It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.S. launches 'major operation' in Afghanistan

page: 4
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   
The Russians allowing us to use their airspace makes me wonder what else they might do, like join in the fight? idk If we get Pakistan to help from their side of the conflict, which I haven't heard much of lately, that might help considerably.

Why do we keep throwing away good people when we should be using more advanced technology? The alleged costs of these advanced equipment is a burden we shouldn't even have. This is where the military itself should be controlling and not corporate greed. It's their ass people are dying for as well.

Unfortunately, many would suspect it's these corporates that provoke these wars for their own agenda. If they don't send our kids off to war, they find some excuse to throw them in prison.

If Russia got involved, what would they want in return?




posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Zosynspiracy
 


Zosynspiracy, thank you! You GET it!

I know damned good and well that the basic load of ammo, a couple day's rations, a poncho liner, and water don't weight 80-100 pounds!

We eliminated everything we could - I even cut down to one meal a day which I split into two parts - just for the weight savings.

We carry way too much crap! A helicopter only needs to drop individual day packs for resupply and doesn't even need to land to do so.

We act like we're Xenophone and the 10,000, cut off far behind enemy lines with no hope of resupply.

Why in hell do we spend all that money on helicopters and A-10's if we can't figure out how to use them?

To continue like we've been doing? May as well sack up our * and come on home.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


Not to mention that a "company sized" security element for a single sniper would blow his cover, and go a long way in pinpointing his position, so that the Taliban would know exactly WHERE to mass up for a point assault. Hard to hide that many men, and slower to move them. Snipers operate in a whole different world from large bodies of troops.

The Russians sent sniper teams out, and they were mighty effective against the muj. They just didn't send enough of them. Spetnaz hunter-killer teams were pretty damned effective, too. You couldn't see them, folks would just start DYING around you, for no apparent reason except holes just appeared in 'em, or a flight of Mi24 Hinds (they travelled in packs of 4 - if you only saw one, you'd best start looking harder) would pop up over the ridgeline and ruin your day. The problem with their strategy there was that they didn't send enough of those Spetnaz teams either. It was mostly just H+I, trying to keep the muj spread out so they couldn't mass up and assault the buttoned up bases with mortars and rockets.

You know, the BASES. Those big, fat, stationary, personnel-filled TARGETS.

If they came out of the wire for an assault, the muj would just melt away, so they could fight another day. They defeated the Soviets by being tiny hornets on a big, fat bear.

If the Russians had sent in their own bee gums, it would have turned out differently.

It looks like we'd learn a lesson from that.

[edit on 2009/7/6 by nenothtu]



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by aleon1018
The Russians allowing us to use their airspace makes me wonder what else they might do, like join in the fight? idk If we get Pakistan to help from their side of the conflict, which I haven't heard much of lately, that might help considerably.

Why do we keep throwing away good people when we should be using more advanced technology? The alleged costs of these advanced equipment is a burden we shouldn't even have. This is where the military itself should be controlling and not corporate greed. It's their ass people are dying for as well.

Unfortunately, many would suspect it's these corporates that provoke these wars for their own agenda. If they don't send our kids off to war, they find some excuse to throw them in prison.

If Russia got involved, what would they want in return?


I doubt Russia actually jumps into the mix, But Pakistan is getting a little irritated with Taliban attacks on THEM. From what I hear, they've sent blocking forces to trap the Taliban fleeing from this offensive, across the border. How effective that will be is anybody's guess, since I think the Taliban still has some friends in the ISI.

I don't think they were terribly effective last time they tried that, but then again, Pakistan wasn't under attack from the Taliban at that time.

A fox won't soil his own nest, and the Taliban shouldn't have started tearing up their own sanctuary.

[edit on 2009/7/6 by nenothtu]



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by aleon1018
 


Technology has it's uses, but you can't rely on it altogether to defeat a determined and agile HUMAN enemy. The only way to do that is to get another determined and agile human in the field, and hunt them down.

That's because those hunters can think, and see, from right THERE, on the ground, as opposed from through a camera located 6000 miles away, which may not be looking in exactly the right direction it ought to be at the time. Once they find and fix their target, THEN they can bring smoke on it from technology.

A corollary to that is that those hunters have to see without being seen, until it's too late for the target. That pretty well eliminates large, visible, targetable forces.

So yeah, in my opinion you're partially right. We need to un-mass that AO, and get serious about winning instead of just fighting.

Some folks don't know the difference, believe it or not.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 04:36 PM
link   
umm wow
I can't believe how many ppl post as if they have first hand knowledge about certain things .



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Floating thru Reality
This war is completely unjust and immoral. Innocent people are being killed by psychopathic monsters who use war as a tool to further their own ends. This war has nothing to do with freedom or fighting evil. The USA is the one that is evil.


Hmmm...I would has at a guess as ti why it's justified. Lets see the Taliban was a brtish regime worse than Saddam's who just happened to harbour terrorist training camps of America's biggest enemy OBL. They were given an ultimatum, turn him over or face the consequences. They didn't and were driven from government and most of the people wanted this. The problem was good old boy GW wanted to settle a score with Iraq and left Afghanistan to whither allowing the Taliban resurgence.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by SFwife
umm wow
I can't believe how many ppl post as if they have first hand knowledge about certain things .




And you're surprised by this ? How long have you been on the internet for ? A day


Everyone here is an expert and of course everyone knows better than the generals actually fighting the war. Funny thing is no one here has the skills or the experience to comment with any expertise about how the war should be fought.

[edit on 6-7-2009 by rogue1]



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


I have my doubts that Russia would, but it would be interesting if they did. I also doubt that would go over very well with the native people there either.

The higher technology should be used more effectively. When I see some news clips of ground fighting and just wildly shooting in their direction, it seems as if we haven't advanced all that much.(in that respect)

I guess I've seen way to many science fiction shows and expect much more from the real thing. I've seen a few shows on military technology, but the prices are way too high for a country fighting for it's freedoms.

Another thought is that we do have it, but we're saving it for a different kind of war.

[edit on 6-7-2009 by aleon1018]



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by rogue1
 

No, you don't need large security teams for the sniper teams. Three additional men nearby would be most sufficient.

Think about what you said. That the Taliban can mass quickly for an attack.

That assumes a fixed, known, position. This is exactly what I contend is the ongoing problem. Fixed positions. By substituting mobility, you minimize your exposures, you confuse the enemy, and you minimize your danger.

Often, it's as simple as waiting until dark, and simply relocating a hundred meters or so. On four occasions, we caused our attackers to hit where we WERE, enabling us to light into them instead.


Would you care to present your credentials. Which unit did you serve with? Forgive me, but I hate vague inuendo about things like this.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by SFwife
umm wow
I can't believe how many ppl post as if they have first hand knowledge about certain things .




And you're surprised by this ? How long have you been on the internet for ? A day


Everyone here is an expert and of course everyone knows better than the generals actually fighting the war. Funny thing is no one here has the skills or the experience to comment with any expertise about how the war should be fought.

[edit on 6-7-2009 by rogue1]













I shouldn't be surprised especially on this site but still



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by rogue1
 

No, you don't need large security teams for the sniper teams. Three additional men nearby would be most sufficient.

Think about what you said. That the Taliban can mass quickly for an attack.

That assumes a fixed, known, position. This is exactly what I contend is the ongoing problem. Fixed positions. By substituting mobility, you minimize your exposures, you confuse the enemy, and you minimize your danger.

Often, it's as simple as waiting until dark, and simply relocating a hundred meters or so. On four occasions, we caused our attackers to hit where we WERE, enabling us to light into them instead.


Would you care to present your credentials. Which unit did you serve with? Forgive me, but I hate vague inuendo about things like this.




X2000 I would be interested to know this info also

I mean there is always someone who knows somebody ,that knows somebody .Well in certain Units that is



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Hmmm...I would has at a guess as ti why it's justified. Lets see the Taliban was a brtish regime worse than Saddam's who just happened to harbour terrorist training camps of America's biggest enemy OBL


Huh? The Taliban was a British regime worse than Saddam's? What history book are you quoting from? We Brits has naff all to do with the rise of the Taliban.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   
I still say this has very little to do with actually winning against the "Taliban" and has everything to do with staying in the region so we can be future players in Central Asia and it's HUGE oil reserves. Russia just wants stability in the region. They have tried to gain that control by force in the 80s they didn't get very far. They know that contrary to pop culture opinion the US can get that stability. It will cost a few thousand lives but I think the Taliban are done for. IMO.

I could be wrong but they really just want to go home and grow poppies we wont let them have their peace. So they try to hang with some relatives across the border in Pakistan and because of pressure from the States the Pakistani Gov wont let them have a small territory to call their own.

Ahh...

What a tangled web we weave....

The Great Game is afoot.

US, Russia Focus on Military Issues

President Obama expressed appreciation for a Kremlin agreement to allow the transport of U.S. weapons across Russian territory for the NATO effort in Afghanistan.

President Medvedev said that without U.S.-Russian cooperation, there is little likelihood of success against threats emanating from Afghanistan, which include terrorism and drug trafficking.

Analyst Alexander Konovalov says the agreement is a breakthrough.


[edit on 6-7-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by rogue1
Hmmm...I would has at a guess as ti why it's justified. Lets see the Taliban was a brtish regime worse than Saddam's who just happened to harbour terrorist training camps of America's biggest enemy OBL


Huh? The Taliban was a British regime worse than Saddam's? What history book are you quoting from? We Brits has naff all to do with the rise of the Taliban.


Lol stu, I meant brutish, although it is interesting how you thought British. In my opinion it was worse than Saddam's, strict Sharia law is just about the worst thing you can live under. There was more freedom under communism (don't bring up NK, because that isn't communism).

[edit on 6-7-2009 by rogue1]



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by rogue1
 

No, you don't need large security teams for the sniper teams. Three additional men nearby would be most sufficient.

Think about what you said. That the Taliban can mass quickly for an attack.

That assumes a fixed, known, position. This is exactly what I contend is the ongoing problem. Fixed positions. By substituting mobility, you minimize your exposures, you confuse the enemy, and you minimize your danger.

Often, it's as simple as waiting until dark, and simply relocating a hundred meters or so. On four occasions, we caused our attackers to hit where we WERE, enabling us to light into them instead.


Actually the US has tried both approaches in the past with varying degrees of success and failure, they both have their advantages and disadvantages. Fixed positions invite attack what is a better way to draw out the hidden enemy into the open to cull their numbers? Mobility, also has the advantage of hitting them when and where of your own choice. Finding them becomes the problem. No matter what happens a fighting doctrine in this situation needs to be fluid and dynamic. No one solution will be affective for very long. Then it needs to be changed up again and again.

Taliban launch counter operation against US in Afghanistan

Afghanistan's Taliban insurgents have launched a counter operation against thousands of United States Marines pushing into southern Helmand province to teach them "a lesson" it is claimed.




[edit on 6-7-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by rogue1
 

Special Forces, team engineer, Company O, Arctic Rangers, 75th Infantry, H Company, 75th Infantry Rangers attached to the First Cav, decorated for valor and I don't give a fuzzy rat's ass as to your opinion.

You are a keyboard blowhard who has much too high an opinion of himself, one who would probably do better sharing recipes on a cooking thread.

I wrote a book that the Marines - the same guys who are on this offensive - took to heart with their Combat Hunter Program, which I understand, is quite successful. They're using it as we speak.

You've likely noted some other tactical and strategic changes not only in the Army FM's, but in actual combat approach that someone read, and put to use.

You'll also note that the Israelis during this last little scrap with the Gazans, didn't make the same mistakes they made with Hizballah.

Take your pretentious crap on down the road. There's a few of us on ATS who've actually seen the varmint, taken scalps, and that would be more than two-score.

It's fools like this that manage from a keyboard to screw up a perfectly good discussion.

You need to get off the movies. It doesn't work like that in the field.


[edit on 6-7-2009 by dooper]



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by SFwife
 

Honey, I did my time on Smoke Bomb Hill. And at our little ceremony to "don Berets," we threw our old headgear in the air and away at the statue. Singing that damned song every morning and night.

My toughest instructor was a SFC Nale. He looked much like Frankenstein as he had been blown to crap during three combat tours.

Pineland was my home away from home. Do they still have that little bar just outside the entry off the highway? I found that on my "survival" portion, loaded up on a few six-packs and some chips which "eased" my hunger.

I can remember when we had both the 5th and 6th Groups both at Bragg. Of course, the 6th doesn't exist anymore, does it? And the 5th sure changed it's flash again. I liked the old one.

Tell your old man one of his predecessors wishes him the best.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by rogue1
 

Special Forces, team engineer, Company O, Arctic Rangers, 75th Infantry, H Company, 75th Infantry Rangers attached to the First Cav, decorated for valor and I don't give a fuzzy rat's ass as to your opinion.


If you say so, you do know Rangers aren't special forces more likely elite infantry. But of course what you say could just as easily been gleaned from a website. I could quite easily pretend to be Delta Force and SAS and present as convincing but vague credentials as you have.



You are a keyboard blowhard who has much too high an opinion of himself, one who would probably do better sharing recipes on a cooking thread.


I do have a high opinion of myself. Because you supposedly served in theater makes you no more valuable than anyone else. Sory to burst your bubble.


I wrote a book that the Marines - the same guys who are on this offensive - took to heart with their Combat Hunter Program, which I understand, is quite successful. They're using it as we speak.


Of course you did, what is it entitled. I have friends in teh MArines, I'm sure they would have heard of it. Please tell. But it sounds like you're blowing hard atm.


You've likely noted some other tactical and strategic changes not only in the Army FM's, but in actual combat approach that someone read, and put to use.


But of course you have



You'll also note that the Israelis during this last little scrap with the Gazans, didn't make the same mistakes they made with Hizballah.


They didn't? They are 2 completely different enemies, you can't make a comparison. Surely you understand that, if you ahve any military experience.


Take your pretentious crap on down the road. There's a few of us on ATS who've actually seen the varmint, taken scalps, and that would be more than two-score.


Ok so now you are bragging about your bodycount. That is about as unprofessional in teh SF community as it gets and most who have served would label you a try hard and a bull#ter.


It's fools like this that manage from a keyboard to screw up a perfectly good discussion.

You need to get off the movies. It doesn't work like that in the field.


Ahem, I could point out several movies where you have gotten you supposedly first hand tactics from.

You have exposed yourself as to who you really are a keyboard warrior intent on bolstering his credibility by BS. Congratulations.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 10:28 PM
link   
WELL!

Dooper showed HIS, now it your turn, Rogue. What do you build YOUR opinions on?

Where are your credentials?

Nenothtu

Afghan University of Hard Knocks, Class of '85

Nanawatae, Badal, and Milmastia certified

(Pashto. Spelled by sound. Not sure how they're transliterated to English.)

Edit: changed "Pashtun" to "Pashto", culture vs. language.

[edit on 2009/7/6 by nenothtu]



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join