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.

 

US tanks go in to Afghanistan

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   

US tanks go in to Afghanistan


www.guardian.co.uk

Military to deploy heavily armoured tanks to Afghanistan for the first time as the US escalates its assault on the Taliban

The US is escalating its assault on the Taliban with a sharp rise in bombing and missile raids, more relaxed rules on the destruction of civilian property and the deployment of heavily armoured M1 Abrams tanks to Afghanistan for the first time.

But aid groups warned today that the dramatic increase in air strikes in recent months is contributing to "rapidly deteriorating"
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Sounds like signs of desperation to try and weaken the taliban in order to force them to begin negotiations soon. An admission that the war is lost.

The winning of hearts and minds and nation building was all bull#, and this is all about securing the lithium mineral deposits and the opium. Not surprising since hardly anything has been built.

Nearby countries like Iran will see this as more US heavy armour being positioned in a neighbouring country.


expected to be a rising number of civilian casualties.


Probably leading to escalations throughout that region.


The shift away from the previous emphasis on protecting civilians from the insurgents has drawn stinging criticism from the Afghan president, Hamad Karzai, but American military commanders say that it is working.


No it isn't working, and this will only cause more civilian casualties.

Puppet Karzai will need an even larger bribe to keep him from complaining.



www.guardian.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 19-11-2010 by john124 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 04:29 PM
link   
This one is already been around the block for a short time. Hopefully the discussion will pick up . We are definitely building up in the area and building up for the long haul. We have an oil crisis on the not so distant horizon to deal with.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   
While I'm sure it's great for a few areas in the country, the vast majority of the harsh fighting is in the mountainous regions, where those tanks are worthless. That's why they haven't been used much before, because they don't bring that much to the table. The supply lines run through the mountain passes, where a tank can't go. The majority of operations in country are dismounted because of these factors. I'm sure they will be very useful in a handful of places, but I wouldn't expect a huge result from this.



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   
I guess airstrikes and assassination squads don't work, better send in tanks now


Seriously, the US didn't have Abrams units in Afghanistan yet? Canadians have had Leopard C2s there for awhile...



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Or it is a cover to allow the US to put more armoured forces near Iran?

Just sayin'



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   
wow.. we had tanks in iraq so what if they go to afgan? and you think that is an admission of loss? are you crazy? from some one who has been in the military a long time.. this is less an admission of loss and more of wanting more fire power.. it is better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.. all this really means is the united states is saying we are prepared to take this to the next level and just bomb the hell out of you.. I'm all for it lol.. hell I'm for glassing it.. its not like the people in the entire region will be missed.. altho some one here might miss isreal I wouldn't... Id nuke the whole region shoot who was left.. and turn it into a wall mart..lol.. maybe a parking lot..



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sovaka
Or it is a cover to allow the US to put more armoured forces near Iran?

Just sayin'


Or maybe it's to assist the boots on the ground and provide heavy weapons? Seriously, there was already tons of heavy armory in Iraq, which is right next to Iran. Tehran is even closer to north eastern Iraq than it is to military bases in Afghanistan...

If heavy armor is going to help out in Afghanistan, why not use it?
edit on 19-11-2010 by Clisen33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Clisen33
 


Maybe they are expecting some heavy resistance from the surrounding states.
Not to mention what they fear lurking in the darkness and nearby mountains...



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sovaka
reply to post by Clisen33
 


Maybe they are expecting some heavy resistance from the surrounding states.
Not to mention what they fear lurking in the darkness and nearby mountains...


Really? Are you embedded with a unit in Afghanistan? You're just as much informed as I am, I have no idea what really is going on down there. I don't see how you can connect fear, defeat, war preparation with Iran from the U.S. moving heavy armor into Afghanistan? If anything, the Taliban should be the ones scared - I would be.



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Clisen33
 


If you are going to ask someone a question, then it is only politeness that you at least give them a chance to respond.
While making assumptions on other users level of intelligence isn't recommended, it's the path you have chosen to take and best of luck to you on that.

And in regards to your comment about the Taliban should be scared...
Yes because the US Army have done such a bang up job previously huh?



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 05:33 PM
link   
The war on Al Qaeda became the war on the Taliban, became the war for total control of poppy production.

The war that has become slaughter, will be genocide.

TANKS against small arms fire and an occasional RPG or an IED.

It isn't because the US is losing the war they never could win, it isn't because the Taliban have proven to be a very powerful enemy... It is because they must be eradicated COMPLETELY. They are the single greatest threat to a profitable business.

The Russians gave up on Afghanistan, the US will not do that... even if they have to kill them all in a series of brutal attacks, regardless of whatever numbers of innocent causalities result.

Beware the global monster you are creating in this godforsaken battle.


edit on 19-11-2010 by Fractured.Facade because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   
I have been with units in iraq and afgan so yeah lol.. its not fear you defeat your enemy with overwhelming firepower and the taliban isn't as smart or powerful as you paint them to be.. more like they come we blow them back and they hide pull in more and come back.. its endless yes.. but the war is hardly going for them.. since its still like 20 of them to one of us lol..



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reaper2137
since its still like 20 of them to one of us lol..


More like 200 to 1... Soon to be 2,000 to 1.

The world is watching.


الله أكبر



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by john124

Sounds like signs of desperation to try and weaken the taliban in order to force them to begin negotiations soon. An admission that the war is lost.


Not at all, we’ve always needed negotiations to “win” and that much was clear from the start. You don't weaken the Taliban to begin negotiations, you weaken them to allow yourself more manoeuvring in the negotiations, so that you can get a better deal.

We could have negotiated straight after the invasion, but the conditions would have been "piss off out of our country".



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 06:32 PM
link   
well if we hit the 2000 mark than we will win lol.. because they can't sustain the number for ever lol.. so we will win and I really don't care if we have to kill them all to win. I don't know if I posted it in this thread or not.. but we should take out the entire middle east including isreal lol.



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reaper2137
well if we hit the 2000 mark than we will win lol..


We will never win. There is no glory in the slaughter of a completely inferior "enemy", no victory in a genocidal objective. At best they are hoping for controllable containment, but little do they seem to know about the enemy they are creating in this process...

The true enemy they are creating is growing, globally. Waiting for the proper time to strike back, from virtually everywhere.



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Fractured.Facade
 


Afraid of the boogeyman too?

The Taliban spout off how they are winning the propaganda war.

That includes inflated victories, killing of NATO forces etc. Many here at ATS seem to be reading word for word from their playbook



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


The boogieman moved to Pakistan along with his gang, most of them are doing quite well.

Interestingly enough, you are the one that has been completely mislead by "propaganda".

Please, continue to enjoy the oblivion the mainstream provides on a daily basis... while it lasts.

Reality will come, with or without a fictional boogieman.




posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Fractured.Facade
 


Oh I eat up all forms of Propaganda. I read it all day everyday here at ATS. Not just the Wests but all other sources as well.


So let me ask you this? How many weeks or months have you been in Afghanistan? You know first hand who is winning? How many "Joe Afghans " on the street or mountain have you personally spoken to?

My son was deployed to Iraq and came back in the spring of this year. His first hand real accounts were far different than ANY BS on TV pro or con... I now have two Nephews in country in The Stan. I'll trust their first hand accounts more than say...[PressTV, Russia Today, ABC, CBS, FOX, BBC or your cousin Vinnie] Thank you very much.

edit on 19-11-2010 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join