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.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bilow who wrote (7846)	10/28/2001 5:28:09 PM
From: maceng2	Respond to of 281500

Hi Bilow, As an engineer by trade myself, I find your views interesting. Regarding war there are two factors we are considering, soon to be three. There are the ground forces and there are air forces. The ability of one force to react with the other we call an interaction, and it is agreed favorable in this case. This is hardly OT because our current "war" is being dealt with based on the WW2 lessons learned (or disregarded) If the German cities were left unmolested, and the Allies shipped huge supplies to Russia instead, do you think the Luftwaffe would have taken an interest? The third factor in this case being the Navy. I'm taking a break from this discussion as I have other things to do. However, I would like to return to it (if that's OK with you) because it requires some more involved analysis and fact finding on my part. My position will be that any curtailment of the strategic bombing offensive by the USA in WW2 would have been wrong, even increased the duration of WW2. Honestly, I think you are correct that more fighter should have been built but only enough to protect the bombers more effectively. I believe you are skating on thin ice with some of your proposals. Would they have been accepted by Patton for example? I think some commanders were not too upset to see both the Russian and German ground forces attenuated before they had to be contended with. I need to be able to access and post appropriate links before I can contribute further to this discussion. Your points and links have always been excellently presented, I would like to try to get to some similar standard. -g- regards, pearly.

To: Bilow who wrote (7846)	10/31/2001 5:45:38 PM
From: maceng2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

B-52 bombers have carpet-bombed the Taliban's front lines in Afghanistan. The planes targeted the area near Bagram airport and hillsides in the Tutakhan hills. Rear Admiral John Stufflebeem confirmed to reporters at the Pentagon the bombing has taken place. But he said the term carpet-bombing is "inaccurate". He said: "Heavy bombers have the capability to carry large loads of weapons. Often when a target presents itself in the engagement zone it is possible to release all its load at once." The air strikes also resulted in explosions in Kandahar. ananova.com