US tanks go in to Afghanistan

What if its CHINA do u then just fight a prolonged drawn out battle with them? same old same old , then tag team russia?

Sick and tired how the U.S.of A always seems to step up when its a 3rd world country like u said,,but when u get to the big leaugues what u gonna do?

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


Good to know that you are being honest that you can't comprehend. I will repeat one more time, in wars whether its Nazi Germany or Afghanistan, don't assume that having tanks means being desperate. Which is the subject of this debate and the original poster mentioned. Perhaps when we had tanks in WW2 I guess it means we were desperate. If we were winning against Germany all we could have just used the P51 Mustangs to take out Nazi Germany without the Shermans because we already had control of the skies, just like using airpower in Afghanistan to take out the enemy even if it had no tanks. Bringing in the tanks in the European theater must mean we are desperate to try to win the war. Bringing in tanks to Afghanistan must mean we are desperate as well eh?

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


Tanks are effective in protecting the bases in remote places. If you seen insurgent videos you can see how it would be feasible for tanks to take on the insurgents without having to wait for airpower. Tanks don't need to be constantly moving around in the mountains, just positioned to act as portable turrets around the bases. We already have apcs and ifvs in Afghanistan right now. Why not tanks?

reply to post by BobAthome


I'm sick and tired of seeing 3rd world nations taking on 4th world nations.

Wait till i get some popcorn,, looks like the matinee is over, cause last time i seen those Tanks they were headed for Iraq

How quickly we forget things ...

Going in:



Result:



Doesn't the pentagon have google image search?

"The conflict cannot be solved by military means, it's an illusion" - Col (retd) Oleg Kulakov

news.bbc.co.uk...

unfortunatly u.s needs that trillion in precious metals found in afgan. Cause China is going to already has banned exports of its metals.
a besides a trillion dollars in rich's is a lot of temptation to a broke country.
So ya id say yer going in for the kill with the heavy stuff.

reply to post by schrodingers dog


So the Russians lost WW2 cause it could not be solved with military means? Holy cow!

reply to post by deltaboy


Huh?

That quote refers to their war in Afghanistan, as linked.

What's that quote about doing the same thing expecting a different result?

History repeating in 3 ... 2 ...

your missing the point there is no one backing them... that is why we have them kicked to the mountains... and yes we can win this.. If I was in charge.. I'd kill every one older than 3 and re educate the new generation problem solved... I don't see this being a fast war.. but it would take a long while to win it.. the russians couldn't do it because they lost the air war due to the united states supplying the afgans with stingers and weapons they would have lost and afgan would be russian right now lol..

Originally posted by Reaper2137
If I was in charge.. I'd kill every one older than 3 and re educate the new generation problem solved...

As barbaric as the above sounds, this has also been tried many times throughout history and has also failed.

There's a little known word for it called "Paidomazoma" specific to the Ottoman Empire's practice of stealing the son's of Greeks during their 400 year occupation and reeducating them as Turks, training them as elite soldiers, and sending them back to their villages to kill without knowing that they were from there. Sure some of Greek food, drinks, and culture is mixed with Turkish, but that was the case historically in the Mediterranean anyway ... and it surely didn't obliterate Greek culture nor did it win them the war in the end.

All strategies have been tried before, one only need investigate history to accurately predict their all but inevitable result.

In any case, I'm hoping that your approach wasn't suggested as a viable plan of action for it would make genocidal maniacs blush.

I was in no place to say any thing I took orders not give them.. just because I didn't work in the past doesn't mean that it wouldn't work now lol.. but than again we could just kill them all. or better yet put explosives in the base of the neck if they tamper or step out of line they explode lol.. either way weather we kill some of them or all.. I'd be happy less people in the world..

reply to post by schrodingers dog


Are you saying everything is repeating exactly like what the Russians did? Perhaps its different because the Russians didn't experience 9/11 attacks. Just cause we are encountering the same ferocity as equivalent to the Japanese willing to defend their homeland? Perhaps thats encouraging to see them kill themselves just like the Japanese did with the Kamikaze. Hmmm... thanks for pointing that out. People who resort to suicide bombing are losing.

reply to post by deltaboy

I'm sorry but the objective is to remove and kill Taliban and Al Qaeda, not protect the Afghan people because thats just being defensive instead of going on the offensive.

Oh sorry I forgot you yankee's were supposed to be about spreading freedom and democracy, but there're more chance of hell freezing over and planet earth returning to it's own freedom in a sudden freeze.

Thats the folly of not using airstrikes, tanks, or even rifles because of the dumb politicians who wants to fight a kind war. Pillows only please, but you think the Taliban are listening?

All you advocates of surgical pretences are pathetic.

etc.

reply to post by Clisen33

Also the firepower is not coming from 25k feet. Doesn't make sense not to use it. If it helps, use it.

Except the fire will be more directed towards the schools and buildings holding the supposed terrorists and more people will die directly from fire. That is what will happen, and I'm using simple enough words even enough for the military folk to understand, and yes you will be orderd to kill innocents, and you are now equipped to kill them directly rather than accidently.... well done on acquiring the means because you are now helping the fascist cause.

and whats wrong with that john? who cares if the people die? who cares if we blow up their schools? I don't more killing more bombing more tanks= more people dead = less people on this planet ... also john you could die tomorrow and I wouldn't bat an eye lash lol.. napalm them its nice works good and is slower than shooting them.. drop land mines from air craft that away we can take more of them out and not have to worry as much.. or bio warfare we don't even half to be over their..kill them with a bug lol..

Originally posted by Reaper2137
your missing the point there is no one backing them...

Do you truly believe that? After almost a decade where do you think those weapons and bomb building materials are coming from? Where do they go to remove them selves from the battle? Why is the heaviest fighting in the south and eastern parts of the country? I'll give ya a hint, look at a map.

that is why we have them kicked to the mountains...

No they are in the mountains because that is where our technological advantage breaks down.

If I was in charge.. I'd kill every one older than 3 and re educate the new generation problem solved...

Thank God you're not. Yes wiping out an entire population would do wonders wouldn't? The people's remaining would never hold any resentment or hatred for the people that did that.

I don't see this being a fast war.. but it would take a long while to win it..

Really? That's a very astute comment to make after ten years.

the russians couldn't do it because they lost the air war due to the united states supplying the afgans with stingers and weapons they would have lost and afgan would be russian right now lol..

Good to see you have watched Charlie Wilson's War now do your self a favour and go find some history books and learn the rest of the story. And the story of the history of Afghanistan.

Originally posted by deltaboy
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

 

Good to know that you are being honest that you can't comprehend. I will repeat one more time, in wars whether its Nazi Germany or Afghanistan, don't assume that having tanks means being desperate. Which is the subject of this debate and the original poster mentioned. Perhaps when we had tanks in WW2 I guess it means we were desperate. If we were winning against Germany all we could have just used the P51 Mustangs to take out Nazi Germany without the Shermans because we already had control of the skies, just like using airpower in Afghanistan to take out the enemy even if it had no tanks. Bringing in the tanks in the European theater must mean we are desperate to try to win the war. Bringing in tanks to Afghanistan must mean we are desperate as well eh?

uh... I don't really understand your logic STILL.

Are you saying the Allies were desperate when they deployed Shermans to the lines? Because it appears to me that they were matching German armor. You know, tank vs tank battles? I don't see anything strange with this at all, it takes a tank to fight a tank. So what is your point?

Tanks are effective in protecting the bases in remote places. If you seen insurgent videos you can see how it would be feasible for tanks to take on the insurgents without having to wait for airpower. Tanks don't need to be constantly moving around in the mountains, just positioned to act as portable turrets around the bases. We already have apcs and ifvs in Afghanistan right now. Why not tanks?

I have seen many insurgent videos and I am well versed in their tactics. I've also studied the Soviet occupation of 1979-1989 and watched many videos and interviews involved.

Tanks are designed to fight against tanks, or to provide heavy support. Taliban are fighters armed with AK-47s, RPGs, maybe some ATGMs, medium range rockets, mortars, etc. They are quick to attack and quick to seek shelter. They know the land infinitely better than any invading force could imagine. They are not conventional fighters, they are rebels.

Sure, it might be convenient to have a tank handy in case your checkpoint gets ambushed, but do you even understand the strategic cost of deploying tanks, nonetheless M1s? They are powered by a freaking jet-engine for one. Fuel logistics for an M1 is a nightmare in such climate and terrain. Fuel tankers are already major targets by the taliban. Do you not recall recent stories of hundreds of fuel tankers being destroyed or just plain missing in Pakistan? Or how about the fact that Pakistan has shut down important logistic NATO routes that would bring fuel in?

If M1s are there to fight the Taliban, then the Americans must have some pretty stupid and history-ignorant commanders. In my opinion, they are there to provide more deterance against other factions. Look at the American "discovery" of trillions of dollars worth of minerals in Afghanistan. Fact is that the Soviets discovered these deposits in the 80s. China already controls copper deposits in Afghanistan and the US fears China could obtain control of these deposits too. This is why the US assumes ownership of these "new" deposits, and is offering mining contracts to other NATO members in return for their support (instead of withdrawal). Would these M1s be better suited to fight mountain rebels or Chinese Type 99s?

So the Russians lost WW2 cause it could not be solved with military means? Holy cow!

WWII has nothing to do with Afghanistan. Get over it.

your missing the point there is no one backing them... that is why we have them kicked to the mountains... and yes we can win this.. If I was in charge.. I'd kill every one older than 3 and re educate the new generation problem solved...

Good thing that you're not in charge because you are clearly an idiot. Yeah, lets kill them all and that will win the war. Brilliant strategy

the russians couldn't do it because they lost the air war due to the united states supplying the afgans with stingers and weapons they would have lost and afgan would be russian right now lol..

1: There was no air war in Afghanistan.
2: Yeah, FIM-93s got annoying and the Lee-Enfields provided by the CIA were effective killing tools, but the Soviets adapted. The Soviets responded with more brutal tactics, like bombing indiscriminately and sending Spetsnaz into villages to assassinate suspected enemies. Then the Soviets realized that things got too ugly and there was no way to win their war, and so they did the sensible thing and left.
3: When the Communist Party was in power in Afghanistan, the country actually progressed. Girls could even wear skirts on the street without fear of being beheaded. Bet they don't teach you that in your schoolbooks.

People who resort to suicide bombing are losing.

And how are they losing, because Western media says we are winning?

Suicide bombings are desperate measures, and is one of the bravest acts a human could ever do. You may not like it because you can't seem to understand the feeling of being pushed to the edge with no other options to defend yourself or your people.

GAOTU789 well if we kill them all who will be left to bitch? also side note.. if we kill every one above the age of 3 and re educate them? how would they know who killed them? and I never saw that movie.. but still viable option would be to kill them all even 3 and under lol.. and were they get the weapons from? they got them from us. U.S reports state that there using the same # we gave them to fight the russians

Dimitri Dzengalshlevi... wow is all I got to say.. you say I'm an idiot and I get what he is talking about... yes their was an air war.. if you never saw any news about russians flying hyinze over there than your more of an idiot than I am lol.. the russians could have kept it.. like I said.. glass the whole country than we could keep the mines and not worry about china lol

Originally posted by deltaboy
reply to post by john124

 

I'm sorry but the objective is to remove and kill Taliban and Al Qaeda, not protect the Afghan people because thats just being defensive instead of going on the offensive.

No it isn’t being defensive at all, it’s being smart. If the civilian population believe that you are making their lives worse and that they were better off living under the Taliban then they are not likely to accept your presence. How do you expect to beat the Taliban militarily when you’re fighting in a country infested with Taliban agents that you created yourself?

Thats the folly of not using airstrikes, tanks, or even rifles because of the dumb politicians who wants to fight a kind war. Pillows only please, but you think the Taliban are listening?

So you think that the half-arsed hearts and minds effort should be dropped and that victory will come through conducting ourselves more like the Russians did?

Was McChrystal a dumb politician? Or Petraeus even?