US bombs Pakistan

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Sikander
The reason they are "ignoring" it is that it isn't germain to the situation at hand.

Their failure to capture senior Al-Qaeda members in Afghanistan is the reason we have this thread in the 1st place...

The fact is that only one brigade of U.S. forces were available during the battle of Tora Bora

Sounds like pretty poor foresight to me...

and only a fraction of that force could be carried to the battle zone. The reason is that only the heavy cargo copters (Chinooks) could operate at that altitude. There simply weren't enough of them to carry more troops into battle and taxi them around as the situation warranted.

Well that's pretty stupid considering they knew they were going to operate in a mountainous country...

Significant portions of the battle field were over the operational ceilings of even the Chinook.

Note the word 'portions': doesn't the US have troops capable of climbing mountains? Oh silly me, mountain passes apparently go over the tops of mountains in Siko's world...

Every landing zone near Tora Bora was covered by some combination of mortars, heavy machine guns or infantry with RPGs. We lost one helicopter in the first day/s of the battle and had several more damaged.

Methinks you don't know what you're talking about and have mistaken Operation Anaconda (another colossal US cluster****) for Tora Bora, an easy mistake for anyone uninformed and with a lack of knowledge about the situation at the time...

The US left TB up to their Afghan allies - which is probably why so many enemy fighters (90%?)got away...

They tried to make up for that incredibly dumb shortcoming with a bungled 'hammer and anvil' with OA, but landing on a hot LZ is a really stupid idea...

Oh and apparently US mountain troops "Don't do Mountains"

You seem to forget that the reason the Taliban et al were "on the back foot" in the first place is that we attacked almost immediately after 9/11 using a combination of bombers and local allies even as the intricate pieces of our air bridge to Afghanistan were being assembled. Had we waited to deploy many thousands of our own troops we would have created more enemies in Afghanistan by our large presence while giving the Taliban a lot more time to react to our attack. Your appraisal of the situation seems to be uninformed by many of the military, logistic or local political considerations which shaped and constrained the actions of the real commander.

And you say my appraisal of the situation seems to be uninformed by many of the military, logistic or local political considerations which shaped and constrained the actions of the real commander...

Yeah, you went in half-cocked, ill-prepared, lacking intel, forced to use murderous cutthroat bastards as allies - and ****ed the whole thing up!!!

IIRC you were one of the gloom and doom boys who predicted that we'd get our asses handed to us in Afghanistan. Instead a brilliant lightning campaign completely at odds with any predictions I can remember from that time occurred.

Wrong!

Where are the archives when you need them!?

I was for the invasion of Afghanistan. True, I wanted the assault to wait until the following spring before launching a properly planned, prepared (mountain training!!?) and intelled attack instead of the botched attempt that unfolded. One of my overriding concerns was the potential human tragedy of the potential mass civilian starvation over winter due to the aid workers keeping them alive through the country's worst drought in decades being forced to flee at the outbreak of hostilities...

The Taliban were swept from power in Afghanistan in no time, and only now are they managing to put together any serious capability for attack from their more or less safe havens in Pakistan. You'd be better off not reminding us of how weak your prognosticating was on this issue or your real lack of knowledge about the situation at the time that "supports" your claims of incompetence.

I like the way you avoid saying 'Al Qaeda' there...

Because the Taliban were only a secondary objective - they were just in the way of the true target of the US: Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. In fact, if the Taliban had agreed to US demands and handed over Bin Laden I seriously doubt they would have lifted another finger against them...

Which is why I declare the US invasion of Afghanistan a botched failure because their main objectives have still not been met: Bin Laden is still free after over four years and Al Qaeda is still seemingly fully operational...

I mean if the US effort in Afghanistan was graded as a school report I'd have to give it a very poor mark...

D-

Primary objectives Failed Completely
Secondary objectives Some success. Patchy results

And the attack on Pakistan must surely be a detention for trying to sneak a peek in the headmaster's office for the answers...

"Must try Harder"

[Patroklos]

Ah, the MOBIUS self burn.

Nothing more pathetic than the shock jock who can no longer shock.

[MOBIUS]

Chicken!

[Patroklos]

[C0ckney]

it's like listening to a student politican :/

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by dannubis
if you guys can place the al-somethingarabic dude at the scene, then why not drop a sniper ? much cleaner, and if the target isn't there, no dead children. of course, no big bang and gun-ho ****, but it could get the job done.

100% correct


And this whole:

1) Oh they shouldn't have invited terrorists over

2) Oh we got a couple of terrorists so that makes it okay

Is complete and utter BS

Yeah I guess kids are usually smart enough to know not to invite people over they don't know and should be blown up with a bomb for their ignorance you know at age 10 they should know better!

[notyoueither]

Yeah. A spec forces sniper being dragged around a town, and televised on AJ would have been sooo much better...

[notyoueither]

The criticism is violating the sovereignty of Pakistan.

Forces on the ground are better than aircraft, how?

[Ted Striker]

Dead children are soo much better

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by notyoueither
The criticism is violating the sovereignty of Pakistan.

Forces on the ground are better than aircraft, how?

That's just ONE OF the MANY criticisms


You know Pakis have snipers too

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Dead children are soo much better

I am sad to report to you that your administration has a greater responibility to the people who serve in your armed forces than to children of parents who care to entertain the person #2 on NATO's to be hit list.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ted Striker


That's just ONE OF the MANY criticisms


You know Pakis have snipers too

The Pakistanis don't dare go there.

[notyoueither]

Imagine New Brunswick as a lawless area from which people infiltrate the United States and blow things up.

You think Canada has a real say in the US going in and blowing up the abodes that give comfort to the leaders of the people who blow things up in the US?

I think I know your honest answer before you give it, but I'm interested in what you say for the purposes of argument.

[Dinner]

http://www.slate.com/id/2134396/

Slate, a noted left of center publication, is a great article on this which goes to show it most likely was legal. There are three main arguments to be made and the US likely filled them all.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by notyoueither


I am sad to report to you that your administration has a greater responibility to the people who serve in your armed forces than to children of parents who care to entertain the person #2 on NATO's to be hit list.

Except for the fact that:



1) HE WASN'T EVEN THERE

2) INNOCENT CHILDREN ARE INNOCENT CHILDREN NO MATTER WHO IS AROUND THEM