zmcegj2x0mz http://www.771299.com/1094121.html 2clogtuz

-- With a kill radius of 30 meters.
So how precise is that? --

Precise enough to kill everything within 30 yards of its impact point!

The question is not how precise is it. The question is can it hit what it's aimed at. (Called accuracy. Not precision).

And it can.

"Of course I have no understanding of military technology or airpower, or I wouldn't have cited Apache helicopters as indiscriminate-- they fire precision-guided Hellfire missiles"

With a kill radius of 30 meters.
So how precise is that?

Thanks for making my point, little echo.

They got any private bathroom stalls over there?

Dimitry writes:"Really? You should then study the new anti-insurgency manual, written by one D. Petreus, an approach that embraces the tenets of 4GW - protecting civilians, moral level of war, increasing the legitimacy of the state through political reconciliation."

you can label it whatever you like, but these aspects were quite clear since the dawn of war. Again nothing new. I would cite examples but there are way too many.
4gw is a label for many things, anything outside of shooting yr enemy with a gun can be 4gw, a fifth column, propaganda, leaflets etc. Nothing new under the sun here. Militaries will always adapt to changing situations.

"[T]here's no empirical evidence that air power is more deadly than equivalent ground engagements . . . ."

I am having a very tough time believing that this is true, in any straightforward sense. I guess it depends on what you mean by "equivalent"?

But at first blush this seems more contrarian than astute.

"[T]here's no empirical evidence that air power is more deadly than equivalent ground engagements . . . ."

I am having a very tough time believing that this is true, in any straightforward sense. I guess it depends on what you mean by "equivalent"?

But at first blush this seems more contrarian than astute.

Air Power's indiscriminate usage...

All that matters is that you kill someone.

The attackers used it against the United States on 911, and the United States, unprovoked, turned around and used it in Iraq. And more and more and more the USA is using it in Afghanistan? Will we ever learn.

Moral equvalent!

I say even the playing field. Let's ship more horses to Aghanistan, so that we can engage in a fair fight with whoever our purported enemy is in Afghanistan!

Really funny all this thing about Air Power. Someone asked where this air poer was when 9/11 happened. Well 9/11 is always mentioned because it has this emotional appeal. I for one would ask where this Air Power was when, of all the places, PENTAGON was attacked? PENTAGON?

Yeah... gee whiz... bombing-the-crap out of "the enemy" worked really well in Vietnam. We could, and just about did, bomb "every nook and cranny" of that country too.

Lots of civilian casualties really screwing up our ability to win the war? Arkin seems to think it's just silly to bring it up. (His argument runs something along the lines of "Afghanistan is really big, and has lots of people and the Bush administration has failed to commit anywhere near the troops and resources necessary to win, so we HAVE to kill civilians." Perfectly logical...eh?

Yet this Arkin statement is the truly sad one: "But few people seem to understand or appreciate what air power affords -- not even, apparently, U.S. commanders."

I suppose WaPo pundits are infinitely better then the neo-cons of the Bush administration at deciding how to employ U.S. military power, but I'm not quite ready to listen to Arkin criticize the U.S. General in charge of the NATO operation for not coming up with the same "brilliant" conclusions he had.

Where is this 4GW literature found - Dimitry?
Can you let us know about your sources?

Prime Minister Bush...?

After Bush completes his second term in office, I propose that the American constitution be amended in order to create create the new office of Prime Minister in the USSA, for more and more we are looking like a totalitarian nation, similar to the old USSR.

Let Bush, like Mr. Putin finish what he started. I have looked into his soul!

God help us!

==--no Dimitry , you need to do some research on 4gw. The very idea that thousands of year of warfare has suddenly evolved and changed to 4gw is ludicrous at best. Any reading of history will show that insurgencies and transient gray enemies are common. Picking certain instances to validate a new type of warfare "4gw" is intellectually dishonest at best. You will need to hold towns villages and bomb the daylights out of known enemy locations. Winning hearts and minds, propaganda, working with the locals is and will always be part of war, you dont need a exotic title like 4gw to highlight that ever present fact. "oh, its a new type of warefare called 4gw "... please , spare me, nothing new as usual. You'll notice how 4gw "theorists"pick and choose there conflicts to support there theory, obviously they have a gullible audience. One of the common knocks against 4gw theorists have been there lack of knowledge on military history...not surprising.==

Really? You should then study the new anti-insurgency manual, written by one D. Petreus, an approach that embraces the tenets of 4GW - protecting civilians, moral level of war, increasing the legitimacy of the state through political reconciliation.

The fight against Al Kaida is a classic example of 4GW, and our military near-total inability to actually mount an effective stategy in Iraq is a testimony to the level of unpreparedness at the top echelons of our military leadership to fight the current war, not the last one.

That's why you are unable to come up with any rational plan to use the most formidable weapon in our tacticl arsean in a 4GW context - they are effectively useless in this conflict. Which is why I tried to get accross to the first war-monger who advocated their use. They will definitely kill people and break things, they will definitely have non-intended and likely horrific blowback for our country for years and decades to come, but what they will not do is to win a 4GW conflict.

To advocate their use in the 4GW conflict is to effectively carry a banner that proclaims one to be a military idiot. Al Kaida would be most happy if we started throwing nukes around!

Dimitry writes:"The nature of 4th generation warfare is radically different and tactical victories mean very little or nothing at all as does the "body count". I suggest you try to learn just a little bit about the nature of the war your country is in, before you start espousing the use of nuclear weapons to resolve it."

--no Dimitry , you need to do some research on 4gw. The very idea that thousands of year of warfare has suddenly evolved and changed to 4gw is ludicrous at best. Any reading of history will show that insurgencies and transient gray enemies
are common. Picking certain instances to validate a new type of warfare "4gw" is intellectually dishonest at best. You will need to hold towns villages and bomb the daylights out of known enemy locations. Winning hearts and minds, propaganda, working with the locals is and will always be part of war, you dont need a exotic title like 4gw to highlight that ever present fact. "oh, its a new type of warefare called 4gw "... please , spare me, nothing new as usual. You'll notice how 4gw "theorists"pick and choose there conflicts to support there theory, obviously they have a gullible audience. One of the common knocks against 4gw theorists have been there lack of knowledge on military history...not surprising.

==You cant cite any examples of major conflicts being resolved absent the use or threat of or use of force. In fact if you looked at ww2, you'd see how if France acted pre-emptively while the German war machine was weak, we would have well avoided a world war. But yr thoughts ring hollow, except for madman like Kim Il or Ahmed who love your way of thinking, Hitler loved it too. Mad men know sheep and know how to shear them. Yr vaunted UN and international law have done nothing for peace in ME, the cold war or any other major conflict, oh, I am wrong, except for South Korea , where US military might saved another nation from some despot. Thank goodness for military might.You talk about morality, where's the morality of those killed by Saddam , how many resolutions did you need for that one to end ? pol pot ?, Dafur ? North Korea ? those on the left think they cornered the market on morality, meanwhile they watch and nod there heads muttering"well, we cant save the world so lets do nothing but talk a little more" while untold thousands die. Yeah we may have created some monsters but we sure took out alot more.==

I am sorry, you just don't understand the nature of the conflict. Your knowledge of the history of military conflict ends with WWII, which is a last significant military conflict that was played by old rules. The nature of 4th generation warfare is radically different and tactical victories mean very little or nothing at all as does the "body count". I suggest you try to learn just a little bit about the nature of the war your country is in, before you start espousing the use of nuclear weapons to resolve it.

==-- no I answered it, what is our policy with NK ? what was our policy with communist China/ Soviet Russia ? what is it that you cant figure out from our previous policy stances ? its not even complicated , its human nature.Lets simply this...what is yr policy on the specific use of yr gun when a criminal starts loading his gun, says he's going to kill you , slowly raises his gun, takes aim ,cocks the hammer and then you see him squeezing the trigger, You cant figure that out ? on each progression you cant think about what might/ should be done ?, if you can welcome to nuclear policy 101. No doubt, there is diplomacy, but without the trillion dollar war machine and nukes...you first get laughed at , then shot.==

I am afraid you did not answer it at all, but rather did a little stupid dance about old times and being a tough guy.

The original post, if I can refresh your short memory, is the use of the nuclear weapons in the context of the so called "war on terror" and if the American people were "tough enough" to do so.

I asked, in highly specific terms, what target would one use nuclear weapons on, in the "war on terror", to what purpose, and to achieve which goals.

You responded with non-sequiters on how we won the cold war and how to repel criminals. That's nonsense.

You obviously have no ideas, as to how one would employ nuclear weapons in a 4GW conflict, which is a form of counter-insurgency.

The reason you can't come up with an answer, is that there isn't one. Nuclear weapons can't be used to achieve victory in a 4GW conflict.

The problem with war-mongers is that they think with their "d_ck", not their head. That's why we are in Iraq.

I would have to side with Alex on this one - Dimitry; but his point is well understood.
And McNeill was right about the claims of the enemy; they were refuted. You know that in any war - the first casualty of war - is the truth.
Don't pick on the US - your favorite target. It is the nature of combatants to do this - on either side.

Personally, I would like to see the change in the amount of opium that is coming out of there. That stuff - in its vast quantity has done sooo much harm - especially in the US. But that is another subject altogether..

WE know in part, and see in part...

So the bottom line is that you can't answer any of the questions on the actually use of actual nuclear weapons that I posed. Thought so.

-- no I answered it, what is our policy with NK ? what was our policy with communist China/ Soviet Russia ? what is it that you cant figure out from our previous policy stances ? its not even complicated , its human nature.Lets simply this...what is yr policy on the specific use of yr gun when a criminal starts loading his gun, says he's going to kill you , slowly raises his gun, takes aim ,cocks the hammer and then you see him squeezing the trigger, You cant figure that out ? on each progression you cant think about what might/ should be done ?, if you can welcome to nuclear policy 101. No doubt, there is diplomacy, but without the trillion dollar war machine and nukes...you first get laughed at , then shot.

Dimitry writes"Alexandr, ignorance is not strength. We are spending MORE on our military thant the REST OF THE WORLD, combined"

- yes, so ? what is the problem ? I'm very happy to have the best military in the world. I'm sure you think its wrong, but there you go again because guess who would also love to have us to stop spending on our military...North Korea, Iran, Russia, China, its amazing how your arguments always dovetail with those who certainly don't wish us the best. Dimitry, they love you in those countries. They would quote you line and verse. Why is that ?

Dimitry writes:"If you had capacity to learn and analyze, you would know that a reaction with overwhealming force is exactly the wrong approach in 4GW, as the battle occurs on the strategic and moral levels, not tactical."

--You cant cite any examples of major conflicts being resolved absent the use or threat of or use of force. In fact if you looked at ww2, you'd see how if France acted pre-emptively while the German war machine was weak, we would have well avoided a world war. But yr thoughts ring hollow, except for madman like Kim Il or Ahmed who love your way of thinking, Hitler loved it too. Mad men know sheep and know how to shear them. Yr vaunted UN and international law have done nothing for peace in ME, the cold war or any other major conflict, oh, I am wrong, except for South Korea , where US military might saved another nation from some despot. Thank goodness for military might.You talk about morality, where's the morality of those killed by Saddam , how many resolutions did you need for that one to end ? pol pot ?, Dafur ? North Korea ? those on the left think they cornered the market on morality, meanwhile they watch and nod there heads muttering"well, we cant save the world so lets do nothing but talk a little more" while untold thousands die. Yeah we may have created some monsters but we sure took out alot more.

==We will be pouring trillions more into the military , just like Russia, China, Iran, because none of them want to send there guys out on horseback either==

Unlike what you have read, Alexandr, ignorance is not strength. We are spending MORE on our military thant the REST OF THE WORLD, combined. So catch-up, if any is to occur, would be the other countries you mentioned to START spending anything that even approaches what we spend. Google it.

==why is it so hard to answer these questions ? what happened during the cold war when we had adversaries just as scary(actually less scary since secular totalitarians still try to avoid death, unlike islamofacists who welcome it) as Ahmed ? If Pakistan were to fall to extremists and control of there nukes fell into radical islamists, if Ahmed did get a hold of a bomb and planned to use it. Nothing is an exact science , as much as we were able to hold our ground during the Cuban missile crisis, we need that same determination/resoluteness. Unlike your methods which seem to take no account of human nature and what is necessary to deal with it. You tell a mad men with a gun that
under no circumstances will we use force to change his mind and see where you get. Its a ridiculous position when dealing with unsavory characters, any reading of history will tell you as much Please no minuscule useless examples of how the UN and International law stopped a "no nothing" conflict in a "no nothing" part of the world. ==

So the bottom line is that you can't answer any of the questions on the actualy use of actual nuclear weapons that I posed. Thought so.

All you can do, like other archaic war-mongers, is to scream that we must be tough and ready to kill, accuse those who think differently of disloyalty or stupidity (take your pick) and appeal to history of second and third generation warfare, when we are engaged in the fourth generation conflict today. Goebbels had you in mind when he described in several easy steps how one prepared a population for aggressive war.

If you had capacity to learn and analyze, you would know that a reaction with overwhealming force is exactly the wrong approach in 4GW, as the battle occurs on the strategic and moral levels, not tactical. But since you can't do those things, you are doomed to "drop the big ones" mostly at random, loosing the war with every successful annihilation of a mountain top or Pakistani nuclear bunker.

Feck writes:"At some point fighting the new war with the old war's armaments and tactics becomes immoral, like ordering a calvary charge against panzers."

--your a bit confused Feck, the Poles did this because they didnt bother to develop tanks, which is precisely why we spend trillions on military hardware, sooo we dont send our guys out on horseback, get it ? We will be pouring trillions more into the military , just like Russia, China, Iran, because none of them want to send there guys out on horseback either.
What would you propose ?(I'm afraid of the answer, because I think Neville tried it about 65+ years ago and plunged us into WW2).

Where was your air power on 9/11?

Why has no one questioned the trillions wasted on armaments that could not defend us when we needed them?

At some point fighting the new war with the old war's armaments and tactics becomes immoral, like ordering a calvary charge against panzers.

How is bombing civilians in Iraq and Afganistan preventing another 9/11?

Where? Under what circumstances? In response to what? To destroy what? To kill who?

why is it so hard to answer these questions ? what happened during the cold war when we had adversaries just as scary(actually less scary since secular totalitarians still try to avoid death, unlike islamofacists who welcome it) as Ahmed ? If Pakistan were to fall to extremists and control of there nukes fell into radical islamists, if Ahmed did get a hold of a bomb and planned to use it. Nothing is an exact science , as much as we were able to hold our ground during the Cuban missile crisis, we need that same determination/resoluteness. Unlike your methods which seem to take no account of human nature and what is necessary to deal with it. You tell a mad men with a gun that
under no circumstances will we use force to change his mind and see where you get. Its a ridiculous position when dealing with unsavory characters, any reading of history will tell you as much Please no minuscule useless examples of how the UN and International law stopped a "no nothing" conflict in a "no nothing" part of the world.

==---yeah, well, I think it was this type of resoluteness , including the courage to use nuclear arms which kept the communist Chinese and Russians from overrunning the free world. My , what an ungrateful world, not to mention one with short term memories. We probably should have let the Russians overrun western Europe. The only grateful ones are the eastern Europeans who appreciate freedom and its costs.==

Would you care to answer which target do you plan to bravely bomb with nuclear weapons? All I hear from the war-mongers is standard "you are a wuss" replies. I am asking specific questions: If you advocate using nuclear bombs, where do you plan to drop them?

Where? Under what circumstances? In response to what? To destroy what? To kill who?

Dimitry writes:
==The question remains whether the U.S. government and its people dare to take resolute actions, nuclear attack included.==

"It is amazing that such questions are even asked. Nuclear attack? Against what? Mountain passes? Islamabad? Teheran?

Why not just anounce that any country that doesn't sign an oath of obedience to the world only ruler, the USA, will be immediately nuked and their people all killed. "

---yeah, well, I think it was this type of resoluteness , including the courage to use nuclear arms which kept the communist Chinese and Russians from overrunning the free world. My , what an ungrateful world, not to mention one with short term memories. We probably should have let the Russians overrun western Europe. The only grateful ones are the eastern Europeans who appreciate freedom and its costs.

==The question remains whether the U.S. government and its people dare to take resolute actions, nuclear attack included.==

It is amazing that such questions are even asked. Nuclear attack? Against what? Mountain passes? Islamabad? Teheran?

Why not just anounce that any country that doesn't sign an oath of obedience to the world only ruler, the USA, will be immediately nuked and their people all killed.

Close air support of troops is very effective and useful. Used as a stand alone form of warfare, without forward air observers eye balling the situation, it is an iffy proposition. Eyes in the sky are no substitute for boots on the ground. They are a team, which why it is called combined operation. If counter insurgency doctrine calls for 400,000 troops, than thats what should be the boots on the ground. If we are going to do Afghanistan the right way, we need the draft. We had no business being in Iraq, 9/11 gave us the reason to be in Afghanistan. We need to do this one right!

Guerrilla warfare, people warfare, etc... put governments, like the Afghan one, in a defensive posture.

The Talibans blend into the local poor, coax them to supply necessities (food, medication, etc...), shelters, and manpower. If unsuccessful, they resort to terror and genocide to bend the will of the people, and when confronted with a superior force, they use people as human shields in their retreat. Air power can sustain the offensive and deny them sanctuaries, but it's only effective when the line between the population and the Talibans is clearly drawn. Once they were able to blend within the local people, drastic clearing measures by foot soldiers must be taken. Then come holding and building the reclaimed area.

But offensive air power, foot soldiers, clear, hold, build, etc... are all "defensive" measures that would never end the war, because they are constrained within Afghanistan's borders and avoiding the offensive to its roots where logistics are unlimited (safe sanctuary, manpower, weapons, training, indoctrination).

A case in point is the Vietnam War. As long as China and the Soviet Union provided safe sanctuaries and unlimited supplies to North Vietnam AND the US didn't apply any effective measures to stop this war's logistics, South Vietnam battleground for containing the spread of communism was merely a defensive one, doomed to defeat from the start, sucking up more troops and more resources to no avail. Only when the logistics stopped because of the rift between China and the Soviet Union, did the spread of communism in South-East Asia stop.

A Chinese example of defeating insurgencies

China has many insurgencies in Tibet and Xinjiang (Uighurs). But these insurgencies do not have sound logistics because China effectively denies them from crossing its borders and therefore few could take hold within the local population. China rules with an iron fist within its borders while on its periphery, it creates a defensive Maginot line composed of allied dictatorships (North Korea, Burma, Laos, Vietnam), of weak democracies (Nepal) continuously harassed by Maoist rebels branding AK-47 rifles, or of economically dependent nations (South Korea, Thailand, Malaysia). Insurgencies will never be allowed sanctuaries in these satellite nations, similar to a solar system where the sun is protected and undisturbed.

Conclusion

Insurgencies' sanctuary in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars must be denied. Obviously, it's not confined within Iraq's and Afghanistan's borders. Unfortunately, the U.S. doesn't have the geopolitical advantage of China. The question remains whether the U.S. government and its people dare to take resolute actions, nuclear attack included.

"at least they can't rape the women"

Are you kidding, you'd have to get beyond the smell first.

Hey if we don't have boots on the ground, at least they can't rape the women.

For uncensored news please bookmark:

www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.com
www.globalresearch.ca
www.onlinejournal.com
otherside123.blogspot.com

Ten Reasons Why "Save Darfur" is a PR Scam to Justify the Next US Oil and Resource Wars in Africa

by Bruce Dixon

Global Research, December 12, 2007
blackagendareport.com - 2007-11-27

The star-studded hue and cry to "Save Darfur" and "stop the genocide" has gained enormous traction in U.S. media along with bipartisan support in Congress and the White House. But the Congo, with ten to twenty times as many African dead over the same period is not called a "genocide" and passes almost unnoticed. Sudan sits atop lakes of oil. It has large supplies of uranium, and other minerals, significant water resources, and a strategic location near still more African oil and resources. The unasked question is whether the nation's Republican and Democratic foreign policy elite are using claims of genocide, and appeals for "humanitarian intervention" to grease the way for the next oil and resource wars on the African continent.

The regular manufacture and the constant maintenance of false realities in the service of American empire is a core function of the public relations profession and the corporate news media. Whether it's fake news stories about wonder drugs and how toxic chemicals are good for you, bribed commentators and journalists discoursing on the benefits of No Child Left Behind, Hollywood stars advocating military intervention to save African orphans, or slick propaganda campaigns employing viral marketing techniques to reach out to college students, bloggers, churches and ordinary citizens, it pays to take a close look behind the facade.

Among the latest false realities being pushed upon the American people are the simplistic pictures of Black vs. Arab genocide in Darfur, and the proposed solution: a robust US-backed or US-led military intervention in Western Sudan. Increasing scrutiny is being focused upon the "Save Darfur" lobby and the Save Darfur Coalition; upon its founders, its finances, its methods and motivations and its truthfulness. In the spirit of furthering that examination we here present ten reasons to suspect that the "Save Darfur" campaign is a PR scam to justify US intervention in Africa.

1. It wouldn't be the first Big Lie our government and media elite told us to justify a war.

Elders among us can recall the Tonkin Gulf Incident, which the US government deliberately provoked to justify initiation of the war in Vietnam. This rationale was quickly succeeded by the need to help the struggling infant "democracy" in South Vietnam, and the still useful "fight 'em over there so we don't have to fight 'em over here" nonsense. More recently the bombings, invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq have been variously explained by people on the public payroll as necessary to "get Bin Laden" as revenge for 9-11, as measures to take "the world's most dangerous weapons" from the hands of "the world's most dangerous regimes", as measures to enable the struggling Iraqi "democracy" stand on its own two feet, and necessary because it's still better to "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here".

2. It wouldn't even be the first time the U.S. government and media elite employed "genocide prevention" as a rationale for military intervention in an oil-rich region.

For the rest please go to:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7594

DOD is starting to frame our future defeat in Afghanistan. Looks at CJCS Mullen's comment yesterday; "In Afghanistan, we do what we can. In Iraq, we do what we must,". It kills me to see our military and foreign policy run in such an amateurish manner. His words are destined for the history books, and history wont be kind to these guys.

F*ck your 'airpower' & F*ck your nasty little BushWars.

But look at the bright side... Kosovo is about to come apart again and we can re-employ Osama bin-Laden to hire mercs for NATO.

Of course I have no understanding of military technology or airpower, or I wouldn't have cited Apache helicopters as indiscriminate-- they fire precision-guided Hellfire missiles and Viper Strike rockets, which haven't been a significant cause of civilian casualties anywhere. I guess I'm just another Taliban cheerleader.

Airpower is a wonderful tool to use against industrial or infrastructure targets. Big boom, nice fireball, debris flying through the air like the fourth of July. Great weapon for a conventional war. In a war for hearts and minds, however, airpower does the work of the terrorists.
The terrorists goal is to convince the indigenous population that the government can't keep them safe, and what better proof could you ask for than the government blowing up your next door neighbors house. That aint safe.
Bill loves airpower, I think he might have written romance novels about it or something, but in reality, the soldiers standing on the corner are a reassuring presence for many Afghanis. The Apache helicopters circling the neighborhood aren't.
As far as the army not getting the story right, well, perhaps they are just telling the truth. After all, not everybody who works for the government is a political appointee.

airpower is great as long as only Communists have it.