It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Reaper2137
If I was in charge.. I'd kill every one older than 3 and re educate the new generation problem solved...
I'm sorry but the objective is to remove and kill Taliban and Al Qaeda, not protect the Afghan people because thats just being defensive instead of going on the offensive.
Thats the folly of not using airstrikes, tanks, or even rifles because of the dumb politicians who wants to fight a kind war. Pillows only please, but you think the Taliban are listening?
Also the firepower is not coming from 25k feet. Doesn't make sense not to use it. If it helps, use it.
Originally posted by Reaper2137
your missing the point there is no one backing them...
that is why we have them kicked to the mountains...
If I was in charge.. I'd kill every one older than 3 and re educate the new generation problem solved...
I don't see this being a fast war.. but it would take a long while to win it..
the russians couldn't do it because they lost the air war due to the united states supplying the afgans with stingers and weapons they would have lost and afgan would be russian right now lol..
Originally posted by deltaboy
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Good to know that you are being honest that you can't comprehend. I will repeat one more time, in wars whether its Nazi Germany or Afghanistan, don't assume that having tanks means being desperate. Which is the subject of this debate and the original poster mentioned. Perhaps when we had tanks in WW2 I guess it means we were desperate. If we were winning against Germany all we could have just used the P51 Mustangs to take out Nazi Germany without the Shermans because we already had control of the skies, just like using airpower in Afghanistan to take out the enemy even if it had no tanks. Bringing in the tanks in the European theater must mean we are desperate to try to win the war. Bringing in tanks to Afghanistan must mean we are desperate as well eh?
Tanks are effective in protecting the bases in remote places. If you seen insurgent videos you can see how it would be feasible for tanks to take on the insurgents without having to wait for airpower. Tanks don't need to be constantly moving around in the mountains, just positioned to act as portable turrets around the bases. We already have apcs and ifvs in Afghanistan right now. Why not tanks?
So the Russians lost WW2 cause it could not be solved with military means? Holy cow!
your missing the point there is no one backing them... that is why we have them kicked to the mountains... and yes we can win this.. If I was in charge.. I'd kill every one older than 3 and re educate the new generation problem solved...
the russians couldn't do it because they lost the air war due to the united states supplying the afgans with stingers and weapons they would have lost and afgan would be russian right now lol..
People who resort to suicide bombing are losing.
Originally posted by deltaboy
reply to post by john124
I'm sorry but the objective is to remove and kill Taliban and Al Qaeda, not protect the Afghan people because thats just being defensive instead of going on the offensive.
Thats the folly of not using airstrikes, tanks, or even rifles because of the dumb politicians who wants to fight a kind war. Pillows only please, but you think the Taliban are listening?