Quote:
Originally Posted by heartc
That is BS, sorry. It's not a matter of "let's just bombard them from the air / with arty" vs. "let's go in and manhandle them". Since WWII this is a fluid affair. Or do you think that now they went in without having air / artillery on demand?
|
I haven't heard anything about artillery yet. They will surely have some around but so far they haven't used it.
Quote:
|
And what do you mean "the Americans [were not] criticised" for fighting the Taliban? Why is it then that even our own Bundeswehr mission is highly unpopular among people? Surely not because they lack a proper mandate and / or equipment, which would be true. It's because people want them to pull out. Kinda like "Was suchen wir am Hindukusch?"
|
In the beginning I can't remember a lot of people being against it. Yes, some are always against it but in the very beginning there was a majority here for that mission. It started to crumble with more and more "collateral damage" being reported. That is when the "Was suchen wir am Hindukusch?" wave started flowing (the dead German soldiers contributed to that of course). So I still think my point is valid.
Quote:
|
Also, the old meme of "if only the Americans weren't so gung-ho, they would have won the hearts and minds by now"
|
If they had done this sort of approach maybe that would have been true. Do you know it? You will definitely fail if you have too much "collateral damage". As for the rest of your post, I don't know were you read that I support this Mickey Mouse position of Struck.
Again I'm just against the blind bombardment of an area. That has to lead to be highly disliked. I welcome the current offensive. I think it should have been done like that from the very beginning.