posted 09-16-2001 19:22         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snag:
Okay, we're all talking about Afganistan

---

I never mentioned Afganistan. I think it applies to other hostile states just as much as any

posted 09-16-2001 19:22            

Whats the point in dissolving random terrorist groups when the government in those countries a) resents us for barging in b) harbors those terrorists to begin with c) passes out propaganda to the effect that we are harming their innocent citizens (although we have done so in the past...).

If a government knowledgably harbors terrorists, and refuses to cooperate, then they are part of the problem.

When a government comes out and FLAUNTS the fact that they are harboring multiple people that are responsible for terrorism in the US, they need to be removed.

Its part of my understanding that if a government wont cooperate with the US right now, they may see an army coming. Wether or not this is a good thing or not remains to be seen.

Part of my current worry is that even if they hand over the perpetrators of this atrocity right away, most U.S. citizens will still want blood. I think most people want more than one person or a dozen. They want entire countries toppled and paved over.

Proceed with caution, but proceed.

posted 09-16-2001 19:25         

If a gov't resists, then they are a target. I know it may be a vacuum, but that's a bi-product of our mission.

We are currently in the process of asking gov'ts right now if they are 'with us' or not. We are drawing the line in the sand as we speak-this is a fact. I've heard it out of the horse's mouth.

Just god help the ones that refuse.

posted 09-16-2001 19:27            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snag:

So, we're right in that the Taliban needs to be taken care of, but the assassination of leaders of the Taliban I think might be illegal. I'm not sure, but I think I remember some teacher saying that it was illegal for the United States (in the constitution or it's by-laws or some wacked shit) to go in and systematically eliminate people.

Again, I'm not sure, and that might be a load of bullshit.

---

Actually... isn't only illegal for the government to do that a) to U.S. citizens and b) on U.S. soil?

It is illegal, however, by international law as determined by the U.N. Actually... most war, killing, land-mines, etc etc etc is illegal per international law.

Ironically, when a group (most notably a country/government) breaks those laws first, they have the U.N. peacekeepers on their front lawn --WHEN someone is actually interested in that country to begin with. There is one of the problems with the "peace keepers"... they only keep peace where there is a noted interest in keeping peace

-Chris

posted 09-16-2001 20:49            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snag:
Okay, we're all talking about Afganistan like it's the only place in the world that has terrorists. I really doubt, that's the way it is. I'm sure there are friggin' terrorists everywhere. Even down the street from some of us. (The McGillicuddy's man, they're weird fucking people.)

So, we're right in that the Taliban needs to be taken care of, but the assassination of leaders of the Taliban I think might be illegal. I'm not sure, but I think I remember some teacher saying that it was illegal for the United States (in the constitution or it's by-laws or some wacked shit) to go in and systematically eliminate people.

Again, I'm not sure, and that might be a load of bullshit.

---

I believe there are certain strictures in place that prevents certain groups (e.g., the CIA, the NSA, etc) from doing certain things. This has been in the news mainly because one of the restrictions placed on the CIA in years past was that they could not recruit someone as an informant or "undercover agent" if they themselves were guilty of crimes or the Agency had knowledge of such crimes. This obviously put the Agency in a bind, at least when it comes to following the rules. Honestly, who is going to Regulate On Their Asses?

As for assassinations...I doubt it. It's probably frowned upon, and heavily at that, and would probably take a LOT of bureaucratic tape-cutting to get approved, but I'm certain that it is allowed, albeit in extreme circumstances. Why have an elite, world-wide intelligence and spy network if all you can do is arrest people? :p And I know of at least one CIA plot to try to assassinate Castro by poisoning his cigars. No I am not kidding.

*edited to add in the following*

Oh and the final thing to consider about the Taliban: they're not considered a government by any countries other than Pakistan, Iraq, and the United Arab Emerites (I think --- it may be Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq there). As such, they get "special" treatment, as far as my understanding goes, since they don't really fall under the traditional definition of "government" as specified by the US, NATO, and the UN. And, for all I know, the Warsaw Pact. But how much this changes their treatment by the world powers remains to be seen.

Methinks Jimbo can probably shed more light on this than I can. Jimbo?

*final edit because I found this breaking news on CNN.com:*

quote:

---

CNN has learned that Pakistan will threaten Afghanistan with massive, U.S.-led military action unless Kabul hands over bin Laden in three days.

---

Will the fun never cease?

------------------
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[This message has been edited by MightyMon (edited 09-16-2001).]

posted 09-16-2001 21:08            

We'll go in with Special Ops to take out prime targets, but will we go in with regular storm troopers to just regulate the area?

posted 09-16-2001 21:23         

Unconfirmed reports of marines/green berets landing in Pakistan. (beyond eod's URL).

posted 09-16-2001 22:13            

quote:

---

Originally posted by CapnBiggles:
(beyond eod's URL).

---

Never have three little words ever confused me so much. Wtf biggie?

posted 09-17-2001 02:46            

Shouldn't we be focussing on the Taliban, rather than just "afghanistan"?

posted 09-17-2001 07:02            

Yes, the terrain in Afghanistan is a motherfucker. But if you think the USSR in its prime couldn't have rolled right over Afghanistan like a steamroller mashing a tin can, if they could engage in a full-scale conventional war without the rest of the world hitting back, well...

Fuck, maybe I'm wrong. But I don't think so. The Sovs were never able to devote their full attention and military might to Afghanistan, largely because of the reactions of the rest of the world... whereas even fucking Pakistan is giving us the green light on this one.

posted 09-17-2001 13:39            

but for the most part a lot of countries are rooting us on.

posted 09-17-2001 15:40         

Seriously though, I think its just because t hey realize that we're the only country capable of taking terrorism on so wholeheartedly. Heh, that's a rather big vote of confidence, even for us.

posted 09-17-2001 21:51            

quote:

---

Originally posted by CapnBiggles:
Are you an american citizen? you got yourself a front row seat.

---

edit:Hayuk, I done fucked up the Hteemel.

And, I done it again, hayuk.

[This message has been edited by Snag (edited 09-17-2001).]

posted 09-18-2001 08:41         

Leo Korolkov, a Russian veteran who trained Soviet special operations units, similar to the U.S. Delta Force and British SAS, told CNN's Jill Dougherty: "Modern weapons, rockets, laser-guided missiles -- they're useless against these mountains.
"I feel sorry for the people who are going to be thrown into those deserted mountainous, regions where the enemy knows every single rock, every cave.
"No maps, no computer training can prepare you for it."
Korolkov says the chances of finding Osama bin Laden are slim because there are numerous places he can hide.
In their protracted war with the Mujahadeen, the Soviet forces faced guerrilla tactics, including ambushes and suicide attacks.
Korolkov says he saw critically wounded Afghan fighters still clutching their weapons and firing until their last breath.
Many of them, he says, used drugs before launching operations.
He says they were the most effective force he has ever faced, honed on 20 years of continual war.
He added: "These fighters can bring any country, even a superpower -- be it Russia, the United States or Europe -- to the brink of catastrophe."
John Garnett, chairman of the Centre of Defence Studies, at London's King's College, said the U.S. should avoid mounting any ground-based action in Afghanistan.
Garnett told CNN: "The British had terrible experiences in that part of the world in the 19th Century and the Russians have had awful experiences not so long ago.
"Getting involved in ground warfare in Afghanistan... is a very difficult proposition indeed and I think, on the whole, the United States should avoid it.

This shit scares the HELL out of me. No outside force has come close to dominating
this region. I believe a prolonged existance in this region could be very COSTLY. We must adopt a hit/run and get the hell out philosophy.