been to Iraq and to Afghanistan NUMEROUS time since 911. I've logged approx 400 combat hours in the War on terror, and I've spent HOURS talking face to face, man to man with some of the best men on this planet (the snake eaters).
Afghanistan: Bush had boots on the ground long before people realize. We put these incredible individuals in there, and tasked them with making it happen. They are NOT a bunch of Rambo's. they are highly trained, highly intellegent folks who fight the battle on THEIR terms. they know the customs and in some cases the language. They were tasked with taking down the Taliban and to shut down Al Queda in Afghanistan, and they did it with an astonishing low level of US loss of life.
Should we have put 100K regular troops with tanks and trucks and nifty toys into country to roll over the "enemy"? NO. Anyone who suggests we should have, A: doesn't understand the logistics, and B: has no concept of the terrain. Heck, they wished we WOULD have tried it.
1. YOU CAN'T QUICKLY DEPLOY 100K MEN AND THEIR EQUIPMENT BY AIR. YOU MUST HAVE SEA LIFT!!! A C-17 carries just over 100 men WITH NO CARGO. we had about 80 of them when the Afghan campaign started. Should we have docked at some Iranian sea port to unload equipment? How about a pakistani one? the trip across the "lawless region" would have been big fun....
The place is rugged beyond most folks comprehention. Helicopters have BIG problems getting around in the mountains. The Soviets found that out the hard way. They could only get to Kabul one way because of the terain, and the US backed Mujahadin just set around that route picking them off like fish in a barrel. Using Afghsnis on horseback and on foot WAS the appropriate response. Did we "blow it" at Tora Bora? Yes. The folks on the ground made a tactical error and he slipped out. Unfortunately, it wasn't until Bush was in office that Hellfire missiles were alloed on predator drones, otherwise, we'd schwacked him long ago. Additionally, by limiting the number of troops on the ground and allowing Afghanis to fight for THEIR freedom, the country will have a better chance of developing a government the people will support (despite the extreme tribal nature of the populace)
regardless of what you may think of Iraq (I've brought the bodies home, and I've seen a grey haired senior NCO shed tears during a private prayer for his "boys" in the back of my airplane). I know it was the right thing to do. I don't make that call lightly. I was there throughout the 90's. I KNOW what the intelligance was. If you believe Bush made it up, you need to be drug tested. I also know that those who throw around that crap about the war in Afghanistan and "taking our eye off the ball" are either too stupid to president (maybe three months in "battle" 30 years ago didn't give him an understanding of logistics) or they are willing to lie to advance their political agenda. Sorry, in either case, I'll take Bush instead
WRT Bin Laden and the war in Afghanistan. Let me breifly explain the situation to you. I know a little bit about it. I've been to Iraq and to Afghanistan NUMEROUS time since 911. I've logged approx 400 combat hours in the War on terror, and I've spent HOURS talking face to face, man to man with some of the best men on this planet (the snake eaters).
Afghanistan: Bush had boots on the ground long before people realize. We put these incredible individuals in there, and tasked them with making it happen. They are NOT a bunch of Rambo's. they are highly trained, highly intellegent folks who fight the battle on THEIR terms. they know the customs and in some cases the language. They were tasked with taking down the Taliban and to shut down Al Queda in Afghanistan, and they did it with an astonishing low level of US loss of life.
Should we have put 100K regular troops with tanks and trucks and nifty toys into country to roll over the "enemy"? NO. Anyone who suggests we should have, A: doesn't understand the logistics, and B: has no concept of the terrain. Heck, they wished we WOULD have tried it.
1. YOU CAN'T QUICKLY DEPLOY 100K MEN AND THEIR EQUIPMENT BY AIR. YOU MUST HAVE SEA LIFT!!! A C-17 carries just over 100 men WITH NO CARGO. we had about 80 of them when the Afghan campaign started. Should we have docked at some Iranian sea port to unload equipment? How about a pakistani one? the trip across the "lawless region" would have been big fun....
The place is rugged beyond most folks comprehention. Helicopters have BIG problems getting around in the mountains. The Soviets found that out the hard way. They could only get to Kabul one way because of the terain, and the US backed Mujahadin just set around that route picking them off like fish in a barrel. Using Afghsnis on horseback and on foot WAS the appropriate response. Did we "blow it" at Tora Bora? Yes. The folks on the ground made a tactical error and he slipped out. Unfortunately, it wasn't until Bush was in office that Hellfire missiles were alloed on predator drones, otherwise, we'd schwacked him long ago. Additionally, by limiting the number of troops on the ground and allowing Afghanis to fight for THEIR freedom, the country will have a better chance of developing a government the people will support (despite the extreme tribal nature of the populace)
regardless of what you may think of Iraq (I've brought the bodies home, and I've seen a grey haired senior NCO shed tears during a private prayer for his "boys" in the back of my airplane). I know it was the right thing to do. I don't make that call lightly. I was there throughout the 90's. I KNOW what the intelligance was. If you believe Bush made it up, you need to be drug tested. I also know that those who throw around that crap about the war in Afghanistan and "taking our eye off the ball" are either too stupid to president (maybe three months in "battle" 30 years ago didn't give him an understanding of logistics) or they are willing to lie to advance their political agenda. Sorry, in either case, I'll take Bush instead
As expected, Colin Powell's son Roger declines to get the FCC involved:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/14/...m.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/14/...m.ap/index.html
KCFlyer
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 11,581
- Reaction score
- 1,455
Busdrvr said:
Oddly enough, it was Sinclair Broadcasting who refused to air the Nightline editon where Ted Koppel read the names of some of those soldiers bodies that you brought home. This country has become so sensitive to the way Vietnam vets were treated that we put the label "hero" on someone in the reserves who gets called to active duty and never sees the battlefield. Yet the true heros....the ones who paid the ultimate price to protect our freedoms in questionable war, are not given the solemn respect of recognizing their ultimate sacrifice on the front lines of the war. Might as well have thousands of "tombs of the unknown" to honor those people.
More Proof. Yes actual facts that support that notion that the war in iraq is precisely about the war on terrorism
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1199662004
I fail to understand how anyone can keep a straight face while saying that Sadam was not supporting terrorist organizations.
We are talking here of State Sponsored terrorism.
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1199662004
I fail to understand how anyone can keep a straight face while saying that Sadam was not supporting terrorist organizations.
We are talking here of State Sponsored terrorism.
Busdrvr - thanks for your first hand insight into the war in the middle east. Unfortunately, however, you likely will not see a response from people like Fly on this one because it simply goes against their case and they have nothing first hand to defend their point of view. Others even acknowledged your post, but didn't respond to your hard facts regarding the factual logistics of fighting the war on terror. So hopefully, with this post, I'm going to solicit a response in this way.
I'm sure there are servicemen and women who may disagree with you, and who may perhaps be reading this, but an account such as yours speaks volumes on this war we are fighting. Because NWA/AMT, TWAnr, KC, etc can put up all the links to all the websites they want. But it still won't refute the truth coming first hand.
Thank you for your service.
KCFlyer
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 11,581
- Reaction score
- 1,455
FredF said:
"coulda" and "mighta" are not reason enough to start a war. Witness North Korea...the "might" use their nukes on us....they "could" use their nukes on us, but the situation there somehow require diplomacy. Go figure.
i seriously doubt entirely....if they didn't make it to syria, then they've been buried. you do know about the buried mig's don't you?
if they buried mig's...then anything else is fair game.
or why wouldn't he outsource his wmd's and their research??
