Operation Anaconda: American Troops DEAD

[Tom201]

Originally posted by ravagon


Not to harp on again with a, by now, old argument, but if the US of A had that attitude after the end of the second WW you'd be eating borscht and singing the Soviet National anthem right now ... Comrade...

Interesting that u come up with WW2 for comparision with a war against a relativly small group of al quiada fighters.

But well lets see:
- America didnt want to get envolved in ww2. They refused to take part in in, until they were draged into it by Pearl Harbor.
- Europe needed them to help, while America dont need Europe in their Afganistan war (compare Nazi miltary against Europe vs. big Army against small group of al quiada fighters)
- When u come up with the Communist danger - America had its own interest to prevent that: We needed them, they needed us.

So u see the diffrence?
Im not against allies with America in general. If say an ally of China and Russia would declare war on America, it is natural that all Nato nations would be in that war.
But a terror act is diffrent from that. America isnt really the nation that is good in making friends in arab countrys. U can argue how much of the Anti-American athmosphere in these Countrys, is Americas own fault.
Europe isnt much involved in activitys in these countrys.
Like I said it is an US problem, Europe can help them by looking for waiting terrorist in their countrys, but thats all Europe should do. No military alliance.
When a country can solve its problems alone they should do so alone - especially when it is of military nature. Help when needed.

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Why is it that people like you and Horse complain when we take off the terrorist commie dog bastard's hats for security reasons but not when one of our captured spec ops troops is dragged away and murdered in disgusting violation of the Geneva Convention by the Taliban in Afghanistan? JUST FOR THAT you deserve to be LAUGHED AT BY A PRIEST, ROBBED BY A POLICE OFFICER, and BITTEN BY A ZOOKEEPER.

The diffrence is that the ppl. u caught are terrorists (or accused terrorists). They arent moral heros or whatever.
The US compared to that claims to be a moral Country with Laws etc.
I hope u can see the moral diffrence between Al quiada and the US, and how prisoners should be treated?

How much guilt have the ppl. that are already caught with the killing of a US soldier that was done by somebody else?

Your personal insults will help u to make a lot of friends on this forum


Tom

[faded glory]

Originally posted by MOBIUS


It's called 'Anaconda' because the Taliban and Al Qaeda in these areas are being slowly crushed in an ever decreasing noose around their necks...

Sort of like being 'constricted'...

Not really. How do we have them surrounded when the pentagon reported 1,000 Al-Queda Re-enforce there positions.


Ahh the good ole' propaganda machine in full swing. Like the Nazi's..."Oh the war will be over in six weeks...no we meant 8...just a few moooore"


Oh well. I think its fair to say if there moving into the area. We can grease them all on one spot.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

'P A R I S, March 7 — There is "a good chance" that Osama bin Laden is dead, French defense minister Alain Richard said Thursday, leaving open the possibility that the al-Qaida leader is in hiding.

Speaking on Europe-1 radio, Richard said there had been no trace of bin Laden for some time and there were three hypotheses as to his whereabouts.

"Either he is still in hiding in a part of Afghanistan near the fighting though this is not the theory we favor or he has escaped to Pakistan or he has been killed," Richard said.



well no duh. there's some killer intelligence for ya. and europe wonders why the US, more and more, ignores what they say.

[Transcend]

Wasn't there another Anaconda Plan that was designed by Winfield Scott to defeat the CSA?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Tom201


The new Trade-War against Europe from Bush shows that it doesnt pay to be his ally.



:

thats cool, im not Bush's ally either. Maybe you could just be the ally of Tom Daschle and us Democrats?

LOTM

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Transcend
Wasn't there another Anaconda Plan that was designed by Winfield Scott to defeat the CSA?

Yes, blockade the south, drive down the missippi to cut it in two pieces, and then cut across Georgia (not sure if that was in original plan, think it was, thats what they ended up doing) to further cut the south in pieces. Effect to strangle all southern supply movements. Some dispute as to how effective this really was - see Why the South Lost vs Battlecry of Freedom for two opposing views, both also very good, readable books.

So yes, the name is redolent of American military history.

LOTM

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Tom201


Interesting that u come up with WW2 for comparision with a war against a relativly small group of al quiada fighters.

But well lets see:
- America didnt want to get envolved in ww2. They refused to take part in in, until they were draged into it by Pearl Harbor.
- Europe needed them to help, while America dont need Europe in their Afganistan war (compare Nazi miltary against Europe vs. big Army against small group of al quiada fighters)
- When u come up with the Communist danger - America had its own interest to prevent that: We needed them, they needed us.

hhmmm.......

(1) I guess "Lend-Lease" doesn't count? In addition, we had a undeclared Naval War with Germany starting in May of '41. (Shoot German subs on sight), so it wasn't like we were sitting around twiddling our thumbs doing nothing. We lost several destroyers to German subs before a official declaretion of war, most notably the Reuban James.

(2) I guess that's true...but we do need Europe's help in fighting terrorism. We need European intelligence agencies to crack Al-Qaeda cells in Europe and other places. I've long since given up on think Europe would be able to provide any help militarily (Spec Ops excluded), as twice before they proved they couldn't put out fires in their own backyards without America doing most of the fighting. (Jesus! Bosnia and Kosovo are right across from Italy! and 800 of the 1,000-odd NATO planes were American!)

(3) Not at all. We could have packed up and left, like we did in WW1. Remember how that turned out? (oh wait, The Holland sat that one out. Nevermind.)

So u see the diffrence?
Im not against allies with America in general. If say an ally of China and Russia would declare war on America, it is natural that all Nato nations would be in that war.

The North Atlantic treaty stipulates that any attack on a ally, in North America or Europe, is a attack on all. America was attacked in North America. Therefore, the NATO countries are obligated to support America to the best of their abilities. (which they are not doing, but you don't see Bush up there making a fuss about it.)

Why do you think No NATO troops were in Vietnam? Or why no one was in a rush to Help Britain during the Falklands? (minus the tanker support reagan provided). Because, it didn't take place in the are stipulated by the treaty. By saying you don't want Holland to support America, you are effectively saying you don't want Holland to honor it's treaty.

But a terror act is diffrent from that. America isnt really the nation that is good in making friends in arab countrys. U can argue how much of the Anti-American athmosphere in these Countrys, is Americas own fault.

Yes, we sure are bastards. What, defending other countries from invasions....(and supporting the closest thing to a democracy in the Middleeast.)

Europe isnt much involved in activitys in these countrys.

Besides selling oodles, and oodles of weapons. Why do you think France is so eager to get the Sanctions on Iraq lifted? So they can pick up where they left off.

Like I said it is an US problem, Europe can help them by looking for waiting terrorist in their countrys, but thats all Europe should do. No military alliance.

Fine, twenty years from now when the Eastern Sector is fully re-intergrated into Germany and the Germans decided to take a stroll to Paris on a quiet weekend, call someone else.

When a country can solve its problems alone they should do so alone - especially when it is of military nature. Help when needed.

And then listen to the inevitable gripng about "Unilaterlism"? Certainly, we've heard plenty of complaints about that from Europeans on this board.

The diffrence is that the ppl. u caught are terrorists (or accused terrorists). They arent moral heros or whatever.
The US compared to that claims to be a moral Country with Laws etc.
I hope u can see the moral diffrence between Al quiada and the US, and how prisoners should be treated?

So far, they've been treated pretty damn fine. [/QUOTE]LOOK HERE

How much guilt have the ppl. that are already caught with the killing of a US soldier that was done by somebody else?

If they had a gun and weren't a Afghan ally, they are worthy targets of imprisionment.

Your personal insults will help u to make a lot of friends on this forum


Tom

As will your complete disregard for your country's friends.

[Wiglaf]

The diffrence is that the ppl. u caught are terrorists (or accused terrorists). They arent moral heros or whatever.
The US compared to that claims to be a moral Country with Laws etc.
I hope u can see the moral diffrence between Al quiada and the US, and how prisoners should be treated? Translation: The U.S. is a better country, we don't go down to the Taliban's level.

Of course we have laws and are one of the best countries in the world (beacon of freedom, etc)...however, you've totally missed my point. Why do people like you complain when we take off the bastard's hats in prisons for security reasons but not when they kill our guy who had surrendered after falling out of a chopper in battle?

How much guilt have the ppl. that are already caught with the killing of a US soldier that was done by somebody else? Translation: What guilt do the people in Cuba have for the death of the American soldier?

What guilt did our dead troop have? He didn't do anything to them except give himself up, as is quite allowed by international law in every way.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
So we have control over the Canadian military now? This just keeps getting better and better.

For the past 40 years, Canadians and Americans have been under each others command. Command of the Norad base in Colorado switches between a Canadian commander and a American commander.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Giancarlo


The Ecuadorian Airforce has 100 Light Attack Helicopters they use at an air-base at 9000 feet... maybe the Americans should ask advice. Some countries have to fly helicopters at high altitudes. I was thinking the US should ask these countries how they do it well.

Ameerican pilots are trained for high altitude helicopter flying. A Canadian company provides training in B.C. and there are likely other training bases.

The big problem with flying in the mountains is the wind currents and turbulence combined with the decreased control caused by thinner air. It is tricky at the best of times, let alone when you're being shot at.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Lonestar
The North Atlantic treaty stipulates that any attack on a ally, in North America or Europe, is a attack on all.

The NATO treaty refers to military attacks. 9/11 was just an act of vandalism.

If a tramp attacks me in the underground, I don´t expect NATO to come to my help. Not even if we were a member.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


The NATO treaty refers to military attacks. 9/11 was just an act of vandalism.

If a tramp attacks me in the underground, I don´t expect NATO to come to my help. Not even if we were a member.

An act of vandelism that killed more Americans than Pearl Harbor?

(and it also involved an attack on the Pentagon...a clear military target if there ever was one)

[Wiglaf]

For the past 40 years, Canadians and Americans have been under each others command. Command of the Norad base in Colorado switches between a Canadian commander and a American commander.

Americans under Canadian command...?

They don't touch anything we want to keep intact. Canadian commanders and generals are much too jolly.

The NATO treaty refers to military attacks. 9/11 was just an act of vandalism.

That's still a military attack, commie boy....it involved missiles, destroyed buildings, etc...

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Lonestar
(and it also involved an attack on the Pentagon...a clear military target if there ever was one)

The decisive point is that the perpetrators were criminals.

And if you say they were soldiers, why don´t you treat them as POWs?

[ravagon]

Originally posted by Tom201


Interesting that u come up with WW2 for comparision with a war against a relativly small group of al quiada fighters.

But well lets see:
- America didnt want to get envolved in ww2. They refused to take part in in, until they were draged into it by Pearl Harbor.
- Europe needed them to help, while America dont need Europe in their Afganistan war (compare Nazi miltary against Europe vs. big Army against small group of al quiada fighters)
- When u come up with the Communist danger - America had its own interest to prevent that: We needed them, they needed us.
When a country can solve its problems alone they should do so alone - especially when it is of military nature. Help when needed.

Tom

Your point about WW2. I agree completely. It was WW2 that changed the minds of the US leadership about their isolationist policy however. In 1939 US armed forces (or ground forces - I forget which) totalled about 75000. ie: virtually nothing. They weren't even capable of intervening. They had to build up from near nothing as well as becoming Democracy's arsenal.
Post WW2, with the dramatic shift in the balance of power in the years immediately afterwards it became obvious that it would be unwise from an American point of view to allow the USSR free reign in Europe. Obviously, the US occupation/participation was in their best interests. Equally obvious is that it was even more in the best interests of Europe.
In a similar fashion, today its in Europes best interests to eliminate the individuals/organizations responsible for the attacks in NY/DC. Not as much as its in the US's best interests of course but it is in their best interests all the same.
The US does need its allies in such a situation, with a far greater importance attached to "PR" (No offense intended to anybody here) in a global media.
Also needed is the foreign access granted through other (in this case allied - temporarily or otherwise) countries given that Afghanistan has no coastline against which the USN can operate.
If this hadn't happened then it would have been a choice of either doing nothing (militarily) or treating said attacks as "non-conventional weapons of mass destruction", to which the US can come up with their own answer which wouldn't have required access (ICBM's/SLBM's are extra-atmospheric).
I doubt they would have done nothing.
Such a solution definately would not have been in Europes best interests much more than it would not have been in the US's best interests.

PS: On another note: You have something attributed to me that was actually stated by Wiglaf. Around here that is a generally seen as a little, er, insulting.
Would you mind changing this thanks very much?