Skip to comments.
Few Commando Units in Striking Distance
New York Times ^
| Oct. 6, 2001
| Thom Shanker
Posted on 10/06/2001 11:57:29 PM PDT by jerod
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-34 next last
Comparing this mission to Somali, is like comparing Granada to WWII.
1
posted on
10/06/2001 11:57:29 PM PDT
by
jerod
To: jerod
There weren't 5,000 plus Americans killed in Mogodeshui.(SP?)
2
posted on
10/07/2001 12:00:41 AM PDT
by
jerod
To: jerod
Dis-info campaign. Keep em guessing.
To: jerod
If this information is true, the reporter has no business reporting it. If this information is false, the reporter has no business reporting it.
To: jerod
Few is enough.
5
posted on
10/07/2001 12:04:00 AM PDT
by
PRND21
To: PRND21
It seens the striking range is right next door !
NOT !
To: jerod
But spectacular failures still haunt these forces. That statement couldn't be further from the truth. In Somalia, tha failure was 100% political, 100% Clinton's unwillingness to take the mission seriously, and reluctance to act.
7
posted on
10/07/2001 12:11:34 AM PDT
by
piasa
To: Gordian Blade
If this information is true, the reporter has no business reporting it. If this information is false, the reporter has no business reporting it.
Welcome to the New York Times. All the disinformation that is fit to print. These are the original Clymers. Clymer works there!
Let us hope the information is false.
If I were in the White House I would be feeding these jerks a blizzard of disinformation on a background basis and nothing on a for attribution basis.
I would be sending them to report on all my decoys, nonexistent units, passed-over strategies, and missions to nowhere.
They report. I roflmao.
8
posted on
10/07/2001 12:20:20 AM PDT
by
cgbg
To: jerod
To this writer (who doesn't understand squat about the military) I paraphrase Churchill: "Never fear. All will come right."
This isn't a Clintoon operation. We're taking our time. We're preparing. We'll do it right, with as little loss of life as possible.
9
posted on
10/07/2001 12:24:32 AM PDT
by
GVnana
To: jerod
Afghanistan is the size of Texas, 250,000 squre miles, (or twice the size of all of Viet Nam), it has 18,000 foot tall mountains, and it's 500 miles from the ocean to the closest frontier. And winter comes in a few weeks.
Tall order, no matter how many specops troops you have.
To: Travis McGee
It is not in the how or who, but when. These operations take time. I'm patient.
11
posted on
10/07/2001 12:28:55 AM PDT
by
lavrenti
To: piasa
Exactly!!!
The political will for this operation is 100%, and the will of the American people is certainly high.
The question is this.
How many liberal loving nay-sayers, like Thom Shanker, will write opinions under the guise of News, (like the above story) in an effort to demoralize and disillusion the public? And will their efforts be successfull?
12
posted on
10/07/2001 12:31:49 AM PDT
by
jerod
To: lavrenti
There will be operations in Afghanistan, and I hope that it works out for us.
But I recall going personally to Beirut in January of 1983 as a young officer with great optimism and high hopes and the best intentions.
Beirut, (with our fleet anchored within rifleshot), was a pimple on Afghanistan's camel, and we know how Beirut turned out. And Somalia later.
Great intentions are not worth crap in the middle east.
Read "Blackhawk Down" about the operation to snatch Aidid's lieutenents THREE MILES from the US Army Ranger/Delta compound.
Again: big as Texas, 18,000' mountains, 500 to 1000 miles from our fleet.
Catching Osama is going to be no piece of cake unless he's real stupid. And we know he ain't stupid.
To: Taliban_List
To search for other threads on the Taliban_List
(Indexed by using Taliban_List)
click here:
Taliban_List
To: jerod
Are you kidding? Do you think the Pentagon is going to tell where the special ops are?? Puhleeeeze! Get real!
15
posted on
10/07/2001 1:49:05 AM PDT
by
Sueann
To: Travis McGee
Beirut, (with our fleet anchored within rifleshot), was a pimple on Afghanistan's camel, and we know how Beirut turned out. And Somalia later. Great intentions are not worth crap in the middle east.
Nonsense, we're not trying to occupy Afghanistan in the same manner that we occupied Beirut. Bush wants to hit Bin Laden and the Taliban hard and get the hell out. This is the right strategy. Practically every conflict where we've had a peacekeeping role has turned to sh*t. And mostly because our Democratic Commander-in-Chiefs didn't have the balls to go the distance (except Truman).
16
posted on
10/07/2001 2:17:29 AM PDT
by
Bush2000
To: Travis McGee
Catching Osama is going to be no piece of cake unless he's real stupid. And we know he ain't stupid.
If Bin Laden holes up in a cave, we can detonate enough rock and dirt to bury him forever. End of problem.
17
posted on
10/07/2001 2:18:37 AM PDT
by
Bush2000
To: jerod
How many liberal loving nay-sayers, like Thom Shanker, will write opinions under the guise of News, (like the above story) in an effort to demoralize and disillusion the public? And will their efforts be successfull? Not a chance. The administration is the only force that could demoralize the people now.
I know absolutely no one who isn't determined to come out of this victorious. Even people I normally would consider political enemies are unanimous in their support of wiping these terrorists out.
A lot of people I know are a bit jittery about the unknowns of the "how" and the "where" of the next attack, but they are all firm in their resolve.
To: Travis McGee
Osama won't be a piece of cake, that is for certain. This is going to be a long, perhaps permanent affiar, not just with him but with others of his kind. While Blackhawk Down is a very accurate account of Somalia - the best I know- that account was about the LAST effort to get Aidid which failed. What it didn't cover was the other opportunities, by other means- not to capture him but to kill him- which PRECEEDED that last fateful effort. And there were others, if you know what I mean. People have no idea how close Aidid was to buying the farm when Clinton turned chicken and wouldn't give permission. I suppose he was worried about the political fallout of killing Aidid outright, given the prohibitions on assassination, and 'perhaps'- just maybe- was more interested in discrediting the service. Finding Aidid was never a problem. The will to take him out was the problem. That's what I mean when I say it was 100% political. Aidid was in the bag, quite literally, before the UN even pumped his power with all their food aid.
19
posted on
10/07/2001 2:37:47 AM PDT
by
piasa
To: piasa
Even after being put in an exposed position, and denied access to heavy armor, the Rangers took out 100 Somalis for each man they lost. The "failure" was indeed of the leadership at the top, not the courage, determination, or fighting skills of the Rangers. Les Aspin as Sec Def? Give me an f***ing break!
20
posted on
10/07/2001 4:30:51 AM PDT
by
jpthomas
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-34 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson