Operation Just Cause-The Panama Deception

4 views
Skip to first unread message

Wilkes Reese

unread,
Oct 30, 2001, 6:56:54 AM10/30/01
to
Operation Just Cause, the invasion of Panama by US forces in 1989,
ocurred while I was a LCPL in a USMC MCSF Co at NSB Kings Bay, Ga.
There were already about 12K US troops in Panama. The USMC had the MSG
(Marine Security Guard (the ones in dress blues or other suits at
embassies)) detachment, a security force unit, an LAI (light armored
infantry) unit, and probably a MEU-SOC at sea during the invasion. A
USMC FAST Co. (Fleet Anti-terrorist Security Team) was also there. The
NCOs from that unit came to NSB Kings Bay, Ga. to help us with
continuous infantry training on their way back after their cycle and
role in Panama.
We were told they got their first confirmed kill with a Mk-19
automatic grenade launcher there. They said a PDF soldier was firing
and maneuvering at them and they hit him with a direct shot from the
40mm GL. They said the enemy soldier was reduced to a blast of pink
smoke and they later found one of his boots. Apparently, they cleared
grid squares of jungle with the GL.
I never really liked the Panama Invasion. In any event, the Academy
Award (and numerous other international award) winning video, The
Panama Deception, is available at http://empowermentproject.org, by
e-mailing proj...@mindspring.com, or buying at
rottentomatoes/pricegrabber.com. The video is on back order but you
should be able to get a copy for $20-30 within a few weeks. I have
seen this video and coupled with my insights as a former Marine, cop,
and CDS troop, it's no big surprise.
Does anybody have any idea where I can get archive/video footage
chronicling UK/Argentina Falklands War of 1982? That was a cool war,
IMHO, and UK did many things right on. Many people forget there were
air, naval, and land battles. The biggest mistake UK made, IMHO ( not
a big deal since the bottom line is that that kicked ass and took
names), was that the BBC broadcasted info regarding the impending
landing at Goose Green (or where ever) and I believe it cost many an
SAS and Royal Marine his life. See how it's ALWAYS the politics that
fucks everything up?
I'm telling you, the next war we have, it needs to be the poor and
middle class against the rich politicians and multi-death
corporations.

Rizla Ranger UK

unread,
Oct 30, 2001, 7:06:51 AM10/30/01
to

Paul Edwards

unread,
Oct 30, 2001, 9:36:31 AM10/30/01
to
"Wilkes Reese" <pirha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:496ed369.0110...@posting.google.com...

> Does anybody have any idea where I can get archive/video footage
> chronicling UK/Argentina Falklands War of 1982? That was a cool war,
> IMHO, and UK did many things right on. Many people forget there were
> air, naval, and land battles. The biggest mistake UK made, IMHO ( not
> a big deal since the bottom line is that that kicked ass and took
> names), was that the BBC broadcasted info regarding the impending
> landing at Goose Green (or where ever) and I believe it cost many an

The biggest stuffup there was the US not lending the UK an
aircraft carrier, so that the next person who wants to take on
the UK knows that they have to add a shitload of extra
hardware to UK's capabilities.

And next time make sure the helicopters are not all on the
one ship.

The worst BBC stuffup was probably alerting the Argentinians
that their missiles were not detonating.

> SAS and Royal Marine his life. See how it's ALWAYS the politics that
> fucks everything up?

That's not politics, that's the military not reviewing the camera
crew's material, after they invited them on board. Don't assume
the cameramen are as smart as you.

> I'm telling you, the next war we have, it needs to be the poor and
> middle class against the rich politicians and multi-death
> corporations.

It is the fact that the US is rich that enables it to win wars in the
first place. Actually those civilians in the WTC are not as innocent
as you think they are. Those are the major factor making the
US a superpower.

I liked one of Yugoslavia's comments during the war. They
said it was unfair that some of the world's richest countries
were ganging up on them. It's the richness that makes it all
happen. Modern wars are economic. They're not about
heroic soldiers fighting to their last dying breath. It's simply
a matter of having more money to spend than the next guy
on hardware.

Afghanistan is different though. They can't be bombed back
to a medieval existance when they're already there. :-)

However, I am extremely surprised that the NA can't advance
if US provides air cover. At this stage I assume that the US
is not providing proper air cover.

BFN. Paul.

Wraith

unread,
Oct 30, 2001, 10:06:02 AM10/30/01
to

"Paul Edwards" <kerr...@nosppaam.w3.to> wrote in message
news:PVyD7.268595$bY5.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

I'm just glad that the U.S. didn't send ground troops into Kosovo. The
Serbs would have given us a hell of a run for our money I think as they were
well armed, well equipped, and motivated... it seemed to me that their
political will broke quicker then the morale of their ground troops.
As far as the NA advances...they simply do not have the proper support yet
for coordinating heavy close air support with NA assaults. Meaning they
need U.S. troops on the ground coordinating assaults with the air support.
The NA forces claim that the U.S. forces are not applying enough air strikes
to the front lines and that it is too sporadic and predictable. There are,
from some reports, Green Berets working with the Taliban in that regard, but
still probably not enough of them to cover all fronts.

Wraith


DiMethylTryptamine

unread,
Oct 30, 2001, 10:05:36 AM10/30/01
to
>Modern wars are economic.

Reminds me of an old saying:
In times of war the the loudest patriots are often the greatest profiteers.


Paul Edwards

unread,
Oct 30, 2001, 10:49:31 AM10/30/01
to
"DiMethylTryptamine" <Ax...@amxiom.za.net> wrote in message news:3bdec436$0$2...@hades.is.co.za...

> >Modern wars are economic.
>
> Reminds me of an old saying:
> In times of war the the loudest patriots are often the greatest profiteers.

Who are the loudest patriots in some recent wars?

BFN. Paul.

Paul Edwards

unread,
Oct 30, 2001, 11:06:36 AM10/30/01
to
"Wraith" <miles...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:tttggbs...@corp.supernews.com...

> > However, I am extremely surprised that the NA can't advance
> > if US provides air cover. At this stage I assume that the US
> > is not providing proper air cover.
>
> I'm just glad that the U.S. didn't send ground troops into Kosovo. The
> Serbs would have given us a hell of a run for our money I think as they were
> well armed, well equipped, and motivated... it seemed to me that their
> political will broke quicker then the morale of their ground troops.

Yep, there was certainly nothing wrong with the Serbian troops.

I was actually in the UK at the time, and I was extremely shocked
when I read one of the local papers. It certainly wasn't one of the
more esteemed ones, in fact, I think it was one that has a picture
of a topless girl on page 3 all the time, but it was basically just
propaganda. I didn't think our western countries had that sort of
thing. They were saying things like the Serbs were quivering in
their trenches. The hell they were. They're an enthusiastic bunch
of warmongers who had been preparing for this moment for 50
years.

I don't agree that the US wouldn't have slaughtered them though.

Probably not a good idea to run around in the hills, but in the
flatter areas, it's mainly a matter of having tanks with more range than
theirs, and you get the result you got in Iraq.

You only have a real problem when you are going up against
what the civilians want. In this case we had Albanians to run
around in the hills providing target info. And when the tanks
have gone, the Serbs are going to get very lonely up there.

> As far as the NA advances...they simply do not have the proper support yet
> for coordinating heavy close air support with NA assaults. Meaning they
> need U.S. troops on the ground coordinating assaults with the air support.
> The NA forces claim that the U.S. forces are not applying enough air strikes
> to the front lines and that it is too sporadic and predictable. There are,
> from some reports, Green Berets working with the Taliban in that regard, but
> still probably not enough of them to cover all fronts.

I'd be happy if you could concentrate on one or two fronts to start
with.

I'd be happier if you landed a shitload more Green Berets or
other forces. What's the bloody problem? They're in friendly
territory!!! The biggest risk is from your own pilots! And
why aren't you calling in the equivalent special forces from all
the other NATO countries? Surely there's enough to go
around??? I don't think any NATO country or Australia/NZ
will refuse ANY request you make. If you wanted to be very
silly, you could even use ONLY other countries' troops.

BFN. Paul.

DiMethylTryptamine

unread,
Oct 30, 2001, 11:55:33 AM10/30/01
to
It was merely a philisophical interjection.

"Paul Edwards" <kerr...@nosppaam.w3.to> wrote in message

news:f_zD7.268679$bY5.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

DiMethylTryptamine

unread,
Oct 30, 2001, 11:58:32 AM10/30/01
to
Who is to say that they aren't involved?
Just a thought. Use it. Don't use it... Whatever.

Wraith

unread,
Oct 30, 2001, 12:48:35 PM10/30/01
to

"Paul Edwards" <kerr...@nosppaam.w3.to> wrote in message

news:geAD7.268688$bY5.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...


> "Wraith" <miles...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:tttggbs...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > However, I am extremely surprised that the NA can't advance
> > > if US provides air cover. At this stage I assume that the US
> > > is not providing proper air cover.
> >
> > I'm just glad that the U.S. didn't send ground troops into Kosovo. The
> > Serbs would have given us a hell of a run for our money I think as they
were
> > well armed, well equipped, and motivated... it seemed to me that their
> > political will broke quicker then the morale of their ground troops.
>
> Yep, there was certainly nothing wrong with the Serbian troops.
>
> I was actually in the UK at the time, and I was extremely shocked
> when I read one of the local papers. It certainly wasn't one of the
> more esteemed ones, in fact, I think it was one that has a picture
> of a topless girl on page 3 all the time, but it was basically just
> propaganda. I didn't think our western countries had that sort of
> thing. They were saying things like the Serbs were quivering in
> their trenches. The hell they were. They're an enthusiastic bunch
> of warmongers who had been preparing for this moment for 50
> years.
>
> I don't agree that the US wouldn't have slaughtered them though.

No doubt...but with heavy U.S. casualties I think among ground forces.


> Probably not a good idea to run around in the hills, but in the
> flatter areas, it's mainly a matter of having tanks with more range than
> theirs, and you get the result you got in Iraq.

Not very many flat areas in Kosovo. Mostly rugged forest and mountains.

> You only have a real problem when you are going up against
> what the civilians want. In this case we had Albanians to run
> around in the hills providing target info. And when the tanks
> have gone, the Serbs are going to get very lonely up there.

Actually U.S. Special Forces were lazing many of the targets and providing
much of the intelligence information. Other targets were pinpointed by the
attacking aircraft or recon drones.

> > As far as the NA advances...they simply do not have the proper support
yet
> > for coordinating heavy close air support with NA assaults. Meaning they
> > need U.S. troops on the ground coordinating assaults with the air
support.
> > The NA forces claim that the U.S. forces are not applying enough air
strikes
> > to the front lines and that it is too sporadic and predictable. There
are,
> > from some reports, Green Berets working with the Taliban in that regard,
but
> > still probably not enough of them to cover all fronts.
>
> I'd be happy if you could concentrate on one or two fronts to start
> with.
>
> I'd be happier if you landed a shitload more Green Berets or
> other forces. What's the bloody problem? They're in friendly
> territory!!! The biggest risk is from your own pilots! And
> why aren't you calling in the equivalent special forces from all
> the other NATO countries? Surely there's enough to go
> around??? I don't think any NATO country or Australia/NZ
> will refuse ANY request you make. If you wanted to be very
> silly, you could even use ONLY other countries' troops.
>
> BFN. Paul.

Unfortunately there are not shitloads of Green Berets. Also NA territory is
not necessarily friendly territory. There many factions within the Northern
Alliance, some of whom wouldn't mind making a quick buck by kidnapping and
handing over a Green Beret or two to the Taliban. There are many serious
security issues. The NA are ONLY allied to us because of a common enemy.
Otherwise they are also fairly radical muslims who are not especially West
friendly except when it suits them.
They will not be happy after this war when we suggest that they SHARE power
with the Taliban in a democratic government. That idea is just waaaay
beyond much of their thinking which involves centuries of fierce tribal wafa
re as a way of life.

Wraith


Ceri Jones

unread,
Oct 30, 2001, 2:59:48 PM10/30/01
to

"Wilkes Reese" <pirha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:496ed369.0110...@posting.google.com...
> Does anybody have any idea where I can get archive/video footage
> chronicling UK/Argentina Falklands War of 1982? That was a cool war,
> IMHO, and UK did many things right on.


But man, was it a close call. If we had lost one of the carriers or any 2
other ships then it would have been over, likewise if the Argies had managed
to drag it out for another month or so. By the time we retook Stanley there
wasn't a ship in the task force that was 100% capable. The most unsung
heroes of that little brawl was the SIS who trawled all over the world
making sure Galtieri didn't get anymore Exocet's. The Falklands was done on
such a shoestring logistics-wise and with so little intel, that only the
utter professionalism of those on the scene brought it off. The SAS took a
gut-shot with that helo crash, a lot of guys to lose from such a small
outfit. Of course the politicians learnt their lesson from the war and never
left the Defence of the realm wanting for funds or equipment again.......and
I am a six hundred-pound, ballet dancing trout called Matillda......
--


THE WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE IS THE HIGHEST LAW


Swarvegorilla

unread,
Oct 30, 2001, 8:21:29 PM10/30/01
to

Paul Edwards <kerr...@nosppaam.w3.to> wrote in message
news:f_zD7.268679$bY5.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Well in this one it would be the fucking spammers trieing to sell me USA
flags.
I mean for fucks sake THAT is profiteering....... god knows theyv'e been
racking in the dosh
Swarvegorilla


Swarvegorilla

unread,
Oct 30, 2001, 8:25:18 PM10/30/01
to
> I'd be happier if you landed a shitload more Green Berets or
> other forces. What's the bloody problem? They're in friendly
> territory!!! The biggest risk is from your own pilots! And
> why aren't you calling in the equivalent special forces from all
> the other NATO countries? Surely there's enough to go
> around??? I don't think any NATO country or Australia/NZ
> will refuse ANY request you make. If you wanted to be very
> silly, you could even use ONLY other countries' troops.
>
> BFN. Paul.
>
>
>

mate the world bloody world is on terrorist alert at the moment.........
How do you deal with terrorists?
Well many countries have elite response teams, Australia has the SAS.
You can't send them all off remember WWII, we need to keep the homefront
covered as well
Swarvegorilla


Swarvegorilla

unread,
Oct 30, 2001, 8:27:48 PM10/30/01
to

Ceri Jones <Ceri....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9rn13v$loe$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...


:-)
well welly welly well then matillda!

DiMethylTryptamine

unread,
Oct 30, 2001, 8:43:11 PM10/30/01
to
Gas masks, CIPRO, Ad agencies, need anymore? ok... CNN, NBC, ABC... yada
yada.
Whatever.
I'm getting bored already... Will someone please top Osama bin liner. I
want to be able to carry my lighter onto planes again...
SAA doesn't let you carry lighters anymore. But they allow people to use
cellular phones while refuelling in Accra and ihla de sol... Someone needs
to explain basic physics to their operations people.

"Swarvegorilla" <endh...@nss.aunz.net> wrote in message
news:ahID7.33$Bc4....@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...

Paul Edwards

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 4:26:41 AM10/31/01
to
"Swarvegorilla" <endh...@nss.aunz.net> wrote in message news:MkID7.34$Bc4....@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...

> > I'd be happier if you landed a shitload more Green Berets or
> > other forces. What's the bloody problem? They're in friendly
> > territory!!! The biggest risk is from your own pilots! And
> > why aren't you calling in the equivalent special forces from all
> > the other NATO countries? Surely there's enough to go
> > around??? I don't think any NATO country or Australia/NZ
> > will refuse ANY request you make. If you wanted to be very
> > silly, you could even use ONLY other countries' troops.
>
> mate the world bloody world is on terrorist alert at the moment.........
> How do you deal with terrorists?

Attacking anywhere that they do it overtly is a really great place
to start.

And put spies into places where they do it covertly, then attack
them too.

> Well many countries have elite response teams, Australia has the SAS.
> You can't send them all off remember WWII, we need to keep the homefront
> covered as well

You can fly from Afghanistan back to Australia in something like 14
hours. Pretty much exactly like they did in WWII.

Until such time that the need for them here arises, which it won't
anyway, put them somewhere where they obviously ARE needed.

BFN. Paul.

Paul Edwards

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 4:35:45 AM10/31/01
to
"Wraith" <miles...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:tttq15q...@corp.supernews.com...

> > their trenches. The hell they were. They're an enthusiastic bunch
> > of warmongers who had been preparing for this moment for 50
> > years.
> >
> > I don't agree that the US wouldn't have slaughtered them though.
>
> No doubt...but with heavy U.S. casualties I think among ground forces.

I don't think so. So long as the objective was to destroy Serbian
tanks, and that's it, the Serbs can attempt a guerilla campaign
from the mountains, and find that there's more Albanian
guerillas than Serb guerillas, and then you just quietly leave.

> > Probably not a good idea to run around in the hills, but in the
> > flatter areas, it's mainly a matter of having tanks with more range than
> > theirs, and you get the result you got in Iraq.
>
> Not very many flat areas in Kosovo. Mostly rugged forest and mountains.

Ok. Still, you have to remember, that if you're doing what the
majority of the population actually want, you've got a very
different situation to simply imposing your will on someone.

You could have simply armed the Albanians and not gone in at
all. You would win, but I don't think it would have been a good
idea.

> > I'd be happier if you landed a shitload more Green Berets or
> > other forces. What's the bloody problem? They're in friendly
> > territory!!! The biggest risk is from your own pilots! And
> > why aren't you calling in the equivalent special forces from all
> > the other NATO countries? Surely there's enough to go
> > around??? I don't think any NATO country or Australia/NZ
> > will refuse ANY request you make. If you wanted to be very
> > silly, you could even use ONLY other countries' troops.
>

> Unfortunately there are not shitloads of Green Berets. Also NA territory is
> not necessarily friendly territory. There many factions within the Northern
> Alliance, some of whom wouldn't mind making a quick buck by kidnapping and
> handing over a Green Beret or two to the Taliban.

Ok. So can't they go in with support? They're probably not going
to kidnap you if the only options they have are to leave you alone
or kill you.

> There are many serious
> security issues. The NA are ONLY allied to us because of a common enemy.
> Otherwise they are also fairly radical muslims who are not especially West
> friendly except when it suits them.

Sure.

> They will not be happy after this war when we suggest that they SHARE power
> with the Taliban in a democratic government. That idea is just waaaay
> beyond much of their thinking which involves centuries of fierce tribal wafa
> re as a way of life.

Let them get to Kabul for the time being, then we'll discuss switching
sides in return for Bin Laden and sharing of power.

BFN. Paul.

Swarvegorilla

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 5:19:48 AM10/31/01
to

Paul Edwards <kerr...@nosppaam.w3.to> wrote in message
news:ltPD7.271543$bY5.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

The SAS are a rapid response team. We need to be able to get them on the
scene in under 6 hours and not all fucked up and jet lagged.
The war in Afganistan is moving towards your usual grunt slugging match and
that is not the point of SF's. the more you have out there the more chance
they get caught. Any idea the sort of pain someone caught with a laser
painter would go through?
Anyway I say that as long as we whole heartedly support the American cause
that we keep our own popultaion very well defended.
These are after all dangerous times to be a civilian.
Swarvegorilla


>
>
>


Wraith

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 7:25:12 AM10/31/01
to

"Paul Edwards" <kerr...@nosppaam.w3.to> wrote in message
news:RBPD7.271577$bY5.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

> "Wraith" <miles...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:tttq15q...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > > their trenches. The hell they were. They're an enthusiastic bunch
> > > of warmongers who had been preparing for this moment for 50
> > > years.
> > >
> > > I don't agree that the US wouldn't have slaughtered them though.
> >
> > No doubt...but with heavy U.S. casualties I think among ground forces.
>
> I don't think so. So long as the objective was to destroy Serbian
> tanks, and that's it, the Serbs can attempt a guerilla campaign
> from the mountains, and find that there's more Albanian
> guerillas than Serb guerillas, and then you just quietly leave.

The problem is that tanks have infantry surrounding them. You can't get
tanks hidden in urban/heavily forested areas without going in with armor and
infantry.
This means bloody toe to toe combat. Serbian ground forces would not have
just let NATO ground troops waltz up and destroy the tanks or even get close
enough to laze them without a fight unless they're stupid enough to stick
their tanks out in the open. Even without tanks, their infantry alone were
superior in training and in many cases numbers then the KLA. The fact is
that they were kicking the KLA's asses left and right even during the
bombing campaign. It was the bombing of Belgrade that had more of an impact
then the bombing on the battlefield.
So basically tanks are just one element of any ground force. Without tanks
an infantry force can still put up very effective resistance. In the case
of the Serbs, they were equipped with excellent weaponry including PK's, .50
cal sniper rifles, lots of Druganov SVD sniper rifles, Kevlar helmets,
Type-IV heavy body armor, good uniforms and cold weather gear, NVG's. You
name it, they had it.
There is no question in my mind that they would have made life suck for NATO
ground troops.


> >
> > Not very many flat areas in Kosovo. Mostly rugged forest and mountains.
>
> Ok. Still, you have to remember, that if you're doing what the
> majority of the population actually want, you've got a very
> different situation to simply imposing your will on someone.
>
> You could have simply armed the Albanians and not gone in at
> all. You would win, but I don't think it would have been a good
> idea.

Nah cuz then you get reverse ethnic cleansing of Serbs which has already
happened to a great extent.

> > > Unfortunately there are not shitloads of Green Berets. Also NA
territory is
> > not necessarily friendly territory. There many factions within the
Northern
> > Alliance, some of whom wouldn't mind making a quick buck by kidnapping
and
> > handing over a Green Beret or two to the Taliban.
>
> Ok. So can't they go in with support? They're probably not going
> to kidnap you if the only options they have are to leave you alone
> or kill you.

Oh I'm sure they will have plenty of support and will never go anywhere
alone. This is already going on, but it is risky and requires very careful
security planning.


>
> > They will not be happy after this war when we suggest that they SHARE
power
> > with the Taliban in a democratic government. That idea is just waaaay
> > beyond much of their thinking which involves centuries of fierce tribal
wafa
> > re as a way of life.
>
> Let them get to Kabul for the time being, then we'll discuss switching
> sides in return for Bin Laden and sharing of power.
>
> BFN. Paul.

Latest reports are of NA troops massing near Kabul and intensifed airstrikes
along the front lines.
But also some senior congressmen and senators are already whining that
things are going fast enough. Idiots. They expect a quick and bloodless
two week war.
(sigh)

Wraith


Paul Edwards

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 8:00:27 AM10/31/01
to
"Swarvegorilla" <endh...@nss.aunz.net> wrote in message news:V9QD7.16$Am4...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...

> > > Well many countries have elite response teams, Australia has the SAS.
> > > You can't send them all off remember WWII, we need to keep the homefront
> > > covered as well
> >
> > You can fly from Afghanistan back to Australia in something like 14
> > hours. Pretty much exactly like they did in WWII.
> >
> > Until such time that the need for them here arises, which it won't
> > anyway, put them somewhere where they obviously ARE needed.
>

> The SAS are a rapid response team. We need to be able to get them on the
> scene in under 6 hours and not all fucked up and jet lagged.

War has risks. We should be taking the risk of having the SAS
unavailable at short notice. I'm a civilian, and I'm willing to take
the risk of (whatever happening) such that the SAS will be
unavailable to rescue me.

> The war in Afganistan is moving towards your usual grunt slugging match and
> that is not the point of SF's. the more you have out there the more chance
> they get caught. Any idea the sort of pain someone caught with a laser
> painter would go through?

It's terrible. But if you try fighting a war based on possible
maltreatment by the enemy if caught, you may as well just pack
your bags and hand your country over to the enemy. And then
the whole country will experience the brutal treatment anyway.

If you're saying that you'd rather blow up civilians to lessen the
chance of having our military personnel tortured by the Taliban,
then I can probably accept that. You should know that those
civilian casualties may cause the war to be widened though, so
are you sure it is wise? I think if you really did only kill the
Taliban, you'd have a lot more chance of keeping the rest of
the Middle East quiet. They're basically working themselves
up on these civilian deaths. Be very sure you aren't concerned
about the consequences.

You have been let in to a foreign country that did not directly
attack you, and you can't get to it without neighbours (who
will long be remembered) letting you in. Don't push your luck.

> Anyway I say that as long as we whole heartedly support the American cause

We're not if our forces are on the other side of the world
to where they are needed.

> that we keep our own popultaion very well defended.

That's what the police are for. They're armed too. Don't
worry about it, go, go. The British asked us for thousands
upon thousands of troops. The Americans have asked us
for 1500. Way to go!

> These are after all dangerous times to be a civilian.

Don't worry about it, we knew the risks when we took on
the job.

BFN. Paul.

Paul Edwards

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 9:08:37 AM10/31/01
to
"Wraith" <miles...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:ttvrf21...@corp.supernews.com...

>
> > > No doubt...but with heavy U.S. casualties I think among ground forces.
> >
> > I don't think so. So long as the objective was to destroy Serbian
> > tanks, and that's it, the Serbs can attempt a guerilla campaign
> > from the mountains, and find that there's more Albanian
> > guerillas than Serb guerillas, and then you just quietly leave.
>
> The problem is that tanks have infantry surrounding them. You can't get
> tanks hidden in urban/heavily forested areas without going in with armor and
> infantry.

I see. Ok, so what about you leave the tanks in the forest for the time
being, and you tell the Albanians to go back home, and let us know
if they see any tanks and we'll be right there?

I think the Serbs would end up being the sitting ducks. Unless
they keep their tanks well hidden, and then who cares if the
Serbs temporarily control a big of forest?!

> This means bloody toe to toe combat. Serbian ground forces would not have
> just let NATO ground troops waltz up and destroy the tanks or even get close
> enough to laze them without a fight unless they're stupid enough to stick
> their tanks out in the open.

I think at the end of the day, they only have two choices. Hide
their tanks where they are safe, but be unable to use them, or
put them out in the open, use them, and lose them.

Do you really think you could protect your tanks when the
opposition has total air superiority? I think you'd be a sitting
duck.

> Even without tanks, their infantry alone were
> superior in training and in many cases numbers then the KLA. The fact is
> that they were kicking the KLA's asses left and right even during the
> bombing campaign.

Sure, but the KLA wasn't getting direct air support, nor were
they being used to provide target info (I believe).

> It was the bombing of Belgrade that had more of an impact
> then the bombing on the battlefield.
> So basically tanks are just one element of any ground force. Without tanks
> an infantry force can still put up very effective resistance.

Hmmm, I don't think I'd like to be a soldier trying to both hide
from the air and control a population against me at the same
time.

> In the case
> of the Serbs, they were equipped with excellent weaponry including PK's, .50
> cal sniper rifles, lots of Druganov SVD sniper rifles, Kevlar helmets,
> Type-IV heavy body armor, good uniforms and cold weather gear, NVG's. You
> name it, they had it.

And surrounded by civilians who might actually be KLA. Sounds like
the recipe for a short life.

> There is no question in my mind that they would have made life suck for NATO
> ground troops.

So send the KLA (who were willing) in ahead of NATO, and tell
them to drop back at the first sign of a tank, and just concentrate
on the cities and the flat areas.

Would the flats and cities be winnable with KLA doing the sniping?

Really, there should be a tactical advantage over traditional
wars, when you're actually going in in support of the population
instead of imposing your will on it. You should have some
sort of dividend.

> > > Not very many flat areas in Kosovo. Mostly rugged forest and mountains.
> >
> > Ok. Still, you have to remember, that if you're doing what the
> > majority of the population actually want, you've got a very
> > different situation to simply imposing your will on someone.
> >
> > You could have simply armed the Albanians and not gone in at
> > all. You would win, but I don't think it would have been a good
> > idea.
>
> Nah cuz then you get reverse ethnic cleansing of Serbs which has already
> happened to a great extent.

That's their problem, and they should have thought of that when they
had a chance to do what NATO told them to do.

> > Ok. So can't they go in with support? They're probably not going
> > to kidnap you if the only options they have are to leave you alone
> > or kill you.
>
> Oh I'm sure they will have plenty of support and will never go anywhere
> alone. This is already going on, but it is risky and requires very careful
> security planning.

Well I think you should do that careful security planning instead
of uncarefully bombing NA territory.

> > Let them get to Kabul for the time being, then we'll discuss switching
> > sides in return for Bin Laden and sharing of power.
>

> Latest reports are of NA troops massing near Kabul and intensifed airstrikes
> along the front lines.

Ok!

> But also some senior congressmen and senators are already whining that
> things are going fast enough. Idiots. They expect a quick and bloodless
> two week war.
> (sigh)

:-) I'm basically one of those whiners.

Or more to the point, I believe the ground advance should be a
doddle with unchallenged air supremacy. The NA should be able
to walk it in.

Hell, previously they were able to hold their own. Now, add to
the mix, complete and absolute air supremacy. Surely the
balance of power should change not just a little bit, but radically.
It seems incomprehensible to me that they would still be at the
"still holding their own" stage.

ie complete air supremacy doesn't change a thing.

After WWII, you expect me to believe that aerial bombardment,
with 50 years of technology added, has no effect?

This is not guerillas hiding in jungle, this is troop concentrations,
in such numbers that they are preventing troops with tanks from
advancing.

I'm not sure we've ever had a situation like this in military
history, so I'm curious as to what the problem is. I expected
it to be more like Desert Storm except with NA troops instead
of our own.

I don't expect it to be like Vietnam nor like Russia's attempt.

The main differences from Russia being:

1. We want a democratic (ie publicly supported) government,
not one of our own.

2. We don't intend to stay there.

3. We don't need to control every single mountain, the major
cities will be a good start

4. The enemy has no easy way to be resupplied.

5. The enemy does not have any real outside backing.

I expect these factors should make a big difference. But
basically, I feel that I'd rather be a NA fighter armed with
a pocket knife, but with US air support, than a Taliban
fighter. Maybe I've overestimated the damage that
unchallenged planes can do?

BFN. Paul.

Swarvegorilla

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 9:45:43 AM10/31/01
to
>

> >
> > The SAS are a rapid response team. We need to be able to get them on the
> > scene in under 6 hours and not all fucked up and jet lagged.
>
> War has risks. We should be taking the risk of having the SAS
> unavailable at short notice. I'm a civilian, and I'm willing to take
> the risk of (whatever happening) such that the SAS will be
> unavailable to rescue me.


You are in a minority. There is no point having a specific specialist force
if we don't have it ready to use!

>
> > The war in Afganistan is moving towards your usual grunt slugging match
and
> > that is not the point of SF's. the more you have out there the more
chance
> > they get caught. Any idea the sort of pain someone caught with a laser
> > painter would go through?
>
> It's terrible. But if you try fighting a war based on possible
> maltreatment by the enemy if caught, you may as well just pack
> your bags and hand your country over to the enemy. And then
> the whole country will experience the brutal treatment anyway.


No thats not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that the SF troops in the
zone at the moment are only there to be real sneaky. The more there are the
less sneaky they can be. If we have all the worlds special forces in
afganistan guiding in 40 or so munitions a day whats the point if 30 men can
do it and avoid detection better. Numbers mean nothing, being in the right
place at the right time matters.


>
> If you're saying that you'd rather blow up civilians to lessen the
> chance of having our military personnel tortured by the Taliban,
> then I can probably accept that.


I would never say that.
Never.
War is fucked up enough without killing inoccents.


You should know that those
> civilian casualties may cause the war to be widened though, so
> are you sure it is wise? I think if you really did only kill the
> Taliban, you'd have a lot more chance of keeping the rest of
> the Middle East quiet. They're basically working themselves
> up on these civilian deaths. Be very sure you aren't concerned
> about the consequences.

Of course I'm concerned about civilian deaths.
people who call for revenge attacks on civilians are complete idiots.


>
> You have been let in to a foreign country that did not directly
> attack you, and you can't get to it without neighbours (who
> will long be remembered) letting you in. Don't push your luck.


?


>
> > Anyway I say that as long as we whole heartedly support the American
cause
>
> We're not if our forces are on the other side of the world
> to where they are needed.

needed for what?
This is a global strike don't restrict yourself to just afganistan.


>
> > that we keep our own popultaion very well defended.
>
> That's what the police are for. They're armed too. Don't
> worry about it, go, go. The British asked us for thousands
> upon thousands of troops. The Americans have asked us
> for 1500. Way to go!


Ummmmmm........ are you really Australian mate?


>
> > These are after all dangerous times to be a civilian.
>
> Don't worry about it, we knew the risks when we took on
> the job.

speak for yourself
Swarvegorilla

Swarvegorilla

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 10:11:43 AM10/31/01
to
>
> I'm not sure we've ever had a situation like this in military
> history, so I'm curious as to what the problem is. I expected
> it to be more like Desert Storm except with NA troops instead
> of our own.

look at Russia and Chechnya

>
> I don't expect it to be like Vietnam nor like Russia's attempt.
>
> The main differences from Russia being:
>
> 1. We want a democratic (ie publicly supported) government,
> not one of our own.

they don't believe that at all

>
> 2. We don't intend to stay there.

They think we wish to kill them instead


>
> 3. We don't need to control every single mountain, the major
> cities will be a good start


What if 'the man' is in a mountain? He's definitely not in Kabul!!!!

>
> 4. The enemy has no easy way to be resupplied.

Sure they do counter attack the NA or bump an American patrol. Both are
freshly bombed up now!
:-)


>
> 5. The enemy does not have any real outside backing.

Wasn't it an international terrorist ring? The enemy isn't Afganistan, a
fact you seem to have overlooked. It's the Taliban and the terrorists
associated with them.


>
> I expect these factors should make a big difference. But
> basically, I feel that I'd rather be a NA fighter armed with
> a pocket knife, but with US air support, than a Taliban
> fighter. Maybe I've overestimated the damage that
> unchallenged planes can do?


How close can you call in Napalm or a cluster bombs to your own position?
It's called hugging the tiger and grunts in Vietnam found out very quickly
just how much use bombers are when the enemy is 20 metres away.
These infantry survived attacks by spetnaz delivered by Hinds with full
combined arms support. They are not afraid of a bit of incoming ordanance.
You or I? Yes we'd be terrafied of B52's possibly about to drop buckets of
bombs on us out of the blue, the taliban have grown old to that sort of
shit. Sure the CO like his close air support and I like my choppers but when
it comes down to it in close quarters firefights a weapon that don't run
empty or jam and a perfect little hole are the best friends a soldier can
have. F117's and B2's are not war winners by a long shot. I think they
should send them home and get some more spookys up there. Spectres/spookys
are the best fixedwing ground support short of the new metal storm systems
and A10's.
Swarvegorilla....... serious sleep depravation


Paul Edwards

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 11:01:42 AM10/31/01
to
"Swarvegorilla" <endh...@nss.aunz.net> wrote in message news:b3UD7.42$Am4....@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...

> > > The SAS are a rapid response team. We need to be able to get them on the
> > > scene in under 6 hours and not all fucked up and jet lagged.
> >
> > War has risks. We should be taking the risk of having the SAS
> > unavailable at short notice. I'm a civilian, and I'm willing to take
> > the risk of (whatever happening) such that the SAS will be
> > unavailable to rescue me.
>
> You are in a minority. There is no point having a specific specialist force
> if we don't have it ready to use!

We are ready to use it.

> > It's terrible. But if you try fighting a war based on possible
> > maltreatment by the enemy if caught, you may as well just pack
> > your bags and hand your country over to the enemy. And then
> > the whole country will experience the brutal treatment anyway.
>
> No thats not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that the SF troops in the
> zone at the moment are only there to be real sneaky. The more there are the
> less sneaky they can be. If we have all the worlds special forces in
> afganistan guiding in 40 or so munitions a day whats the point if 30 men can
> do it and avoid detection better. Numbers mean nothing, being in the right
> place at the right time matters.

Sorry, I was replying to someone who said that the reason the
civilians are being hit is because there isn't sufficient SF troops
to direct the planes properly.

> > If you're saying that you'd rather blow up civilians to lessen the
> > chance of having our military personnel tortured by the Taliban,
> > then I can probably accept that.
>
> I would never say that.
> Never.
> War is fucked up enough without killing inoccents.

I meant accidentally killing them.

> You should know that those
> > civilian casualties may cause the war to be widened though, so
> > are you sure it is wise? I think if you really did only kill the
> > Taliban, you'd have a lot more chance of keeping the rest of
> > the Middle East quiet. They're basically working themselves
> > up on these civilian deaths. Be very sure you aren't concerned
> > about the consequences.
>
> Of course I'm concerned about civilian deaths.
> people who call for revenge attacks on civilians are complete idiots.

I think you misunderstood me.

> > You have been let in to a foreign country that did not directly
> > attack you, and you can't get to it without neighbours (who
> > will long be remembered) letting you in. Don't push your luck.
>
> ?

1. Afghanistan did not directly attack the US.

2. It has not even been proven that Bin Laden is responsible.

3. We can't actually get to Afghanistan without invading or
being let in by someone else.

4. That someone else will still have to live with Afghanistan,
long after America has lost interest. The Afghanis may have
long memories about that.

5. Pakistan even created the Taliban and doesn't like the NA.

6. Pakistan let us in anyway, that was really nice of them.

7. Now you want civilians to die because you don't want to
risk your SF troops to guide the bombing raids properly?

8. Don't push your luck.

> > > Anyway I say that as long as we whole heartedly support the American
> cause
> >
> > We're not if our forces are on the other side of the world
> > to where they are needed.
>
> needed for what?

To guide bombing strikes away from civilian areas, especially in
NA-held territory.

> This is a global strike don't restrict yourself to just afganistan.

There's not much happening over here.

> > > that we keep our own popultaion very well defended.
> >
> > That's what the police are for. They're armed too. Don't
> > worry about it, go, go. The British asked us for thousands
> > upon thousands of troops. The Americans have asked us
> > for 1500. Way to go!
>
> Ummmmmm........ are you really Australian mate?

Ummmmmm.... last time I looked at my birth certificate.

The defence of our nation against a major power like Russia
or Japan is purely dependent on us being able to get hardware
and maybe personnel too from the Americans.

What will you do when the US trots out the line "sorry, can't
lend you any planes, we may need them in case Japan attacks
us"?

I'd call them a bunch of selfish seppos myself. Shortly afterwards
I'd either be dead or speaking Japanese, and hoping that the
Japs move on to the US eventually. And Sweden, never forget
Sweden.

> > > These are after all dangerous times to be a civilian.
> >
> > Don't worry about it, we knew the risks when we took on
> > the job.
>
> speak for yourself

Ok. How's your Japanese/Indonesian? BFN. Paul.

Paul Edwards

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 11:22:36 AM10/31/01
to
"Swarvegorilla" <endh...@nss.aunz.net> wrote in message news:ArUD7.46$Am4....@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...

> >
> > I'm not sure we've ever had a situation like this in military
> > history, so I'm curious as to what the problem is. I expected
> > it to be more like Desert Storm except with NA troops instead
> > of our own.
>
> look at Russia and Chechnya

I'm not sure the Chechans actually had a frontline. Nor were
they imposing their will on the population like the Taliban does.

> > I don't expect it to be like Vietnam nor like Russia's attempt.
> >
> > The main differences from Russia being:
> >
> > 1. We want a democratic (ie publicly supported) government,
> > not one of our own.
>
> they don't believe that at all

It doesn't really matter, they will get it and vote for one of their
stupid Islamic leaders anyway. So long as they don't sponsor
terrorism they can do what they want to their women and
donkeys.

> > 2. We don't intend to stay there.
>
> They think we wish to kill them instead

They will find out that that isn't true.

> > 3. We don't need to control every single mountain, the major
> > cities will be a good start
>
> What if 'the man' is in a mountain? He's definitely not in Kabul!!!!

We only need to control that one mountain temporarily. That's
a far cry from what the Russians were attempting.

> > 4. The enemy has no easy way to be resupplied.
>
> Sure they do counter attack the NA or bump an American patrol. Both are
> freshly bombed up now!
> :-)

That's not what I call easy, especially when we don't even
need any patrols of our own. It'll be a democracy.
Democracies don't need patrols.

> > 5. The enemy does not have any real outside backing.
>
> Wasn't it an international terrorist ring? The enemy isn't Afganistan, a
> fact you seem to have overlooked. It's the Taliban and the terrorists
> associated with them.

I'm talking about the military objective of getting the NA troops
into Kabul. I'm asking what the holdup is.

> > I expect these factors should make a big difference. But
> > basically, I feel that I'd rather be a NA fighter armed with
> > a pocket knife, but with US air support, than a Taliban
> > fighter. Maybe I've overestimated the damage that
> > unchallenged planes can do?
>
> How close can you call in Napalm or a cluster bombs to your own position?
> It's called hugging the tiger

:-) Thanks. What a wonderful name!

> and grunts in Vietnam found out very quickly
> just how much use bombers are when the enemy is 20 metres away.

So develop a new tactic that involves not getting so close to them?
Like retreating as soon as you find out where they are, and call
in airstrikes?

> These infantry survived attacks by spetnaz delivered by Hinds with full
> combined arms support. They are not afraid of a bit of incoming ordanance.
> You or I? Yes we'd be terrafied of B52's possibly about to drop buckets of
> bombs on us out of the blue, the taliban have grown old to that sort of
> shit. Sure the CO like his close air support and I like my choppers but when
> it comes down to it in close quarters firefights a weapon that don't run
> empty or jam and a perfect little hole are the best friends a soldier can
> have. F117's and B2's are not war winners by a long shot.

People have mistakenly thought that they could win wars from the
air for a long time and been wrong for a long time. But actually
the gulf war was the first time that that objective was actually
achieved, sort of. Saddam offered to withdraw before the ground
attack began, but wanted a ceasefire before he would do it, which
was unacceptable to the allies. And we'll never know if he was
bluffing anyway.

So it might have happened then.

And finally in Kosovo it happened, purely from the air.

I'm certainly not saying that this can be won from the air, but we've
got air AND we've got NA troops. And Kosovo and Iraq have
shown that it is now too simplistic to say that "air power is never
sufficient". And in Iraq the job for the ground forces was so simple
that even a CNN crew could have taken it. Hell, they did!

Ok, admittedly there was tank battles, but once again, they were
not strictly necessary, they could have called in airstrikes instead
if they wanted to. Even the CNN crew could have called them
in.

> I think they
> should send them home and get some more spookys up there. Spectres/spookys
> are the best fixedwing ground support short of the new metal storm systems
> and A10's.

Aren't they vulnerable to AAA? I guess I'm looking for a way for
our planes to stay out of range of AAA, and minimum casualties
for the NA. Can it be done?

BFN. Paul.

Rizla Ranger (Re-Energised) UK

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 1:55:51 PM10/31/01
to
He died by assasination on the 16th :)


Respec'!

Riz


"DiMethylTryptamine" wrote

Rizla Ranger (Re-Energised) UK

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 4:42:48 PM10/31/01
to
That would be, ummm, that guy......

errr.... what's his name? .....

Ray Theon

"Paul Edwards" <kerr...@w3.to> wrote

Ceri Jones

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 5:47:52 PM10/31/01
to
"Paul Edwards" <kerr...@nosppaam.w3.to> wrote in message
news:ltPD7.271543$bY5.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

> > How do you deal with terrorists?
>
> Attacking anywhere that they do it overtly is a really great place
> to start.

By the time they commit an overt act it is to late.

>
> And put spies into places where they do it covertly, then attack
> them too.

As a rule intelligence officers do not make paramilitary actions, they
collect information and pass it on. The sound of gunfire and they are out of
there quicker than bad prawn curry through a dwarf. Getting any kind of
productive intelligence operation going against the current crop of
terrorists would take years.

Wilkes Reese

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 6:24:53 PM10/31/01
to
Thanks for the input Ceri. That's why I wanted to learn more. Born in
69, I was about 13 and very impressionable. As a matter of fact, I
wanted to be an electrical engineer before I saw newsfeeds of the
Grenada op. When I saw a group of cammied up Rangers patrolling the
beach that's all it took. I was ASVAB testing at 15, in delayed entry
at 17, in boot right after high school. I wanted to be an AB/Ranger.
But, at the time, USA did not have a guaranteed enlistment option as
such. So, I joined the USMC. I wasn't going to go in the USA as
infantry and try out later if they let me. I didn't want to take the
chance of them putting me where they wanted me. Plus, I knew I could
make it through USA boot with no challenge. I wanted a challenge. I
wanted to see the world, wear cool cammies and dress blues, and "see
the elephant" as Teddy Roosevelt put it.
Thanks for the web-site, Riz. I'm going to check into buying vieo on
the Falklands, plus I'm looking at a couple of books. I always
wondered why USA never helped out much (if at all) in the Falklands.
It was a lot more righteous, IMHO and w/ my limited knowledge of it,
than our endeavors in Grenada or Panama. And, I know the logistics
people for UK in the Falklands had to be working their asses off.
I'll address some other discussion on this feed regarding bombing
Afghanistan;
personally, I think such bombing is only in the best interest of the
military industrial complex. The military multi-death corps. Bombing
them, even with smart bombs, will do little. Many Iraqis during the
ground war of the Gulf were ready to fight. Those that were not were
mostly in bad shape because of hunger. And look at the Allies island
hopping campaign in the Pacific in WWII-on the taking of many islands,
there was naval gunfire, airstrikes, and arty from nearby islands
pummeling enemy held island territory for 2-3 weeks or more at a time
prior to landings. Upon landing, there was still enough enemy
opposition to blow hundreds of landing craft out of the water and kill
many tanks and troops. The Japs were so dumbfounded at how the
American troops took Tarawa, they devised different strategies for
defense. Honeycomb. Caves and masterfully created bunkers and spider
holes. Snipers in trees (stupid, but you might be able to get a few
before being dispatched off the planet), mines, booby traps, guerrilla
warfare (hell, they wanted to fight in the jungle! They fought like
partisan defenders in their own back yards).
Bombing only uses bombs, thus putting $ in that industries pockets.
When it comes to actually taking ground or winning the war (this won't
be for a long time, the rich bastards have to protract it, you know)
it will be the little men, the sons of daughters of riled up
patriotism losing their lives. And there will be many a military
blunder leaving it's bloody mark on history. And what will the vet get
when he gets back alive? A license plate marking him as a vet. A free
trip to Sea World. Free family portraits at Sears. Perhaps he can be a
cop and wear body armor, a badge and uniform, and a gun and make
$14/hr in that shameful dirty, thankless profession. There is too much
evil in the world. It just doesn't pay to be a good guy.


"Ceri Jones" <Ceri....@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:<9rn13v$loe$1...@uranium.btinternet.com>...

Rizla Ranger (Re-Energised) UK

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 6:31:47 PM10/31/01
to
ROFLMFAO!

:)


Ceri Jones" wrote
[snip]

Swarvegorilla

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 7:37:55 PM10/31/01
to
> > >
> > > I'm not sure we've ever had a situation like this in military
> > > history, so I'm curious as to what the problem is. I expected
> > > it to be more like Desert Storm except with NA troops instead
> > > of our own.
> >
> > look at Russia and Chechnya
>
> I'm not sure the Chechans actually had a frontline. Nor were
> they imposing their will on the population like the Taliban does.

?
WTF?
They are both populations being attacked by an overwhelming force.
Anyway if you make up the population why do you need to impose your will?

>
> > > I don't expect it to be like Vietnam nor like Russia's attempt.
> > >
> > > The main differences from Russia being:
> > >
> > > 1. We want a democratic (ie publicly supported) government,
> > > not one of our own.
> >
> > they don't believe that at all
>
> It doesn't really matter, they will get it and vote for one of their
> stupid Islamic leaders anyway. So long as they don't sponsor
> terrorism they can do what they want to their women and
> donkeys.


It's also not an aim. If the USA does get Osama are you sure they will hang
around for the messy civil war to follow?

>
> > > 2. We don't intend to stay there.
> >
> > They think we wish to kill them instead
>
> They will find out that that isn't true.


I'm pretty sure they have found out it is true....... kinda hard to miss
when your countries getting bombed and the US is helping your worst enemy to
get into your cities and get revenge. Are you really so blind you don't see
this?


>
> > > 3. We don't need to control every single mountain, the major
> > > cities will be a good start
> >
> > What if 'the man' is in a mountain? He's definitely not in Kabul!!!!
>
> We only need to control that one mountain temporarily. That's
> a far cry from what the Russians were attempting.


What the Americans are attempting is mind boggling in scale as well. But I
digress anyway, if you understood anything about infantry work you would
know high ground is where the victory is. To attack one mountain you have to
secure the surrounding mountains and to secure them you need to secure the
ones around them. Mountain warfare is not easy at all.


>
> > > 4. The enemy has no easy way to be resupplied.
> >
> > Sure they do counter attack the NA or bump an American patrol. Both are
> > freshly bombed up now!
> > :-)
>
> That's not what I call easy, especially when we don't even
> need any patrols of our own. It'll be a democracy.
> Democracies don't need patrols.


We are a democracy and we are constanly patrolling air, sea and land. Why
would a war zone be any different?


>
> > > 5. The enemy does not have any real outside backing.
> >
> > Wasn't it an international terrorist ring? The enemy isn't Afganistan, a
> > fact you seem to have overlooked. It's the Taliban and the terrorists
> > associated with them.
>
> I'm talking about the military objective of getting the NA troops
> into Kabul. I'm asking what the holdup is.

they are called taliban


>
> > > I expect these factors should make a big difference. But
> > > basically, I feel that I'd rather be a NA fighter armed with
> > > a pocket knife, but with US air support, than a Taliban
> > > fighter. Maybe I've overestimated the damage that
> > > unchallenged planes can do?
> >
> > How close can you call in Napalm or a cluster bombs to your own
position?
> > It's called hugging the tiger
>
> :-) Thanks. What a wonderful name!
>
> > and grunts in Vietnam found out very quickly
> > just how much use bombers are when the enemy is 20 metres away.
>
> So develop a new tactic that involves not getting so close to them?
> Like retreating as soon as you find out where they are, and call
> in airstrikes?

If you retreat from disciplined troops like these guys they will attack and
seize your positions.


shakes head
shakes head again
Iraq and Kosovo had infrastructure that could be destroyed. This enemy has
none. Almost a completely opposite situation.
Were you in the gulf? There was some hard fighting in the ground war. What
you just said would piss off a hell of a lot of people. I'd advise against
repeating it.


>
> Ok, admittedly there was tank battles, but once again, they were
> not strictly necessary, they could have called in airstrikes instead
> if they wanted to. Even the CNN crew could have called them
> in.

They arm CNN crews with laser painters now?


>
> > I think they
> > should send them home and get some more spookys up there.
Spectres/spookys
> > are the best fixedwing ground support short of the new metal storm
systems
> > and A10's.
>
> Aren't they vulnerable to AAA? I guess I'm looking for a way for
> our planes to stay out of range of AAA, and minimum casualties
> for the NA. Can it be done?


AAA positions are vunerable to them........ anyway don't we have complete
free range of the air?
Swarvegorilla

Swarvegorilla

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 7:37:55 PM10/31/01
to
> > >
> > > I'm not sure we've ever had a situation like this in military
> > > history, so I'm curious as to what the problem is. I expected
> > > it to be more like Desert Storm except with NA troops instead
> > > of our own.
> >
> > look at Russia and Chechnya
>
> I'm not sure the Chechans actually had a frontline. Nor were
> they imposing their will on the population like the Taliban does.

?


WTF?
They are both populations being attacked by an overwhelming force.
Anyway if you make up the population why do you need to impose your will?

>


> > > I don't expect it to be like Vietnam nor like Russia's attempt.
> > >
> > > The main differences from Russia being:
> > >
> > > 1. We want a democratic (ie publicly supported) government,
> > > not one of our own.
> >
> > they don't believe that at all
>
> It doesn't really matter, they will get it and vote for one of their
> stupid Islamic leaders anyway. So long as they don't sponsor
> terrorism they can do what they want to their women and
> donkeys.

It's also not an aim. If the USA does get Osama are you sure they will hang
around for the messy civil war to follow?

>


> > > 2. We don't intend to stay there.
> >
> > They think we wish to kill them instead
>
> They will find out that that isn't true.

I'm pretty sure they have found out it is true....... kinda hard to miss
when your countries getting bombed and the US is helping your worst enemy to
get into your cities and get revenge. Are you really so blind you don't see
this?


>


> > > 3. We don't need to control every single mountain, the major
> > > cities will be a good start
> >
> > What if 'the man' is in a mountain? He's definitely not in Kabul!!!!
>
> We only need to control that one mountain temporarily. That's
> a far cry from what the Russians were attempting.

What the Americans are attempting is mind boggling in scale as well. But I
digress anyway, if you understood anything about infantry work you would
know high ground is where the victory is. To attack one mountain you have to
secure the surrounding mountains and to secure them you need to secure the
ones around them. Mountain warfare is not easy at all.


>


> > > 4. The enemy has no easy way to be resupplied.
> >
> > Sure they do counter attack the NA or bump an American patrol. Both are
> > freshly bombed up now!
> > :-)
>
> That's not what I call easy, especially when we don't even
> need any patrols of our own. It'll be a democracy.
> Democracies don't need patrols.

We are a democracy and we are constanly patrolling air, sea and land. Why
would a war zone be any different?


>


> > > 5. The enemy does not have any real outside backing.
> >
> > Wasn't it an international terrorist ring? The enemy isn't Afganistan, a
> > fact you seem to have overlooked. It's the Taliban and the terrorists
> > associated with them.
>
> I'm talking about the military objective of getting the NA troops
> into Kabul. I'm asking what the holdup is.

they are called taliban


>
> > > I expect these factors should make a big difference. But
> > > basically, I feel that I'd rather be a NA fighter armed with
> > > a pocket knife, but with US air support, than a Taliban
> > > fighter. Maybe I've overestimated the damage that
> > > unchallenged planes can do?
> >
> > How close can you call in Napalm or a cluster bombs to your own
position?
> > It's called hugging the tiger
>
> :-) Thanks. What a wonderful name!
>
> > and grunts in Vietnam found out very quickly
> > just how much use bombers are when the enemy is 20 metres away.
>
> So develop a new tactic that involves not getting so close to them?
> Like retreating as soon as you find out where they are, and call
> in airstrikes?

If you retreat from disciplined troops like these guys they will attack and
seize your positions.


>

shakes head
shakes head again
Iraq and Kosovo had infrastructure that could be destroyed. This enemy has
none. Almost a completely opposite situation.
Were you in the gulf? There was some hard fighting in the ground war. What
you just said would piss off a hell of a lot of people. I'd advise against
repeating it.


>


> Ok, admittedly there was tank battles, but once again, they were
> not strictly necessary, they could have called in airstrikes instead
> if they wanted to. Even the CNN crew could have called them
> in.

They arm CNN crews with laser painters now?


>


> > I think they
> > should send them home and get some more spookys up there.
Spectres/spookys
> > are the best fixedwing ground support short of the new metal storm
systems
> > and A10's.
>
> Aren't they vulnerable to AAA? I guess I'm looking for a way for
> our planes to stay out of range of AAA, and minimum casualties
> for the NA. Can it be done?

Swarvegorilla

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 8:18:16 PM10/31/01
to
>
> 1. Afghanistan did not directly attack the US.
>
> 2. It has not even been proven that Bin Laden is responsible.
>
> 3. We can't actually get to Afghanistan without invading or
> being let in by someone else.
>
> 4. That someone else will still have to live with Afghanistan,
> long after America has lost interest. The Afghanis may have
> long memories about that.
>
> 5. Pakistan even created the Taliban and doesn't like the NA.
>
> 6. Pakistan let us in anyway, that was really nice of them.
>
> 7. Now you want civilians to die because you don't want to
> risk your SF troops to guide the bombing raids properly?
>
> 8. Don't push your luck.

> > speak for yourself
>
> Ok. How's your Japanese/Indonesian? BFN. Paul.
>

My Bahasa isn't too bad....... why?
Have to study them in highschool last year?
Swarvegorilla


>
>


Swarvegorilla

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 8:21:01 PM10/31/01
to

Leave this one to you Wraith.............

Wraith

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 9:24:06 PM10/31/01
to

> > The problem is that tanks have infantry surrounding them. You can't get
> > tanks hidden in urban/heavily forested areas without going in with armor
and
> > infantry.
>
> I see. Ok, so what about you leave the tanks in the forest for the time
> being, and you tell the Albanians to go back home, and let us know
> if they see any tanks and we'll be right there?
>
> I think the Serbs would end up being the sitting ducks. Unless
> they keep their tanks well hidden, and then who cares if the
> Serbs temporarily control a big of forest?!

Nope...no Albanian in their right mind would have done that unless they felt
like adding their corpse to another mass grave. Tanks are mobile...they can
be in the forest one minute with heavy camoflage and IR suppressive cover,
and within minutes they can roll out, do some damage and then return again.
Good tank crews no how to shoot and scoot very well. Meanwhile their
infantry cover not only the forest but villages and countryside as well with
prepositioned artillery, minefields, ambush points, ect...


> > This means bloody toe to toe combat. Serbian ground forces would not
have
> > just let NATO ground troops waltz up and destroy the tanks or even get
close
> > enough to laze them without a fight unless they're stupid enough to
stick
> > their tanks out in the open.
>
> I think at the end of the day, they only have two choices. Hide
> their tanks where they are safe, but be unable to use them, or
> put them out in the open, use them, and lose them.
>
> Do you really think you could protect your tanks when the
> opposition has total air superiority? I think you'd be a sitting
> duck.

Not really. Saddam Hussein was able to retain still a vast amount of armor
as his forces learned quite a bit about decoys and how to hide tanks. His
problem was they were all out in wide open spaces favorable to Western Tanks
with their advanced fire control systems. In a place like Kosovo it's quite
easy to "shoot and scoot". Mean shoot, hide, shoot, and hide again.

> > Even without tanks, their infantry alone were
> > superior in training and in many cases numbers then the KLA. The fact
is
> > that they were kicking the KLA's asses left and right even during the
> > bombing campaign.
>
> Sure, but the KLA wasn't getting direct air support, nor were
> they being used to provide target info (I believe).

U.S. Army Special Forces were doing much of the targetting although most of
those operations are classified and I haven't seen any reports as to whether
or not they were working with the KLA. However I did see quite a few KLA
carrying what looked like Western weapons including what looked like Barrett
.50 cal rifles.


> > It was the bombing of Belgrade that had more of an impact
> > then the bombing on the battlefield.
> > So basically tanks are just one element of any ground force. Without
tanks
> > an infantry force can still put up very effective resistance.
>
> Hmmm, I don't think I'd like to be a soldier trying to both hide
> from the air and control a population against me at the same
> time.

No it certainly wouldn't be fun, but the Serbs were doing it. One reason
why the Serbs turned on Milosovich was because he backed out of Kosovo.
That outraged many Serbs...it didn't help when many military reservists went
unpaid and raised hell in Belgrade. Militarily the Serbs were successful
against the KLA, but politically they got whipped.

> > In the case
> > of the Serbs, they were equipped with excellent weaponry including PK's,
.50
> > cal sniper rifles, lots of Druganov SVD sniper rifles, Kevlar helmets,
> > Type-IV heavy body armor, good uniforms and cold weather gear, NVG's.
You
> > name it, they had it.
>
> And surrounded by civilians who might actually be KLA. Sounds like
> the recipe for a short life.

No... they drove most of the Albanians out. Only a few old men and women
were left in the town they "cleansed". Also don't forget that lots of Serbs
lived in Kosovo as well.

> > There is no question in my mind that they would have made life suck for
NATO
> > ground troops.
>
> So send the KLA (who were willing) in ahead of NATO, and tell
> them to drop back at the first sign of a tank, and just concentrate
> on the cities and the flat areas.

Sure...that might have happened but Army's don't work together over night.
It would have taken A LOT of careful coordination in operations between KLA
and NATO forces. Quite frankly many NATO commanders probably would have
just prefered to handle situations themselves rather then put KLA into areas
where they'd likely get slaughtered due to lack of proper military training.

> Would the flats and cities be winnable with KLA doing the sniping?

No... sniping doesn't win battles unfortunately no matter how much
Hollywood leads us to believe that. Also the KLA snipers were great targets
for trained Serbian snipers. Anyone can fire a scoped rifle. Some are
good shots with scoped rifles. However if you don't have proper training
as a Sniper (other then just being able to shoot well) you're most likely
going to be target practice for enemy counter-snipers trained to predict,
detect, and kill enemy snipers.


> Really, there should be a tactical advantage over traditional
> wars, when you're actually going in in support of the population
> instead of imposing your will on it. You should have some
> sort of dividend.

Except not all the population was Albanian in Kosovo.


> >
> > Oh I'm sure they will have plenty of support and will never go anywhere
> > alone. This is already going on, but it is risky and requires very
careful
> > security planning.
>
> Well I think you should do that careful security planning instead
> of uncarefully bombing NA territory.

Shit happens when bombing. In ever war you get friendly fire incidents.
The Gulf War had some of the highest friendly fire ratios. All that stuff
may be high tech, but it only takes one tiny slip up by one person in the
air or on the ground (or in an office somewhere marking targets on a
computer) to cause a world of hurt on their comrads and allies.

> > > Let them get to Kabul for the time being, then we'll discuss switching
> > > sides in return for Bin Laden and sharing of power.
> >
> > Latest reports are of NA troops massing near Kabul and intensifed
airstrikes
> > along the front lines.
>
> Ok!
>
> > But also some senior congressmen and senators are already whining that
> > things are going fast enough. Idiots. They expect a quick and
bloodless
> > two week war.
> > (sigh)
>
> :-) I'm basically one of those whiners.
>
> Or more to the point, I believe the ground advance should be a
> doddle with unchallenged air supremacy. The NA should be able
> to walk it in.

We've taken out a few Taliban tanks...but I guarantee you that we haven't
even made the smallest dent in their ground forces that are dug in inside of
Kabul and other cities along with others in the mountains dug into massive
underground caves and bunkers. The NA have been trying to make headway
against the Taliban for years. But they're on the move so we'll see what
happens. The Taliban are tough son of a bitches so if they try to take
Kabul, I'm sure the Taliban have a nasty welcome for them. And if they do
take it, the NA is likely to butcher a good part of the population
afterwards. Those are people are no friends of the U.S., and are only
partners of convenience with the U.S. at the moment. It'll be interesting
to see how long the partnership lasts.

> Hell, previously they were able to hold their own. Now, add to
> the mix, complete and absolute air supremacy. Surely the
> balance of power should change not just a little bit, but radically.
> It seems incomprehensible to me that they would still be at the
> "still holding their own" stage.
>
> ie complete air supremacy doesn't change a thing.

It'll help a little bit, but we're talking an army made up of mostly foot
soldiers. Big deal if they lose their tiny fleet of migs and helicopters
and a few tanks that barely work. Their strength is not in their airforce
or armor. It's in their infantry. Losing artillery pieces however will
hurt them badly. But even then all the airpower in the world can't keep
track of or target small units of Taliban running around.


> After WWII, you expect me to believe that aerial bombardment,
> with 50 years of technology added, has no effect?

Oh it has effect but limited effect against an enemy with high morale. We
learned that in Vietnam.

> This is not guerillas hiding in jungle, this is troop concentrations,
> in such numbers that they are preventing troops with tanks from
> advancing.

Remember you history....these are the same fellas that kicked the crap out
of the Soviets who had far better weaponry and complete air superiority.
They were also incredibly brutal in Afghanistan, but that didn't help
matters.
U.S. forces are only slightly better off but not by much. Our Ace in the
hole is that our troops are far better trained then most Russian troops.
This isn't jungle, but the terrain is very mountainous and holds LOTS of
places for excellent ambushes.

> I'm not sure we've ever had a situation like this in military
> history, so I'm curious as to what the problem is. I expected
> it to be more like Desert Storm except with NA troops instead
> of our own.

> I don't expect it to be like Vietnam nor like Russia's attempt.

It's WAAAAY different the Desert Storm. In Desert Storm we faced an enemy
schooled in Russian defensive tactics which U.S. forces knew inside and out.
Almost all U.S. units train extensively at the National Training Center in
Ft. Irwin California. I've trained there myself. The OPFOR (opposing
force) units are specifically trained to fight using Russian tactics to make
the massive war games there as realistic as possible all the way down to
mock ups of Russian vehicles (and a few real ones) in similar uniforms.
Desert Storm was much like the training most of the units had experienced
and their enemy was using techniques that they had faced before in simulated
war games. So things went like clockwork. The Afghanis however, fight in
a much more uncoventional manner and do not have massive arrays of armored
forces using Soviet style defensive strategy. Afghans fight like
Afghans....and that means that they fight dirty using every trick in the
book. Many of the guys there are the same ones who have been butchering
Russian troops in Chechnya (although to be fair the Russians have butchered
plenty of them in Chechnya as well). They know the terrain and they know
to fight to full effect in it.
I would be absolutely stunned if this war was over in less then a year. I
predict that it'll take probably around two hand a half to three years to
win and that it will cost about 2000 - 5000 U.S. lives once the ground
troops move in and become busy engaging the Taliban. At the moment it's
more of an experiment to see how effective special operations and Northern
Alliance forces alone can handle the Taliban. But if that fails, then
conventional infantry and armored units would likely join the fight in a big
way.


> The main differences from Russia being:
>
> 1. We want a democratic (ie publicly supported) government,
> not one of our own.
>
> 2. We don't intend to stay there.
>
> 3. We don't need to control every single mountain, the major
> cities will be a good start
>
> 4. The enemy has no easy way to be resupplied.
>
> 5. The enemy does not have any real outside backing.

Yeah they do...they got tons of outside backing. Haven't you watched the
news?

> I expect these factors should make a big difference. But
> basically, I feel that I'd rather be a NA fighter armed with
> a pocket knife, but with US air support, than a Taliban
> fighter. Maybe I've overestimated the damage that
> unchallenged planes can do?
>
> BFN. Paul.

Airsupport is a wonderful thing and no doubt played an enormously important
role in Desert Storm, but this is a totally different type of war against a
much different type of enemy. Air power will still be important, but more
for accurate close air support missions.

Wraith


Wraith

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 9:39:09 PM10/31/01
to
LOL!...but damn it, it take so long for me to type these replies...I spent
like 3 hours on the last one...made me late turning in a paper for class on
stone projectile points. LOL! Now THOSE are a real man's weapons!!! Good
ol' obsidian & flint blades!!!


Wraith

"Swarvegorilla" <endh...@nss.aunz.net> wrote in message

news:kq1E7.34$At4...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...

Wraith

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 12:55:39 AM11/1/01
to

Take 10 deep breaths and move the mouse away from the send key Swarve. I
think he was saying something else about you that I thought was pretty
fucking dispicable being that he's never served in the military. I think
he's definitely crossed the line to troll so I'm not going to answer his
replies seriously myself.
If I was still in the military I wouldn't be looking forward to going to
Afghanistan either. Of coarse I would go, but for some fucking civilian to
say "Go soldier Go! We don't care how dangerous it is as long as its you
going and not me!" in my face at least would require a good lecturing, but
for someone to call me a coward for not looking forward to being shot at
would definitely require dropping them to the ground and delivering several
kicks to their groins using the full force of my combat boot. If Paul
lives in your neck of the woods perhaps you may want to pay him a vist and
teach him the finer points of soldiering. :)

Wraith


"Swarvegorilla" <endh...@nss.aunz.net> wrote in message

news:iq1E7.33$At4...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...

Swarvegorilla

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 3:38:34 AM11/1/01
to
> It's WAAAAY different the Desert Storm. In Desert Storm we faced an enemy
> schooled in Russian defensive tactics which U.S. forces knew inside and
out.
> Almost all U.S. units train extensively at the National Training Center in
> Ft. Irwin California. I've trained there myself. The OPFOR (opposing
> force) units are specifically trained to fight using Russian tactics to
make
> the massive war games there as realistic as possible all the way down to
> mock ups of Russian vehicles (and a few real ones) in similar uniforms.


Who exactly do I have to kill/fuck to get there?
Damn we have nothing that compares to the sort of HUGE training scenarios
you guys get to play.
:-(
Swarvegorilla...... grunts just wanna have fun


Swarvegorilla

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 3:41:26 AM11/1/01
to
Learnt how to make a cool sharpened wire fish spear the other day AND
managed to get a fish with it.
Sure it was a docile catfish but at least it works.
Cooked it up for my mates dog as a nice set of fillets with lemon grass.
That thing will like me best before he gets back or else dammit!
:-)
Swarvegorilla


Wraith <miles...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:tu1dg9r...@corp.supernews.com...

Swarvegorilla

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 3:44:17 AM11/1/01
to
Nah he's down in the training areas........
heh
Althoungh I'm headed Singo way anyway soon.
perhaps we should meet for a beer or something?
Now was that ratio 3:1 or 5:1?
I always forget the little things
<G>
Swarvegorilla


Wraith <miles...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:tu1p0nc...@corp.supernews.com...

Paul Edwards

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 9:07:50 AM11/1/01
to
"Swarvegorilla" <endh...@nss.aunz.net> wrote in message news:0Q0E7.22$At4...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...

> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure we've ever had a situation like this in military
> > > > history, so I'm curious as to what the problem is. I expected
> > > > it to be more like Desert Storm except with NA troops instead
> > > > of our own.
> > >
> > > look at Russia and Chechnya
> >
> > I'm not sure the Chechans actually had a frontline. Nor were
> > they imposing their will on the population like the Taliban does.
>
> ?
> WTF?
> They are both populations being attacked by an overwhelming force.

The population is not being attacked in Afghanistan, only military
fronts and supply lines. Chechnya only had guerillas, or the
situation was pretty close to that anyway.

> Anyway if you make up the population why do you need to impose your will?

The government that replaces the Taliban will have public
support, since they elect it.

> > It doesn't really matter, they will get it and vote for one of their
> > stupid Islamic leaders anyway. So long as they don't sponsor
> > terrorism they can do what they want to their women and
> > donkeys.
>
> It's also not an aim. If the USA does get Osama are you sure they will hang
> around for the messy civil war to follow?

I think it would be wiser to use airpower to back who you
want (ie a broad-based government but that doesn't support
terrorism) in the civil war, and then it should be easier to
find OBL, ie you let the broad-based-anti-terrorist government
to find him for you.

> > > > 2. We don't intend to stay there.
> > >
> > > They think we wish to kill them instead
> >
> > They will find out that that isn't true.
>
> I'm pretty sure they have found out it is true....... kinda hard to miss
> when your countries getting bombed and the US is helping your worst enemy to
> get into your cities and get revenge. Are you really so blind you don't see
> this?

The NA isn't their worst enemy, and the idea is not to replace the
NA in Kabul with a broad-based government, so they should be
able to figure it out eventually.

> > > > 3. We don't need to control every single mountain, the major
> > > > cities will be a good start
> > >
> > > What if 'the man' is in a mountain? He's definitely not in Kabul!!!!
> >
> > We only need to control that one mountain temporarily. That's
> > a far cry from what the Russians were attempting.
>
> What the Americans are attempting is mind boggling in scale as well. But I
> digress anyway, if you understood anything about infantry work you would
> know high ground is where the victory is.

It's called an aeroplane.

> To attack one mountain you have to
> secure the surrounding mountains and to secure them you need to secure the
> ones around them. Mountain warfare is not easy at all.

Carpet bomb all the surrounding mountains while the operation
to get OBL out of the one mountain we're interested in is going
on.

Besides which, I don't expect that it will even be our job, it will
be the job of the broad-based government. And if they don't
do the job for us, we'll switch our air support to someone else.

> > > > 4. The enemy has no easy way to be resupplied.
> > >
> > > Sure they do counter attack the NA or bump an American patrol. Both are
> > > freshly bombed up now!
> > > :-)
> >
> > That's not what I call easy, especially when we don't even
> > need any patrols of our own. It'll be a democracy.
> > Democracies don't need patrols.
>
> We are a democracy and we are constanly patrolling air, sea and land. Why
> would a war zone be any different?

We're patrolling our own land are we? Now there's a complete
waste of time. Besides which, I think they missed my area.

> > > > 5. The enemy does not have any real outside backing.
> > >
> > > Wasn't it an international terrorist ring? The enemy isn't Afganistan, a
> > > fact you seem to have overlooked. It's the Taliban and the terrorists
> > > associated with them.
> >
> > I'm talking about the military objective of getting the NA troops
> > into Kabul. I'm asking what the holdup is.
>
> they are called taliban

Who can be defeated by doing what, in this situation? And
I'm only talking about allowing the NA to advance the
remaining 30km, at this stage. Worry about the rest later.

If we can accomplish that, the Taliban might come to a
compromise. Or we'll get a lot of defections, as the other
factions realise that the claim that the US can't win the real
(ground) war disappears out the window, and the reality
is that whichever side we back can occupy any ground we
want them to be able to occupy.

> > So develop a new tactic that involves not getting so close to them?
> > Like retreating as soon as you find out where they are, and call
> > in airstrikes?
>
> If you retreat from disciplined troops like these guys they will attack and
> seize your positions.

Then don't advance all your troops to within 20m of them in the
first place, just send out scouts and let the scouts retreat after
getting a coordinate to blow up?

> > I'm certainly not saying that this can be won from the air, but we've
> > got air AND we've got NA troops. And Kosovo and Iraq have
> > shown that it is now too simplistic to say that "air power is never
> > sufficient". And in Iraq the job for the ground forces was so simple
> > that even a CNN crew could have taken it. Hell, they did!
>
> shakes head
> shakes head again
> Iraq and Kosovo had infrastructure that could be destroyed. This enemy has
> none. Almost a completely opposite situation.

So with all the infrastructure already destroyed, what's the holdup?

> Were you in the gulf? There was some hard fighting in the ground war. What
> you just said would piss off a hell of a lot of people. I'd advise against
> repeating it.

I'm not saying there wasn't, I'm saying that it probably wasn't
necessary, they only needed to call in air strikes.

> > Ok, admittedly there was tank battles, but once again, they were
> > not strictly necessary, they could have called in airstrikes instead
> > if they wanted to. Even the CNN crew could have called them
> > in.
>
> They arm CNN crews with laser painters now?

No, the Iraqis surrendered to them in one instance. Or so I
heard.

> > > I think they
> > > should send them home and get some more spookys up there.
> Spectres/spookys
> > > are the best fixedwing ground support short of the new metal storm
> systems
> > > and A10's.
> >
> > Aren't they vulnerable to AAA? I guess I'm looking for a way for
> > our planes to stay out of range of AAA, and minimum casualties
> > for the NA. Can it be done?
>
> AAA positions are vunerable to them........ anyway don't we have complete
> free range of the air?

So long as we stay above 2km anyway.

BFN. Paul.

Rizla Ranger UK

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 9:38:29 AM11/1/01
to
why don't you go and post your
shite ramblings on alt.war?

I doubt they'd find ya as boring
as I and others here do AND it
would have a whole lot more relevance
to the actual subject of that newsgroup...

I haven't noticed one mention of
mercenaries in the plethora of posts
of yours here that I briefly scan and
then delete.

Or are you simply just an alt.diet.support
GPS waypoint searching Lightweight Oz Troll?

RR
---
All my typos are copyright traps

Paul Edwards says..... ZZZZZZzzzzzzzz


Wraith

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 9:51:24 AM11/1/01
to
LOL! :)

Wraith


"Swarvegorilla" <endh...@nss.aunz.net> wrote in message

news:lS7E7.12$rE4...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...

Wraith

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 9:52:47 AM11/1/01
to
Cool! Catfish are yummy! I like 'em batter fried! Hmmmm Hmm Hmm!!!
(getting hungry)
Wraith


"Swarvegorilla" <endh...@nss.aunz.net> wrote in message

news:GP7E7.11$rE4...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...

Wraith

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 9:56:43 AM11/1/01
to

Damn...and you boys got all that desert to play in! Hehehe...nah seriously
they get foreign military training down there all the time in exchange
programs. You just gotta talk to some of the yank military attache's over
in you neck of the woods to see about getting over there. It's really
good training and the OPFOR forces there are GOOD because that's their job.
They know ever trick in the book and actually usually win.
For example they do nasty tricks like sneaking their vehicles into convoys
to create havoc...lots of reverse slope tactics, and ambushes.... all kinds
of nasty stuff.
Wraith

"Swarvegorilla" <endh...@nss.aunz.net> wrote in message

news:_M7E7.10$rE4...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...

Wraith

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 9:59:09 AM11/1/01
to
Yup, definitely a troll. I finally got bored of him as well. Hard to
believe he's Australian.
Wraith

--
"Getting eaten by a crocodile is JUST like falling asleep... in a blender!"
- Homer Simpson


"Rizla Ranger UK" <LAWsL...@RidgelineWesleys.edu> wrote in message
news:F7dE7.8660$xS6....@www.newsranger.com...

Swarvegorilla

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 11:53:36 AM11/1/01
to

Wraith <miles...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:tu2on8k...@corp.supernews.com...

>
> Damn...and you boys got all that desert to play in! Hehehe...nah
seriously
> they get foreign military training down there all the time in exchange
> programs. You just gotta talk to some of the yank military attache's over
> in you neck of the woods to see about getting over there. It's really
> good training and the OPFOR forces there are GOOD because that's their
job.
> They know ever trick in the book and actually usually win.
> For example they do nasty tricks like sneaking their vehicles into convoys
> to create havoc...lots of reverse slope tactics, and ambushes.... all
kinds
> of nasty stuff.
> Wraith
>


Yea I hear shit about it all the time. Iv'e watched other people from my
unit leave for combined X's there. iv'e hear the stories in the boozer. hell
Iv'e laughed at the photos.........
But as for getting there yet, no luck.
it'll happen but probably not until I gain absolute power.
Swarvegorilla

Swarvegorilla

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 11:56:57 AM11/1/01
to
Iv'e never eaten one before. i was after fresh water perch but my chances
were slim of getting one. Then I thought a crayfish would be nice but before
I could find any this catfish just slowly swam past in knee deep water.
If it had been a survival situation I would have been laughing, but when you
already have a nice steak planned.........
Next time for sure
Swarvegorilla


Wraith <miles...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:tu2og31...@corp.supernews.com...

Ceri Jones

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 11:33:17 AM11/1/01
to
LOL...


--


THE WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE IS THE HIGHEST LAW


"Rizla Ranger (Re-Energised) UK" <Eat...@TheGatesOfHeavenlyPussy.Com> wrote
in message news:3be070c1$0$8506$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...

Ceri Jones

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 11:29:06 AM11/1/01
to
"Wilkes Reese" <pirha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:496ed369.0110...@posting.google.com...
>
>>>SNIP<<<

I'm going to check into buying vieo on
> the Falklands, plus I'm looking at a couple of books. I always
> wondered why USA never helped out much (if at all) in the Falklands.

Politics. American foreign policy is based on the Monroe doctrine, which
says in a conflict on the American continent America cannot side with a
former Imperial power, especially a European one. Also the US did not want
to piss off other south American countries who's sympathies lay more with
Argentina, so it stayed officially neutral.
In reality the US was a HUGE help. The airfield on Ascension Island
(logistically vital) was American-leased. The CIA and NRO shared Intel,
evaluations and imagery with SIS. The NSA shared sigint (after a polite
reminder of how vital their UK ground stations were :-) . SecDef Weinburger
(spelling???) personally offered the British Ambassador in Washington an
American aircraft carrier should Hermes or Illustrious be sunk (there was
some wry comments that the Admiralty wanted to scuttle both of them when
they heard :-) This was a big offer and Reagan would have caught hell over
it internationally, despite the fact that a little fancy footwork using the
old WW2 lend-lease agreements would have made it technically legal. The FBI
turned a blind eye to operations against the Argentine Embassy and UN
mission. In addition directly and indirectly the US gave the UK
replacements sidewinder missiles, aviation fuel, SF satcomms and loads of
other small things that may have not won the campaign but sure as hell saved
lives.
After the conflict the US helped to make good the deficiencies it had shown
in our equipment, allowing us to purchase and helping integrate the Phalanx
CIWS quicker than anyone though possible.
I suppose all the things the US did for us come under the heading
friendship........even if you are uppity bloody colonials :-)

BTW, Wilkes is your Christian name?

Paul Edwards

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 12:46:03 PM11/1/01
to
"Wraith" <miles...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:tu1p0nc...@corp.supernews.com...

> If I was still in the military I wouldn't be looking forward to going to
> Afghanistan either. Of coarse I would go, but for some fucking civilian to
> say "Go soldier Go! We don't care how dangerous it is as long as its you
> going and not me!" in my face at least would require a good lecturing, but

I think you'll find that it's civilians that pay your wages and decide
where you should fight. They should have explained that to you
on the job application.

BTW, we're 6000 civilians dead already.

> for someone to call me a coward for not looking forward to being shot at

No-one said that. Anyone who looks forward to being shot
at has a psychological problem.

> would definitely require dropping them to the ground and delivering several
> kicks to their groins using the full force of my combat boot.

Great, our military is heroic when it comes to beating up
civilians of their own side who pay their wages and use
their freedom of expression in a democracy.

That'll come in useful one day for sure.

> If Paul
> lives in your neck of the woods perhaps you may want to pay him a vist and
> teach him the finer points of soldiering. :)

Have fun playing mummies and daddies in prison afterwards.

BFN. Paul.

Paul Edwards

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 12:49:16 PM11/1/01
to
"Ceri Jones" <Ceri....@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:9rpv5m$plt$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...

> "Paul Edwards" <kerr...@nosppaam.w3.to> wrote in message
> news:ltPD7.271543$bY5.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> > > How do you deal with terrorists?
> >
> > Attacking anywhere that they do it overtly is a really great place
> > to start.
>
> By the time they commit an overt act it is to late.

Don't wait for them to act, as soon as the video goes out
explaining where to come to sign up and where to send
your donation, start carpet bombing.

> > And put spies into places where they do it covertly, then attack
> > them too.
>
> As a rule intelligence officers do not make paramilitary actions, they
> collect information and pass it on.

That's what I meant.

> The sound of gunfire and they are out of
> there quicker than bad prawn curry through a dwarf. Getting any kind of
> productive intelligence operation going against the current crop of
> terrorists would take years.

Well if it's difficult for new people to sign up, that's a good start.

BFN. Paul.

Paul Edwards

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 12:59:17 PM11/1/01
to
"Wilkes Reese" <pirha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:496ed369.0110...@posting.google.com...

> the Falklands, plus I'm looking at a couple of books. I always


> wondered why USA never helped out much (if at all) in the Falklands.
> It was a lot more righteous, IMHO and w/ my limited knowledge of it,
> than our endeavors in Grenada or Panama. And, I know the logistics

The US provided the UK with the missiles that made it possible
to win. Had you armed the Argentinians with those missiles the
entire fleet would have been sunk.

> Bombing only uses bombs, thus putting $ in that industries pockets.

That's just silly conspiracy. If you don't think the bombing
is useful, speak to your senior management about skipping
that phase of the operation.

> When it comes to actually taking ground or winning the war (this won't
> be for a long time, the rich bastards have to protract it, you know)

I think you'll find it's not up to the bomb manufacturers as
to how long the bombing campaign lasts. There's this
guy called Mr Franks I think his name is.

> it will be the little men, the sons of daughters of riled up
> patriotism losing their lives. And there will be many a military
> blunder leaving it's bloody mark on history.

Blunders are acceptable, negligence isn't.

> And what will the vet get
> when he gets back alive? A license plate marking him as a vet. A free
> trip to Sea World. Free family portraits at Sears. Perhaps he can be a
> cop and wear body armor, a badge and uniform, and a gun and make
> $14/hr in that shameful dirty, thankless profession. There is too much
> evil in the world. It just doesn't pay to be a good guy.

Have you considered a change of career, you obviously don't
like this one! No-one's forcing you, you realise?

BFN. Paul.

Swarvegorilla

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 1:15:16 PM11/1/01
to
how about if on three we all went
PLONK
?


Paul Edwards

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 1:47:22 PM11/1/01
to
"Wraith" <miles...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:tu1ck3e...@corp.supernews.com...

>
> > > The problem is that tanks have infantry surrounding them. You can't get
> > > tanks hidden in urban/heavily forested areas without going in with armor
> and
> > > infantry.
> >
> > I see. Ok, so what about you leave the tanks in the forest for the time
> > being, and you tell the Albanians to go back home, and let us know
> > if they see any tanks and we'll be right there?
> >
> > I think the Serbs would end up being the sitting ducks. Unless
> > they keep their tanks well hidden, and then who cares if the
> > Serbs temporarily control a big of forest?!
>
> Nope...no Albanian in their right mind would have done that unless they felt
> like adding their corpse to another mass grave. Tanks are mobile...they can
> be in the forest one minute with heavy camoflage and IR suppressive cover,
> and within minutes they can roll out,

If you have planes circling overhead, they can be at any spot in
Kosovo within minutes too. Or seconds in fact, if you make sure
you have 5 planes flying over wherever you are sending troops.

> do some damage and then return again.
> Good tank crews no how to shoot and scoot very well. Meanwhile their
> infantry cover not only the forest but villages and countryside as well with
> prepositioned artillery, minefields, ambush points, ect...

Hmmm.

> Not really. Saddam Hussein was able to retain still a vast amount of armor
> as his forces learned quite a bit about decoys and how to hide tanks. His
> problem was they were all out in wide open spaces favorable to Western Tanks
> with their advanced fire control systems. In a place like Kosovo it's quite
> easy to "shoot and scoot". Mean shoot, hide, shoot, and hide again.

Ok. So how did the Germans manage to occupy Yugoslavia
then? The Yugoslavs were forced to fight a guerilla campaign,
they weren't allowed to drive tanks around.

> > Hmmm, I don't think I'd like to be a soldier trying to both hide
> > from the air and control a population against me at the same
> > time.
>
> No it certainly wouldn't be fun, but the Serbs were doing it. One reason
> why the Serbs turned on Milosovich was because he backed out of Kosovo.

I doubt that was the real reason. He didn't have much choice unless
he wanted to be bombed into the ground. They had absolutely no
future in their country under him.

> That outraged many Serbs...it didn't help when many military reservists went
> unpaid and raised hell in Belgrade. Militarily the Serbs were successful
> against the KLA, but politically they got whipped.

Milosovic only got kicked out after subsequent elections which
he attempted to rig. That was a long time later, like a year or
something.

> > So send the KLA (who were willing) in ahead of NATO, and tell
> > them to drop back at the first sign of a tank, and just concentrate
> > on the cities and the flat areas.
>
> Sure...that might have happened but Army's don't work together over night.

What's the problem? Give them a GPS and a radio and tell them
to give coordinates of any tanks or troop concentrations they
find, we'll do the rest?

> It would have taken A LOT of careful coordination in operations between KLA
> and NATO forces. Quite frankly many NATO commanders probably would have
> just prefered to handle situations themselves rather then put KLA into areas
> where they'd likely get slaughtered due to lack of proper military training.

I assume the Serbs were so successful against the KLA only after
they got rid of the civilian population that they were hiding amongst?

Otherwise, if the Serbs are so good, why didn't they just wipe
out the KLA a long time ago? We wouldn't have cared about
that.

> > Would the flats and cities be winnable with KLA doing the sniping?
>
> No... sniping