Nick,

I'm an Indian. Just turned 18 on Monday.
I believe Ground war will be very costly in terms of lives.
These Afghani dudes know their terrain all to well.
So air strikes ? Maybe but that may not be as effective as
ground war. Ok lets assume that Americans will capture
Osama after a long war. Then, the same story as you've told.

We Indians made many mistakes. We could have annexed a large
chunk of Pakistan in the 3 Indo-Pak wars. We even got a lot
of territory in these wars. But our friendly politcial leaders returned em
back to Pakistan. What moral right do these politicians have to
return the land which our thousands of our soldiers died fighting for ?
None. These politicians of my country lack patriotism. I don't trust any
of em. And now that Pak has got nukes, we may very well forget the idea of
getting all the Pakistan occupied Kashmir back.
Worst of all these Pakistani guys are not satisfied with so much of
territory they've already got.

Relegion is purely a personal thing. My idea of utopia is where everyone
is free to choose his/her own relegion and where there is nothing called
race.
I don't understand what these Taliban guys will get from this relegious
fanaticism.
Americans can squish them like bugs within hours if they turn out to be too
troublesome.
Just drop a couple of megaton nukes and boom there'll be no sign of life in
Afghanistan.
But what about civilan losses ? I'm certain the nukes will not come unless
the problem
can't be solved by conventional weapons / diplomacy.

This gives me a strange feeling. Are all of these Islamic States gonna join
and fight back?
World War 3 ? I don't know. But Nick, I believe there is a solution to all
these wars.
Might sound unworldly. But it sure is great.

Its World Federalization. One world , One government. Yeah, this is right
next to impossible.
But it is possible. Well, I know I'll get a lot of flames for this. But hey,
its my personal
philosophy and I believe this is the only way to permanently eliminate War
from the face of earth.


Jeethu Rao

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pic microcontroller discussion list
> [mailto:PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU]On Behalf Of Nick Taylor
> Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2001 9:33 PM
> To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> Subject: [OT]: A new type of war
>
>
> The world is faced with a new type of war, a war the likes of which
> we have never seen before.  This new war must be fought with new
> strategies and tactics, and with a new mindset.
>
> In Viet Nam and in Afghanistan the generals of the US and the USSR
> both attempted to fight using WW2 methods (and with their hands tied
> by their political leaders) and nothing was gained except widespread
> loss of life and destruction of property.  Later in Iraq the US
> still refought WW2, just using much more advanced technology.  In
> the Balkans the US used the new technology and new tactics, but
> very little was accomplished.
>
> After the attack on Pearl Harbor we did NOT demand that Adm. Isoroku
> Yamamoto and his pilots be turned over to the US.  We launched an
> all out war against the government that directed and supported his
> attack.
>
> Osama bin Laudin is not "directed and supported" by a government,
> but by a loosely knit coalition of Muslim fanatics.  The questions
> become, "How best to respond to exact vengeance?" and "How best to
> achieve the goal of deterring others from repeat performances?".
>
> I hear many crying out that whomever is harboring bin Laudin must
> turn him and his direct followers over to the US.  If "they" should
> relinquish bin Laudin, then what?  We execute bin Laudin and his
> lieutenants and what have we gained?  A little (very little)
> retribution.  What have the Muslim fanatics gained?  A new set
> of martyrs "murdered" by the evil Americans and a vastly increased
> set of warriors and supporters.
>
> I hear others demanding that we "take out" the responsible
> governments.  How?  We cannot possibly conduct a profitable
> ground war even in Afghanistan, much less simultaneously in
> Afghanistan and the seven or eight or nine other countries that
> have supported terrorism.  Do we launch "surgical strikes"
> against their headquarters?  We didn't have much success in
> the Iron Triangle in the '60s.
>
> I hear others recommending massive bombing of population centers.
> This worked in WW2 (Dresden, Hiroshima, Berlin, Nagasaki, etc.),
> but will it work in the Muslim countries?  I have serious doubts.
>
> Do we just strut our strength as "schoolyard bullies"?  In recent
> years we've had Grenada, Panama, Iran, the Balkans, etc.  About
> all that we gained were more enemies!
>
> In WW2 we beat Germany into submission with day and night bombings
> and with the growing disenchantment Hitler's generals had with
> their leader.  In WW2 we were unable to make Japan submit (they
> were determined to defend their home islands to their last soldier)
> until we used our two atomic bombs.
>
> We have a further problem; as a relatively weak leader George W.
> Bush must take political correctness into consideration when
> making his decisions.
>
> Is there a solution?  Yes!  Do I know what that solution is?  No!
>
> I am especially interested in hearing the positions and opinions
> of list members outside of North America.
>
> Best regards to all,
>   -Nick T.
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
> ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.
>
>

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads