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 (205779)	11/30/2001 9:35:23 AM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Well first you said something about the bombing did nothing because the Afghans just sat there. You also said something about you could not find concentration of tanks and such in Afghanistan. Well if seems the Afghan's did concentrate in some defensive positions that were bombed. Now you Just quoted the Preparing the Battle and your sources say the point is to restrict mobility and also destroying command and control. You can't fight em if they run away and when you attack there is no-one to surrender if they run away. keeping them in one place does make sense. Well they just sat there and did not run away. There was someplace where whatever concentration was kept in place. Then the 24 day wonder northern alliance(NA) afghan rabble, I mean army could go and accept their surrender. That NA afghan rabble, I mean army that had been reduced to controlling 10% of the country. Offensive land taking Armies need superior forces to expand and overcome an Army defending, So a 10% of the land defensive Army/rabble walk thru the 90% former attacking and now dug in and defending Army. And you say the bombing had no effect. And it had nothing to do with precision bombing decapitating it and eliminating all cannons and tanks. The bombing did not reduce mobility, command and control. You contend it had no effect. You don't think the reduces a defensive Army to just so many uncoordinated non communicating units does not degrade 95% of an Armies abilty to defend against an attacking Army. If there is a breakthru and and Army is out flanked it is still going to be just as effective. Stunning logic. You should write a book on OOB. I wonder if you have ever read any of Tom Clancy's books. If you did you did not understand anything you read. tom watson tosiwmee

To: Walkingshadow who wrote (205779)	11/30/2001 12:21:04 PM
From: DOUG H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Nice photo of the toasted Iraqi. Your reference site was a real propaganda machine. Interesting how the looting rapist Iraqi invaders became such sympathetic figures. Saddam must be the webmaster of that site. My central point is simple: war has not changed substantially. It is largely---not completely, but largely---carried on by infantry and other relatively conventional means, and air power performs a largely support role Okay, your earlier posts seemed to indicate that the air/bombing was largley for "show" and the "home crowd". While I agree the it is incumbent on the infantry to "take" the ground, any ground offensive undertaken without an airprepped battlefield will be VERY costly. It is clear that NA advances have been heavily reliant on airstrikes.