Im voting republican but BOY is Sarah Palins accent and voice annoying!

[1knight164]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2784413
So question is are we really ready to sacrifice to end this terrorist network?
I would also add that the technology and training we have to offer would dramatically increase our options... or we could just bring in Rambo.
I don't have an answer. I'm sure the fifty pound brains are working on a plan. Best option we have for now is what we're doing right now, using technology to find who we're looking for and going after them with special forces or predator UAV's. Unfortunately, that's like killing one aiptasia only to see two more pop up somewhere else. Kill one leader, another one will fill in.
Large forces are too easily spotted. It takes a lot of red tape just to get approval because of the civilian population living in the caves with the terrorists. I don't think we can get very far until we can get into Pakistan without permission from their government and I don't think we'll ever get that until the Pakistani population sides with us. I could be wrong. I never made it to General!
In the end, though, we can't let them go on the attack like we've done for so many years. We have to keep them on the defensive so they can't hit us here at home.

 

[rotarymagic]

Originally Posted by 1knight164
http:///forum/post/2784421
**WWI-So did Germany, France, and Austria. And depending what small countries you’re talking about, so did Italy, Britain, Romania, and Turkish Empire. Tactics of the time were still mass on mass as tanks were still in their infancy. We weren’t exempt. Battle of Belleau Wood we launched wave after wave of Marines straight into German machine gun fire. And don’t forget, a huge number of deaths were due to disease, famine, and POW deaths.
**WWII-Russia had to defend an entire front by themselves against the best military of the time. Okay, not a shining moment for the Ruskies. They were caught off-guard by a German Blitzkrieg and were decimated and demoralized before fighting back with drastic measures. The Russians were poorly trained and lacked any initiative due to Stalin’s purging of the officer corps. It wasn’t until 1943 when they ditched the mass frontal assaults and adopted maneuver warfare. And with both wars, Russia and a much larger number of troops committed than any other nation.
Again, all countries were using the same tactics until mid WWII.
So how can you compare Russian military of WWI and WWII with their military of the '80's? Pre WWI, we weren’t a formidable military force either. It took lessons learned in WWII to put us, as well as the Russians, on the top.
**A siege? You can't have a siege if you can't surround your objective. I'm referring to Pakistan reluctance to allow us to occupy the mountains within their border. They're shooting at us, if you haven’t heard!!! Far too many Pakistani's are sympathetic to Al Qaeda. Hell, CNN did a poll a while back and found 46% of Pakastani's approve of Bin Laden. And if you piss off the Pakistani's, they'll shut us off. We can't get to Afghanistan without going through Pakistan. We can’t even secure our borders on somewhat level terrain here at home. How do you think we’d do trying to contain an entire mountain range that spans two countries? That’s roughly 500 square miles!
Al Qaeda is hiding in the Waziristan region of Pakistan. This is an area that is not and has never been controlled by the government in Islamabad. They’re controlled by local tribes sympathetic to Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. After 9/11 the Pakistani government sent their army to attack the area at our urging and lost every time. No motivation, of course, but it just shows who's in control of that area. You can’t win if you can’t get the help of the locals. We’ve seen that in Iraq.
** I’m assuming you were joking about using fuel bombs to keep oxygen levels low. Hunredes of miles of interconnecting tunnels and entrances, you’re not going to suck up all that oxygen. Once the bombs explode, air quickly replaces the vacuum left by the blast. We're using thermobaric weapons in Afghanistan already. Problem is you can't deliver the munitions to every cave in those mountains. You have civilians living in those caves as well so you just can't bomb every cave entrance indiscriminately.
Yes, I'm referring to bunker busters (if fires and people are constantly burning underground, there isn't going to much oxygen, but there will definitely be alot of smoke).. They target our civilians and westerners indiscriminately.. How exactly do you fight terrorists without implementing a sort of terror yourself? It's the only language they speak. Make a scene, get seen, get heard. It would take tactics that are prohibited within the Geneva convention to truly get the point across that regardless of their strong fundamentalism, the west is not going anywhere anytime soon.
Back to the pre-WW2 USA vs. Russia debate... The USA did not ration one rifle for x amount of soldiers, we actually had the notion that there was some possibility of a guy issued a rifle to return home instead of one in three or one in twelve. They already had the intention of sacrifice at any cost. They were well known for their prewatercooled machine gun tactics, just keep sending wave after wave of mostly unarmed soldiers towards their nests until they had to change barrels. Then send a wave of armed soldiers during the barrel changes and reloading to attack.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Rotarymagic
http:///forum/post/2785377
Back to the pre-WW2 USA vs. Russia debate... The USA did not ration one rifle for x amount of soldiers, we actually had the notion that there was some possibility of a guy issued a rifle to return home instead of one in three or one in twelve. They already had the intention of sacrifice at any cost. They were well known for their prewatercooled machine gun tactics, just keep sending wave after wave of mostly unarmed soldiers towards their nests until they had to change barrels. Then send a wave of armed soldiers during the barrel changes and reloading to attack.
We valued our soldiers lives. Why we build airplanes with armor around the cockpit unlike the me 262 and the zero.

 

[rotarymagic]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2785408
We valued our soldiers lives. Why we build airplanes with armor around the cockpit unlike the me 262 and the zero.
no armor did make the zero pretty freakin agile in a dogfight or when "delivering" munitions to our naval ships. I still would get a kick out of Mitsubishi selling a lowend car called the "zero."

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Rotarymagic
http:///forum/post/2785412
no armor did make the zero pretty freakin agile in a dogfight or when "delivering" munitions to our naval ships. I still would get a kick out of Mitsubishi selling a lowend car called the "zero."
Yeah, but so did the corsair and to some extent the thunderbird, and well, you could drain your whole zero of bullets and the thunderbird would still be flying.

 

[rotarymagic]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2785424
Yeah, but so did the corsair and to some extent the thunderbird, and well, you could drain your whole zero of bullets and the thunderbird would still be flying.
when you say thunderbird don't you mean thunderbolt aka P-47? What about the P-38 Lightning? P-47s couldn't handle for crap, but they were well armored and could deliver alot of munitions.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Rotarymagic
http:///forum/post/2785435
when you say thunderbird don't you mean thunderbolt aka P-47? What about the P-38 Lightning? P-47s couldn't handle for crap, but they were well armored and could deliver alot of munitions.
yes, and well, too much beer, yeah but wedge a 2500+ hp pratt whitney radial in there and it could handle its own.

 

[rotarymagic]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2785446
yes, and well, too much beer, yeah but wedge a 2500+ hp pratt whitney radial in there and it could handle its own.
Wouldn't it run into the same issues the ME-262 did? Dominant for about 15 minutes... lol... then run out of gas.

 

[1knight164]

Originally Posted by Rotarymagic
http:///forum/post/2785377
Yes, I'm referring to bunker busters (if fires and people are constantly burning underground, there isn't going to much oxygen, but there will definitely be alot of smoke)..
Okay, you must be referring to the thermobaric bomb (BLU-118) which combines the penetrating properties of the bunker buster and the incendiary and blast-wave effects of the fuel-air explosive. (Bunker busters alone won’t have that incendiary effect you’re looking for.) We’ve used them in Afghanistan already in 2,000 lbs bombs and the Brits have used them on Hellfire missiles launched from helo’s and UAV’s. We even have grenades that are thermobaric.
The problem they have is that they do not know if they are effective. The blast destroys the cave entrance and if anyone were there they would be buried in the rubble. They can only assume that the terrorists were there since they last saw them. But they could have escaped through their tunnel system. If it were a building, bodies could be recovered. And keep in mind bunker busters can only penetrate about 20 feet of concrete or 200 feet of earth. They have to target the cave entrances because they can’t penetrate the mountains.
I’m still not sold on the oxygen theory, though. Asphyxiation from the initial blast, but not from fires. Too many cave entrances and interconnecting tunnels to replenish the oxygen. And the back-pressure created would extinguish any fires created from the initial blast.
Now here comes the Geneva Convention part. Should you survive incineration from the initial blast, the blast creates a vacuum that sucks the oxygen out of your lungs before crushing every bone in your body with 430 lbs of back pressure per square inch. Because of Human Rights objections to the weapon, they renamed the enhanced blast weapon. That’s why we don’t use napalm anymore. It’s too cruel! So the thermobaric weapons are still controversial and we therefore limit it’s use.
Guess who designed and first used this weapon. The Ruskies.
They target our civilians and westerners indiscriminately.. How exactly do you fight terrorists without implementing a sort of terror yourself? It's the only language they speak. Make a scene, get seen, get heard. It would take tactics that are prohibited within the Geneva convention to truly get the point across that regardless of their strong fundamentalism, the west is not going anywhere anytime soon.
I’m 100% with you that we just can’t sit and do nothing as terrorist only understand and fear terror. I wouldn’t doubt that there are some black ops going on that you nor I will never ever hear about. But again, Pakistan is the key. We lose them, we lose our access to Afghanistan and any hope of winning in Afghanistan. If you start killing their civilian population, the country will revolt and grow more and more sympathetic to the bad guys. Last thing we need is to lose Pakistani air space to get to Afghanistan. No one else will let us use their airspace.
div class="quote-container_container">
Back to the pre-WW2 USA vs. Russia debate... The USA did not ration one rifle for x amount of soldiers, we actually had the notion that there was some possibility of a guy issued a rifle to return home instead of one in three or one in twelve. They already had the intention of sacrifice at any cost. They were well known for their prewatercooled machine gun tactics, just keep sending wave after wave of mostly unarmed soldiers towards their nests until they had to change barrels. Then send a wave of armed soldiers during the barrel changes and reloading to attack.
I wasn’t trying to compare pre WW2 USA with Russia. I was trying to compare pre WW2 Russia with post WW2 Russia, the Russia that was defeated in Afghanistan. But to argue your point, Russia was very poorly trained and equipped back then. They had no choice but to ration their weapons. And they weren’t the only ones rushing head on into machine gun fire.
I mentioned the Battle of Belleau Wood where Marines sent four waves through open wheat fields into heavy machine gun and artillery fire. Marines charged with fixed bayonets knowing there wouldn’t be a whole lot of shooting, but a lot of hand-to-hand combat. We suffered 10,000 casualties with 1,800 killed in that battle. Charging a machine gun is suicide regardless of whether or not you’re armed. (plenty of extra weapons on the battlefield) I doubt any of them thought they were going make it through the wheat fields.
So, like the Russians, the Marines “had the intention of sacrifice at any cost.” Can you imagine if CNN was there? Ever hear of trench warfare?
As with all nations, USA and Russia military have evolved considerably.

 

[1knight164]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2785408
We valued our soldiers lives. Why we build airplanes with armor around the cockpit unlike the me 262 and the zero.
And the Russians had the Mig 3 with 8mm armor to protect the pilot. A really crappy aircraft but nevertheless, it showed that, like us, they wanted to protect the pilot.

 

[rotarymagic]

Originally Posted by 1knight164
http:///forum/post/2786912
Okay, you must be referring to the thermobaric bomb (BLU-118) which combines the penetrating properties of the bunker buster and the incendiary and blast-wave effects of the fuel-air explosive. (Bunker busters alone won’t have that incendiary effect you’re looking for.) We’ve used them in Afghanistan already in 2,000 lbs bombs and the Brits have used them on Hellfire missiles launched from helo’s and UAV’s. We even have grenades that are thermobaric.
The problem they have is that they do not know if they are effective. The blast destroys the cave entrance and if anyone were there they would be buried in the rubble. They can only assume that the terrorists were there since they last saw them. But they could have escaped through their tunnel system. If it were a building, bodies could be recovered. And keep in mind bunker busters can only penetrate about 20 feet of concrete or 200 feet of earth. They have to target the cave entrances because they can’t penetrate the mountains.
I’m still not sold on the oxygen theory, though. Asphyxiation from the initial blast, but not from fires. Too many cave entrances and interconnecting tunnels to replenish the oxygen. And the back-pressure created would extinguish any fires created from the initial blast.
Now here comes the Geneva Convention part. Should you survive incineration from the initial blast, the blast creates a vacuum that sucks the oxygen out of your lungs before crushing every bone in your body with 430 lbs of back pressure per square inch. Because of Human Rights objections to the weapon, they renamed the enhanced blast weapon. That’s why we don’t use napalm anymore. It’s too cruel! So the thermobaric weapons are still controversial and we therefore limit it’s use.
Guess who designed and first used this weapon. The Ruskies.
I’m 100% with you that we just can’t sit and do nothing as terrorist only understand and fear terror. I wouldn’t doubt that there are some black ops going on that you nor I will never ever hear about. But again, Pakistan is the key. We lose them, we lose our access to Afghanistan and any hope of winning in Afghanistan. If you start killing their civilian population, the country will revolt and grow more and more sympathetic to the bad guys. Last thing we need is to lose Pakistani air space to get to Afghanistan. No one else will let us use their airspace.
I wasn’t trying to compare pre WW2 USA with Russia. I was trying to compare pre WW2 Russia with post WW2 Russia, the Russia that was defeated in Afghanistan. But to argue your point, Russia was very poorly trained and equipped back then. They had no choice but to ration their weapons. And they weren’t the only ones rushing head on into machine gun fire.
I mentioned the Battle of Belleau Wood where Marines sent four waves through open wheat fields into heavy machine gun and artillery fire. Marines charged with fixed bayonets knowing there wouldn’t be a whole lot of shooting, but a lot of hand-to-hand combat. We suffered 10,000 casualties with 1,800 killed in that battle. Charging a machine gun is suicide regardless of whether or not you’re armed. (plenty of extra weapons on the battlefield) I doubt any of them thought they were going make it through the wheat fields.
So, like the Russians, the Marines “had the intention of sacrifice at any cost.” Can you imagine if CNN was there? Ever hear of trench warfare?
As with all nations, USA and Russia military have evolved considerably.

I'm familiar with trench warfare, but the point I'm trying to make is that we gave our troops some sort of chance for reaching the other side because it was 1 weapon per soldier. I'm not debating that we got mowed down, but rather that we were prepared incase everyone got to the other side lol.
And roflmao@8mm armor.. "that's cute.."

 

[salty blues]

I suspect this thread has gotten a wee bit off topic.

 

[salty blues]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2773724
It will be interesting to see and hear her in the debates...
will it be

or

given what we've seen the last 2 weeks... I'd say

we'll see if she is a "quick" study since she is in debate class for the whole week.
So, you might change your mind and vote Republican?