War plans??? Just a Guess?

[Flatlander Fox]

Read that some people are looking for the "enemy" of the United States.

This originally was a P.M. to Juize. But it was too long so I decided to post it. It is an optimists view of what could happen.
Please leave your Nuke Osama posts on somebody else's thread.

To tell you the truth, there probably isn't a true enemy (except for the obvious)...Yet. There probably won't be a war at all though. At least one that you and I learned about in history.

This is going to be a combination of Special Forces, precision airstrikes, and economic sanctions. With a small amount of conventional warfare. At least that is what I think.

Why do you think that the U.S. is trying to get the entire world on this wagon??? Not for the military, but for the Economic war that will start later. As soon as a few terrorist cells are destroyed, using airstrikes or Special Ops, the coalition will find out what countries support terrorism and try to starve them out using sanctions. And with the weight of the whole world behind them, sanctions will be a powerful tool. If that doesn't work, perhaps conventional warfare will be used.

The "Who is with us" statement today points even more in that direction. The "Who isn't with us" crowd will find them on the wrong end of the world.

The U.S. will lose support quicker than you can blink if they invade ANYBODY... Look at the world around you. Who will stand for the U.S. going in and blasting away at countries. Nobody (except maybe Britain and Israel). And the next terrorist attack that happens, we repeat the process. No country can afford economic ruin. And if they support terrorism, that is what they'll get. Along with a headache.

That is why this makes sense. And I think that this is what is going to happen. Feel free to poke holes in my theory.

 

[Juize]

Thanks...


And sorry if somebody considers this spamtastic...
I really don't, because I really want to thank F-Fox, OKAY?

 

[G-Man]

I agree that financial embargos will probably be one of the tools the US will use, but I don't think this will affect Afghanistan. I mean, they don't have anything there. They live on food aids. They can't provide enough food to feed themselves, and they have no other productions, so they export nothing and they import nothing. Can't really fight that with diplomatic means. I think that if you look at the common good, of both the US citizens and of the Afghan people, the US should get in, destroy the terrorist infrastracture (Mainly using special ops units) and lay the foundations to a new, pro-western religious society.
Other countries supporting this, like Iraq, probably won't suffer much. I don't think Bush will do much more then shooting a few cruise missiles at them. In these cases diplomatic means will be commonly used, and the coalition will need to work together.

 

[Juize]

Originally posted by G-Man
I agree that financial embargos will probably be one of the tools the US will use, but I don't think this will affect Afghanistan. I mean, they don't have anything there. They live on food aids. They can't provide enough food to feed themselves, and they have no other productions, so they export nothing and they import nothing. Can't really fight that with diplomatic means. I think that if you look at the common good, of both the US citizens and of the Afghan people, the US should get in, destroy the terrorist infrastracture (Mainly using special ops units) and lay the foundations to a new, pro-western religious society.
Other countries supporting this, like Iraq, probably won't suffer much. I don't think Bush will do much more then shooting a few cruise missiles at them. In these cases diplomatic means will be commonly used, and the coalition will need to work together.

This is what bugs me more than anything...
Now everybody is presuming that Afganistan is the guilty. Why?
After all, there are not any proves... And if there are not any proves, then
you are just against them because of anger & reveange...
And this will just support my theory (which offended almost everybody)
Why everybody thinks mr. Usama is guilty? For me it looks like the reason is CNN 'news' propaganda-stuff.
I hope I'm not correct...

 

[Flatlander Fox]

At this point Afganistan is guilty by association.

They refused to kick out Bin-Laden, and now may have to pay the price for it.

Iraq is playing its cards quite carefully at the moment, but is probably somehow involved in this mess.

The U.S. is doing the right thing by collecting evidence first. Once there is proof, then action (whatever it might be) will be taken. As a coalition. Any other way probably won't work.

 

[Sukenis]

May I ask what you want for proff? I am confident that Bush and his advisprs have enough proof. I also am fine with that evidence not being brought to light. I am sure it wsa gathered by means that could be destroyed in the future if brought to light now. A government giving away all there secrets is not very smart.

Also, even on the (extreamly) off chance that he is not guilty of the WTC and Pentagon attacks, he has admitted to MANY other acts. he has openly taken credit for them. In the worst case, his organization will be destroyed for what it has done and admitted to doing.

 

[Juize]

Call me naive, but everybody, including mr. B-Laden, is not guilty
if not proven.
If US will find heavy proofs that Laden committed (Or whatever) this act,
The afgans will propably kick him elsewhere. But it seems like the US attacks
without any proofs against innocent people. And I really don't like that.

 

[G-Man]

No country can reveal it's intelligence in anti terror actions. Bid Laden isn't Iraq that has bases and had forces doing unhuman things. Bin Laden works in secrecy, in caves inside mountains. The only way to have intelligence in such cases is by sending undercover agents, that only a few of them are actually excepted, and that will be discovered if the info they send will be revealed.
Afghanistan is undoubtably guilty, if not for supporting terrorists then for not turning them in. If Bin Laden was handed to the Americans he would be put on trial, and then you'll see proofs. But since they didn't turn him in, and since he's a threat to the US, he should be stopped otherwise.
And assuming Afghanistan really hasn't done anything, then why do you think Bush will decide to attack them? Why not pick up Iran - A non arab, Shi'i country that has one of the world's largest anti-American armies, and a huge supply of oil that the US can only dream about? It would be much easier to fight the Irani army then to go into Afghanistan, fight the Mujahidin and get nothing.

 

[Flatlander Fox]

I guess that we will see what comes of this, but I am almost certain that the coalition will do the right thing.
As G-Man said, if there is no reason to attack somebody, then it won't happen.

Even if we want the oil.

I am just wary of the press demonizing countries before proof comes to light.

 

[allan]

Even in a "normal" criminal investigation, the evidence is not made public until trial. And the police will go after a suspect--and if the suspect resists arrest, the police can chase him down and even kill him if necessary. This is accepted law enforcement practice.

The US asked Afghanistan to hand over its suspect (bin Laden). They refused, so now the "police" have to go in and arrest him--and if he resists....

Sounds pretty cut-and-dry to me.

 

[Dell19]

Got to say that I am glag that Juize has calmed doewn and is making reasonable posts now...

anyway right, they can't just invade Afganistan, kill Bin Laden and then turn round and say here is the evidence. It seems as if America doesn't get Bin Laden then the mission will be a complete and utter failure, mainly because at least some American soldiers are likely to die. Bush has to realise that it is very easy to hide one person in a country the size of Afganistan, plus he could have easily fled into another country by the time America acts.

 

[allan]

I'd actually like to see bin Laden taken alive and brought to trial--that would be the most symbolic victory. All the facts and evidence would then be laid out, and he would have to face his crimes in the venue of his victims. Whereas for a believer in jihad, death in battle is nothing--to them, it is a ticket to paradise (although I think Allah has OTHER plans for that individual ...).

But I have a feeling that he will not go down without a fight, in which case he will mot likely die. But perhaps some of his associates will face trial....

P.S. Problem is, it would be next to impossible to find an impartial jury....

 

[Dogberry_Old]

of Afganistan is probably not in the cards.. esp considering that we are going into winter & the problematic status of the necessary logistical base, that would most likely have to be Pakistan. I do think that there will be a host of other things though.. there will be some strike actions & a lot of diplomatic manuvering.

Dog

 

[jiml_63]

I don't believe a full invasion of Afghanistan is going to happen either, but the US has made it's intentions pretty clear. Either give up bin Laden or suffer the same fate. The US is going to make it's case with Pakistan by sharing the evidence it has collected to this point. Once this has been accomplished, and Pakistan signs on to the belief that bin Laden is one of the responsible parties, the US will be free to go in and get him. Once that happens, the pressure to turn him over will rest squarely on the shoulders of the Taliban.

I don't think the US would risk the embarrassment of having Pakistan tell the world that we have no proof bin Laden was responsible. While a large portion of the civilian population has vengenance on it's mind, the professionals who are tasked with making this happen have no interest in a decade-long invasion and occupation.