Posted on 01/11/2007 12:00:40 AM PST by jmc1969
Nato says as many as 150 Taleban militants have been killed in a battle in eastern Afghanistan.
An Afghan military commander said the battle was sparked when fighters crossed from Pakistan into Afghanistan's Paktika province.
The army responded with artillery and Nato forces with air strikes, he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...
"My son is heading there day after tomorrow."
GOD BLESS YOUR SON!!!!!!!!!
"My son is heading there day after tomorrow."
GOD BLESS YOUR SON!!!!!!!!!
These wars are going too well to suit the Left. Time for them to crank up their stupid whining.
Benevolence and ruthlessness. I guess we needed a pause to show the kids our benevolent side before resuming the task of taking out their lost older generation. Good stuff.
Prayers up for your son .. we SO appreciate his service. God bless you all.
Thanks you guys!! I am very proud of him!
The surest way to win in war is to kill the enemy; and a lasting peace always follows absolute and unambiguous victory.
You have good reason to be proud of you son.
My daughter, on the other hand wants to be in the media, she isn't a liberal yet, but exists as a closet conservative.
Oh Dear!! Well, we do need good people there too!! I hope she at least goes to work for FoxNews!! haha!
Thanks Buffalo!!
Karl-Heinz is that you? Enjoying your post-football life?
War is about breaking the enemies ability to make war or their willingness to fight war. Sometimes both. I believe that in Islam countries ONLY power is respected. If we had Roman rules from the start of this there would be NO "civil war" in Iraq. The price for raising a gun on the wrong side of the line would be too much for anyone to pay.
Also, as a member of the Southeast Asian War Games (Second Place) I fully believe that the North VN's ability to make war was broken at Tet. We just let them negotiate too long after that. Had we taken the FULL battle North in 1969 VN would now be free. The Soviets and The Chi-cons could of whined but we would have freed the all of the country.
Sure, counterinsurgencies can be stopped through pure force IF enough force is used. That is not going to happen in the modern world and certainly not in the Middle East. Neither side has the stomach for that.
Also, as a member of the Southeast Asian War Games (Second Place) I fully believe that the North VN's ability to make war was broken at Tet. We just let them negotiate too long after that. Had we taken the FULL battle North in 1969 VN would now be free.
The US never had an effective counterinsurgency policy in Vietnam and treated it as a conventional war. IMHO, that is why we lost. Taking North Vietnam wouldn't have guaranteed an end to the war. That would have required defeating the insurgents which is a much difficult task that just destroying tanks. Taking North Vietnam without defeating the will of the insurgents to fight would have simply made the war much more costly as is happening in Iraq.
On the other hand look at the British experience in Malaya where they were able to mount an effective campaign and put an end to the fighting. It is a perfect model for what we should be doing in Iraq.
lol not really ... I could have called myself Rummyfan also.
Read about the British experience in Malaya and you will have a much better idea.
Can you imagine if we had to destroy the Nazi war machine and have make the German people like us at the same time.
Moot point. You are confusing apples and oranges. WWII was a conventional war.
We we're fighting a regular NVA army not the viet cong which were decimated during Tet.
If we were fighting a regular war after Tet, why was a lot of energy being spent into pacification programs using combined US/Vietnamese forces? Those certainly were not implemented to go after an 'Army' in the conventional sense of the word. Maybe if Abrams would have replaced Westmoreland a few years before Tet the war would have had a different outcome.... with or without the support of the American public.
I'll believe you -- AFTER someone has tried the "stomp" approach in the modern era with modern means..
Until them -- your "theory" doesn't convince..
Wars can not be won -- overly concerned with winning "hearts and minds"...
Wars are won by killing the enemy or severely kicking his ass in the direction you wish -- his heart and mind will follow.
Wars shouldn't commence until all diplomacy and attempts to be "rational" have failed... Once war commences, we should not then burden or endanger our warriors by asking them to be "diplomats".
Until we are 100% committed to killing ALL who oppose us or supports those who oppose us -- we should keep our warriors HOME...
Semper Fi
Well according to Chivas Eddy Kennedy and NUancy Pelosi this is only going to make muslims mad and INCREASE how many terrorists there are.
I say the only good Talibanisn is a dead Talibanian.
Lotta good news today!
A Taleban spokesman said those killed were civilians, not militants. […]Makes you wonder: How can there be such a thing as a “Taleban spokesman” and why is he not shot on sight? Especially if he is so easy to find that AP can apparently contact and interview him whenever they like?The spokesman, Dr Muhammad Hanif, told Associated Press news agency that the figure of 150 Taleban fighters killed was “a complete lie.”
What a sweet expression!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.