Do You think A WW III will happen? and if so.....

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

yo G-Man:

I dont say that a constructive way couldn include war! If only with war we can reach the extermination of all to-us dangerous terrorist ,then war will have been a CONSTRUCTIVE way.

A constructive way means that we get rid of all those terrorist knowing that they won't be a thread anymore. (ever!)<br />If war is part of achiving this? FIRE!!! (boem,boem)

 

[G-Man]

I'm glad I mis-understood you. I though you were talking constructive solution like people are trying to find here, where they say we should find a solution with the terrorists (And here we might be able to do this, as only about 20% of the Palestinians want to see Israel being totaly destroyed).<br />Anyway, like I suggested many times on the forum, I think the best solution will be to turn Iraq and Afghanistan to US-supported democracies, something that will allow the US to watch closley any terror activity there.

 

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

Oh ,G-MAN ,just put put straight:

originaly posted by Morten b.:

Just to correct you guys a little bit on a factual point. "Islamic Jihad" IS an arabic organization; a sub-division of the various right-wing palestinian groups. They say themselves, that they operate primarily within the borders of Israel, and have recently denied any responsibility for the events in the US. <hr></blockquote>

So you were right there.i just wanted to Acknowledge that. (Sorry)

but something else:<br />I don't think the palestinians are the real threat here.I know you live in Israel and i can understand youre oppinions.<br />But i would prefer a peacefull sollution between Palestinians and Jews.

[ September 14, 2001: Message edited by: TheDuckOfFlanders ]</p>

 

[G-Man]

That's just what I said - Unlike the situation in the US, Israel and the Palestinians can, and probably will, have a peaceful solution to our problem. I'm a supporter of the left wing labor party, so you can be sure I want peace very much.<br />I'm afraid no chance for that happening in the US - for the Americans Bin Laden is (and in my opinion should be) as evil as it gets. <img src="graemlins/reddevil.gif" border="0" alt="[Red Devil]" />

[ September 14, 2001: Message edited by: G-Man ]</p>

 

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

now i misunderstood you ,well ,sorry..<br />Anyway ,atleast you can hold a civilized discussion.

About you supporting peace with Palestinians:<br />That's fine man <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> ,maybe if everybody thinks about it that way over there it will all come better.

By the way ,just for asking ,Where exactly lies timrat in Israel anyway?

 

[H Tower]

what i meant by not sending ground troops is don't send divisions of troops, if bush sent a couple hundred men to hit a target and then get out, fine. but i don't want to see another vietnam. the soviets couldn't pacify afghanistan, what makes people thnk the US could?

Lets try to avoid creating another Vietnam tragedy.

 

[G-Man]

The best form of attack will probably be a totaly mechanised war, when tanks and aircrafts quickly destroy Bid Laden and his orgenization and get out. Or, they can choose to stay there, create a democratic goverment instead of the taloban and get out. This will involve heavier losses, and will have a risk of becoming vietnam 2 (if it would happen I guess the US will quickly withdraw, not wanting one tragedy to lead to another), but in the longer term it might be better. I think Bush has better information then I do, so he'll probably choose the from of attack he wants. Most chances are that he'll rather stay away from central Afghanistan and foght only Bin Laden and not the Taliban.<br />It's very hard to know what he's up to though, as he said "those who harbor them" and Afghanistan seems to fit into this definition.

[ September 14, 2001: Message edited by: G-Man ]</p>

 

[FearlessLeader2]

You people are WORRIED about what the Taliban can do to US ground forces? You are equating the US military to the RUSSIAN military?

Are you all high? Have you been sniffing glue?

We are talking about the effing Marines up against RABBLE, battle-hardened rabble yes, but rabble nonetheless. I'm sure a few of them will offer a token resistance, but let us not forget that their resistance will be made against an enemy that will have been shelling their positions, destroying whatever leftover garbage equipment they have left, and that enjoys total air supremacy.

The last time our forces enjoyed such an advantage was in Desert Storm. Now admittedly, the Taliban are former mujahadeen, so they are used to living on rats and sleeping on the sides of mountains, fine. But we train Marines to do the same, and while the Taliban are sure to have great morale(for a few minutes anyways), the Marines will be nothing short of possessed in their determination.

And if anyone has been watching US TV, they'll note that the networks have been running 'historical documentaries' about the use of nuclear weapons. Almost as if America were using internal propaganda to develop public support of their use in this campaign.

Allow me to inform the world that this nation has nuclear weapons that we can precisely control the destructive power of. We call them dial-a-nukes. They are warheads with an actual dial on them that sets the yield. It can range from a strategic yield in the megatons, to a tactical explosion of a few kilotons. Just enough to wipe out that hardpoint in that mountain over there...

We have nukes that fit into artillery shells. Radar-guided artillery shells. Then again, a near-miss would be just fine too. We can also load them into our Tomahawks, or launch them from ICBM silos, or even drop them leisurely from a B52F, a B1-B, or a stealth fighter.

World opinion is with us. It was against the Russians. The Russians even support us now. The Chinese have pissed us off enough recently, so they wouldn't say **** if they had a mouthful right now.

Will some American soldiers die in a ground war? Of course they will, that's why it's called war. Will the enemy fight us guerilla-style? Again, of course they will, they'll have no choice. But we've learned from Vietnam, now we train in guerilla-style tactics, and we have satellites to give us data on troop movements.

We have been accused of having no staying power. You may be saying, 'All well and good FL2, but will you people keep fighting after the terrorists still on your soil strike again? After the first casualties in Afghanistan are reported?'

They killed 5,000 of us. The rest won't settle for anything less than the anihilation of those responsible. All those responsible.

And in case anyone was wondering, all this 'war talk' that you find so disquieting...we mean it. Osama Bin Laden, regardless of whether this was his plot, will be but one of our stops. We'll get the suicide squadron's leaders, but we won't stop there. We'll be taking care of Hamas, Hezbollah, the Provos, those Sri Lanka *******s, all of them. And those white supremacist groups in the US are all done too. They're all on the list, and until every last one is checked off, we won't quit. <img src="graemlins/snipersmilie.gif" border="0" alt="[Sniper]" />

 

[CornMaster]

That's a very moving speach FL2. And for the most part...I agree with you.

The only thing that worries me is how organized it has all been. If the attack is so well organized.....how good is the defence???

If war is what they intended (and that pretty obvious) don't you think they have a plan? Underestimating the enemy will be our biggest failing. I say Nuke them and let God sort out the bodies. (But don't send in troops. No need to risk more American Lives!!!)

 

[FearlessLeader2]

...and they say we Americans lack resolve.

A ground war is the only way to do the job. Air wars can only suppress, temporarily. They need to be followed by troops on the ground. It is going to be costly in terms of allied lives, and even more deaths here at home, and in allied nations out of retaliation.

Freedom has always demanded that the rent be paid in blood and vigilance. Gun sales in America are at an all-time high. I can't believe that our vigilance is much lower. The next terrorist attack is going to have to deal with armed citizens shooting back, not at all the kind of thing terrorist want to deal with. If they had the balls to deal with an enemy that fights back, they'd have joined their regular army back home.

There's a bunch more of these termites gnawing their way through our country now, plotting their little plots. But this sleeping giant has awoke. The exterminator is on the way.

 

[CornMaster]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2:<br /><strong>A ground war is the only way to do the job. Air wars can only suppress, temporarily. They need to be followed by troops on the ground. It is going to be costly in terms of allied lives, and even more deaths here at home, and in allied nations out of retaliation.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, we obviously have to send in the ground troops AFTER we nuke them. I didn't mean to just nuke them and leave them to rot. <img src="graemlins/crazyeyes.gif" border="0" alt="[Crazy Eyes]" />

I feel that Nuking first will save a lot of Americans lives....people aren't looking for Afghanstan to surrender....they want them destroyed, (Just like you said...pay in blood) and a nuclear strike, followed by the ground troops to hold the country and some clean up crews and doctors to clean up the mess is the most effecient solution.

Like Japan in WW2....except we wanted them to surrender....

 

[G-Man]

First of all I would like to say I don't like what you said about us glue sniffers <img src="graemlins/crazyeyes.gif" border="0" alt="[Crazy Eyes]" />

I'm not sure nuking is such a great idea. No one knows where Bin Laden is. The only way to kill him with nukes is by bombing half of Afghanistan. You also has to remember that people around the world are very afraid of A-bombs. I think after ine nuclear strike the US will loose almost all international support. Also very important- nuking Afghanistan can cause damage in other countries, including nuclear capable Pakistan and China.<br />Also you have to remember that using nukes will allow other countries like Iraq to legitimate use of mass destruction weapons against Israel, and I really don't want this to happen

 

[Matrix]

I know that nuking them will surely mean the loss of Dutch support. It's too radical and will cost far too many innocent lives!

Using ground troops after you nuked them isn't a good idea, by the way. Consider the radiation: that would make practically all American soldiers sterile and shorten their lives considerably.

Anyway, if you ask me, there are two dangers which could lead to a large scale war:

1: The fact that the Taliban has called up every muslim to begin a Jihad against the United States and everyone who will support the US. So far, the Taliban could say whatever they wanted because they were there and we were here and what they said was only applicable to the population there. But now we need to get into Afganistan...

2: The government of the US has sent every government involved in this matter a simple list of questions like "Will you assist/support us should we go into battle?". Any country answering "no" to any of those question will be considered as enemy. My first reaction was "Good! Now we know who is good and who is bad!" But this may also lead to a partition into two groups, which on it's turn could lead to war. And if so, it will definitely be WW III...

It's going to be tense in the next couple of weeks/months...

 

[Rangers, Lead the Way]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2:<br />[QB]You people are WORRIED about what the Taliban can do to US ground forces? You are equating the US military to the RUSSIAN military?

Are you all high? Have you been sniffing glue?<hr></blockquote>

I think it's more like some are sniffing crack. The only question is whose? <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0">

Probably not Marines, or at least the line Marine Divs.

This is airborne/air air assault and light infantry business, with some heavies for base area security.

 

[Morten Blaabjerg]

Any talk of nukes will lose all international support. We don't want another Hiroshima.<br />It gives me a very cold thrill, running down my backbone. And even I has been around thoughts like these. But it's just not a way to wage wars.