Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: BigBull who wrote (4248)	9/16/2001 11:01:58 AM
From: Second_Titan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206093

The question is will it be necessary to invade Afghanistan? What is the objective with Afghanistan? If they turned over OBL and a good deal of his people would we be satisfied? The Taliban is just as much a cancer that needs to be destroyed as OBL. So I would answer yes it is necessary, sooner or later. But maybe later to develop a stronger coalition and also to effectively let the effects of a blockade set in. Destroying the Taliban & OBL is one thing, but I think some jewel targets will be some of the fat cats in Europe and the USA who help to finance them.

To: BigBull who wrote (4248)	9/16/2001 7:23:43 PM
From: Douglas V. Fant	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 206093

BigBull, Truth be known (and it wasn't reported in the press) the Soviets were winning in Afghanistan until we sent Stinger shoulder-launched surface to air missile shipments to the Afghanis. That prevented Soviet gunships from supporting ground troops and altered their ability to fight the campaign. Now technically the art of warfare has advanced so far since 1979, that helicopter groundship support of ground troops while handy is not necessary for successful block-clearing and reconniassance types of patrols..... Individual troops on the ground now have access to systems can call in artillery and rocket strikes that are accurate to within 6 feet.....Future conventional warfare could inovolve single battle massive casualties with these techniques....

To: BigBull who wrote (4248)	9/16/2001 10:19:32 PM
From: Victor Lazlo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206093

I aagree, and it's fascinating that many people in the US have no memory at all of the Afghan war. The Russians were doing quite well against the ill-prepared rebels. They moved in with those big mean helicopter gunships and the rebels would shoot at them with their rifles, to no avail. Then the rebels would retreat to the mountains and try to hide. But then the US said, hey we can't let this happen, the Ruskies could drive all the way to the Arabian Sea for a warm-water port. So via the CIA we supplied the rebels (bin Laden and his friends) with surface to air rocket launchers and trained them how to use them. This turned the tide. Without this help, the Russians would likely have won. it took yrs for the war to officially end, as the Russians were very reluctant to withdraw and admit defeat. I dont think we'll be training and equipping bin Laden this time <gg> Victor