Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
TimS

When do you think we'll attack?

Rate this topic

31 posts in this topic

I know it won't be soon enough - I understand there needs to be much planning to make sure this assault is properly laid out...but every minute is one more minute for these unhuman scumbags responsible to make their own "contingency" plans...and to hide.

 

When do you think we'll start raining down death on those responsible? I say it's before 5pm today...maybe in the next hour or so. I say pull the trigger, it's time, let them understand what real fear is.

 

TimS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just remember, revenge is a dish best served ice-cold. I think that the response will be utterly severe so no action will be carried out until everyone is sure who did this heinous act, who supported it, who will support our actions...its going to be a WAR. And we can't just jump blindly into that...granted I can't wait to see these cowards burn for this horrific act perpetrated upon us.

I know a few people have told me that their friends(mostly Marines) are in the process of mobilization and all non-military personnel have been removed from military bases. It's coming...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gentlemen:

 

I would not look for anything for many weeks, possibly months. Mr. Bush is planning a retaliation which is (direct quote), "of Biblical proportions". When this first happened, my prediction was that the longer it takes for the retaliation to take place, the bigger it will be. This is one of those times that I'm happy to wait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....Briefing reporters at the Pentagon, Wolfowitz said that military forces would receive a "significant" portion of a $40 billion supplemental appropriation now before Congress to pay for "some huge requirements to build up our military for the next year, maybe longer." Much of the supplemental funds, he said, are necessary "to prepare our armed forces for whatever the president may ask them to do. The costs mount rapidly, and they will mount more rapidly as this campaign develops."

 

Some of that funding could be used to call up more than 40,000 reservists to active duty, a proposal under consideration, according to a senior military official. Several thousand reservists with "specialized skills" could be called up in the next few days, the official said.

 

Many of the extra personnel are necessary to support combat air patrols over major metropolitan areas instituted this week by filling out the ranks of pilots, aviation maintenance crews and military air traffic controllers, the official said.

 

State authorities have enlisted about 10,000 National Guard troops to assist in civil recovery efforts in Washington and New York. But the Pentagon move represents the first significant federal call-up. Major U.S. military actions almost invariably require reservists to supplement regular troops.

 

Pentagon planners are focusing on starting any military campaign with sustained bombing raids, first against bin Laden sites in Afghanistan, a senior U.S. official said yesterday. If that proves ineffective, the plan would call for the bombing of targets associated with Afghanistan's ruling Taliban militia, which has harbored bin Laden for the past five years, the official said.

 

"That was what the president meant when he said the U.S. was prepared to retaliate against both those responsible for terrorism and those who harbor them," the official said.

 

U.S. attempts to negotiate with the Taliban earlier this year to have it expel bin Laden failed, another official said, adding: "We have moved past there. Now we are trying to affect their intentions."

 

Several military officers said the Pentagon is also considering an array of special forces operations aimed at suspected terrorist redoubts in Afghanistan, Yemen, Sudan, Pakistan and Algeria. The Pentagon also is considering flying unmanned drones capable of lingering over terrorist camps for extended periods to provide almost continuous surveillance, one officer said.

 

"Things are different this time," another senior officer added. "I don't think the American people expect a light response."

 

One factor restraining previous military action was an emphasis on zero casualties, which has tended to constrain the Pentagon from employing ground troops and has led to a reliance on sea- or air-launched cruise missiles. Following the embassy bombings in 1998, the United States launched cruise missiles against sites in Afghanistan and Sudan thought to have ties to bin Laden. The attacks were criticized as largely ineffectual.

 

Bush and his advisers appear ready to consider the use of ground troops, particularly special forces, military officers said. "If you regard what happened as an act of war, as the president has said, your standard of application for what you do about it is different," said a four-star officer.

 

At the same time, military officials knowledgeable about the extent of Pentagon preparations characterized the planning as still in the early stage. They said no specific targets had been selected and no forces yet earmarked for action.

 

"It's really embryonic at this point," the four-star officer said.

 

Former CIA director R. James Woolsey said that Iraq would have multiple targets for military planners if it is conclusively demonstrated that Iraq "had a substantial hand" in Tuesday's attacks.

 

Should such evidence materialize, Woolsey said, "all instruments of power to the Iraqi state should be destroyed: the Republican Guard, everything associated with Saddam Hussein, everything associated with their weapons of mass destruction program."

 

Woolsey said he believes there is evidence suggesting that Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, the convicted mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, was an Iraqi intelligence agent. "If Iraq is behind the '93 attack, it's never really paid any price for that -- and we can start right there," he said. "But if it's behind the '93 attack, there's a good chance it's behind this one."

 

© 2001 The Washington Post Company

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aw sh*t, looks like a conventional war.

 

Hey, it don't take that much $$$ to lob a few hundred megatons of atomic death at these dogs. Certainly a lot fewer U.S. lives at risk. But hey, no need to listen to what this hothead has to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not soon enough!!

 

This may take many months before we atack. This is the beginning of the biggest war we as humans have ever seen....

 

 

SF

 

 

 

------------------

Is it Hot in here, or is it just me!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hit them the way we've been getting hit for years..........Let's show them what terror is all about.......Give them a little taste of their own crap. Don't send in the troops, leave the F-16's at home along with the Abrams Tanks and the Humvee's. I say we infiltrate their network, plant bombs at some of their heaviest civilian populated venues and creat havoc, orphan children, and not claim resposibility. cowardly bastards

You are fortunate I didn't see your supporters dancing in the streets on my soil, or in my neighborhood.......

SEMPER FI Here we come.

 

[This message has been edited by squidder (edited 09-14-2001).]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You cant attack what you dont know. nobody has admitted to it and all goverment have comdemed what happened. while everyone thinks bin-laden is in afganistan you cant just go shoot up the place for him,then you'll start a war witht he country and its not necasaraly the country who did it.Before anyhting is done they must find out who did it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brett,

 

You know, you're absolutely right. This whole thing is so complicated. These things transcend borders.

 

You have a terrorist ringleader who happens to be a rich ex-Saudi Prince.

 

The pilots that hijacked the planes were from a cell of Egyptian-based Islamic Jihad.

 

Before you know it, you've got fellow conspirators with United Arab Emirates and Pakistani passports.

 

Now there are likely some wacky Iraqi fellas and some Syrians running around too in this mess.

 

The Lebanese scum you see dancing in the streets in West Bank (and Long Island, NY) are the least of our problems.

 

Geez, it's tough to figure out who ISN'T involved.

 

There's an easy solution...NUKE 'EM ALL. Let God sort 'em out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just my opinion.

We need to remember that Clinton "loathed the military" and didn't do much for defense. Our military may not be able to mount a large campaign for some time. Remember the Gulf War? It took many months to get everything ready.

We are able to defend and we are able to get into a skirmish but I see nothing significant happening for some time. I hope I am wrong but our priorities have not been right for a while. Getting funds for needle exchanges, alchohol abuse programs, and DARE programs is easy and sometimes at the expense of the military sector ( especially the troops). Am I biased? Yes I am. I am also a retired cereer military officer and I have noticed these things over the years.

I applaud the manner in which the administration is going about this. Gathering allies on " be one of us or you ARE one of them " is damn good stuff. I wish I could get more involved.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.