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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Walkingshadow who wrote (202521)	11/14/2001 10:06:58 AM
From: Kenneth V. McNutt	Respond to of 769670

<<The Taliban were defeated in the North and now the central and western regions the same way every enemy force has always been defeated in wars: advancing troops. Advancing troops did what bombing could not, and I am glad the NA finally mounted an offensive.>> Sorry, but you are so wrong. The NA begged for the stepped up bombing and made no effort to advance until the Taliban had little left to fight with after the devastation of their equipment and morale. This is the same with all modern wars. Bombers bomb, armor, artillery, munitions, transportation and will to fight are destroyed, ground troops and artillery move in and mop up, and this is not to diminish the job of the ground troops as it is still a dirty business and those of the enemy left will resist until they recognize they are overwhelmed. The Gulf War is a classic example of attrition of the enemy by bombing and selective destruction of their assets. Without the bombing campaign the NA would still be sitting as they have for the past 5 years. You do not send your troops against a superior force. That force must be attrited. Frankly, your statement is an insult to the men who fly these missions. It is ludicrous to believe the military would spend months and billions of dollars if the effort was useless. Air and ground warfare are complimentary. Ken formerly USAF PS Ask a groundpounder on the battlefield who he' like to see in the air above. .

To: Walkingshadow who wrote (202521)	11/14/2001 11:54:22 AM
From: Srexley	Respond to of 769670

"I believe so" I thought you said your arguments were based on facts. "They never broke and ran in response to weeks of unbelievably intense bombing" My belief is that they were scared. Yours was that they were extra brave, I guess. "Advancing troops did what bombing could not" I agree, sort of. I have never said that bombing alone would (or could) do the job. On the other hand I am almost SURE that the NA could not have advanced without our bombing. Otherwise they would have done it long ago. Agree? Glad I am wrong about you wanting us to loose. We're on the same side. "<You are completely full of crap here>" - my words You left out that what I was talking about was your charge that we would need AT LEAST 100,000 U.S. ground troops to clear Kandahar and the south. I think I will be proven correct on this very shortly. I will gladly admit the error in my judgement when the 100,000+ ground troops are in place. "But it is difficult for me to understand why my views upset you...." If they are just that you don't think U.S. lead bombing campaigns are effective then I am not bothered by your views. They came across like you had no confidence in the U.S. or our chances of success. You have now stated that you want us to win, and if it is a simple difference of me being more confident than you I have no problem with your views. Keep in mind that you came across pretty strongly that one needed "facts" to support their position, yet yours are formed the same way as mine it seems. From what we read, see and interpret from past and present circumstances. You have not provided any "facts" to support your anti-bombing position. To support my pro-bombing position I will sight: 1) The ease at witch the NA advanced and took about 60% of the country in a matter of hours. 2) The lack of U.S. casualties in Afghanistan, Croatia, and Iraq. All of which had HEAVY bombing campaigns before the ground troops went into action. Other than Iraq, no serious ground troops have been required. "Why not aim all that animosity in a direction where it might actually be constructive?" I think I am. In this case I am aiming it at someone who is criticizing the effectiveness of our military strategy. That is offensive to me unless a better plan is forwarded, and that would be hard (but not impossible) for me to be convinced that you know how to do this better than General Tommy Franks, Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld, VP Dick Cheney and CinC and President of the United States, George W. Bush. These exchanges have been entertaining to me, but you have not proven to be smarter or have more facts than any listed above, or even than myself. Again, glad you are on our side. With your criticisms I had my doubts.