We are now steping up the offensive in afghan. We are not there waisting time for nato. We have been to lax and not trying to go after the enemy for the sake of civilian death. It is time to pick up the pace and get out of these wars. There are bigger wars that lay ahead.
RIGHT, cas343. Nato is owned by WAR PROFITEERS whose objective is to KEEP THE WAR GOING and escalate if possible so the Military-Industrial-Complex gets richer and richer with our tax dollars. This in no way reflects badly on our soldiers, who are there on orders and do a great job. But facts indicate they are being WASTED over there and the American people know it. Many of us are writing and speaking out to get these ILLEGAL wars stopped. Oh, and "Al Qaeda" is CIA. No sh*t!
I was wondering as UK politicians were whining as usual that we are spending what amounts to $100,000 per missile (probably Javelin) just to blow up Taliban mud huts containing less than $1000 worth of weaponry.
I'm not sure if UK actually use TOW on land but it seems like it would be a great bunker buster in terms of cost efficiency.
err, yes there is, wars are expensive, and there are a whole load of Taliban killers still out there. I am talking financial cost, not "emotional cost" that you seem to be talking about.
War is more expensive than peace but after the Taliban hosted Al Qaeda who killed 3000 people in one attack, there was no way they could be allowed to stay in power.
Some call it a regime change, most call it justice.
You might as well say: "there are two sides to every war: those that eat Sauerkraut and those that don't"
No shit the Taliban have nothing to do with banks, they would never have anything to do with any institution related to development and investment, the only thing the Taliban know is to destroy, dominate and oppress.
BTW, in WWII, let me guess, it was the Nazis that weren't "controlled" by the banks... is that a good thing?
You're assuming that the Taliban are our real enemies. Every soldier I've talked to that has been there agrees that NATO is not trying to win, their goal is simply to fight a war.
No. The Taliban ARE the enemy. Your personal interest may seek to obfuscate that issue but this is all down to NATO's general lack of overall direction or leadership. I mean Obama got a Nobel Peace Prize just as he sent 30'000 troops to Afghanistan... talk about mixed messages from the global community.
My personal interests are in the safety and prosperity of my country, not provoking endless, unwinnable wars to secure oil pipelines in far off countries that are in no way a threat to us. If you want to find our REAL enemies go to Washington DC and look in any direction. Remember that the oath is "Protect the Constitution from enemies foreign AND domestic". If the Patriot Act isn't an attack on the constitution idk what is.
Yeah, I can think of a few foreign enemies in Afghanistan and it is THEM who are provoking war with that 9/11 thing. Remember that? And left alone they are a REAL threat.
And for the love of god, an Oil Pipeline? That is the DUMBEST conspiracy theory yet I have heard to explain why America "really" went into Afghanistan. It just makes no sense at all.
People like you obfuscating this issue will cost us the war in Afghanistan.
We've been in the middle east for how many years now? We've bombed Iraq for 10 years, we've caused a coup in Iran to replace a democratically elected leader with a brutal dictator, and then we prop up the Saudi royal family in the repression of its own people. Then 911 happens and we think "It's because of our freedom". Every soldier I have asked thinks NATO is not trying to win. Ever wonder why the amount of opium exports from A-Stan have gone up since we've invaded?
Simple, the Taliban in fact banned opium so when they got a removed from power there was a resurgence in production. We didn't go into Afghanistan on an anti-drug mandate.
NATO isn't trying to win because this is not a universal NATO operation like Kosovo.
Well we are going in circles here, but obviously when they saw this surge in opium don't you think the DEA would want to get involved just to stem the tide?
There dilemma is so many anti-Taliban groups want to grow and export opium.
That's the problem, that is the shade of grey we must deal with, one have to make a choice, drugs or terrorism, we can't get both, not yet.
We collaborated with the Soviets to beat the Nazis, aided the lesser evil. That's the real world I'm afraid.
Seriously, I'm just speaking my opinion, if you don't like it why don't you go to Afghanistan and join those crazy Taliban zealots. Go on, it'll be a blast.
Not the sort of bunker I was thinking of. I was thinking of a concrete bunker buried deep underground to protect those inside from normal bombs. In which case a "bunker-buster" bomb would be needed to penetrate the earth and concrete roof before exploding.
the bunker buster TOW can penetrate 16ft of reinforced concrete. But it is only made in small numbers the thermobaric TOW is the most widely used for bunkers now.
You're right, but they are still used all the time in Iraq. My battalion used them dozens of times to destroy buildings that were just too dangerous to assault because insurgents were too well dug in.
I agree, we did use them a couple times, but we had to stay far away and there was a lot of unuseful destruction, the buildings were too close together.
Is a TOW missile the one that impacts and then detonates after a delay, as opposed to detonation on impact?
21ricky666 1 year ago
We are now steping up the offensive in afghan. We are not there waisting time for nato. We have been to lax and not trying to go after the enemy for the sake of civilian death. It is time to pick up the pace and get out of these wars. There are bigger wars that lay ahead.
pbgw123 2 years ago
4freespeech 2 years ago
Where are these videos from? They have really good audio.
EDbringer 2 years ago
How much are these per shot?
I was wondering as UK politicians were whining as usual that we are spending what amounts to $100,000 per missile (probably Javelin) just to blow up Taliban mud huts containing less than $1000 worth of weaponry.
I'm not sure if UK actually use TOW on land but it seems like it would be a great bunker buster in terms of cost efficiency.
Treblaine 3 years ago
there is no such thing as cost efficiency when it comes to weapons of war.
eternalnate 2 years ago
err, yes there is, wars are expensive, and there are a whole load of Taliban killers still out there. I am talking financial cost, not "emotional cost" that you seem to be talking about.
Treblaine 2 years ago
What I mean is it's more expensive having wars than peace
eternalnate 2 years ago
War is more expensive than peace but after the Taliban hosted Al Qaeda who killed 3000 people in one attack, there was no way they could be allowed to stay in power.
Some call it a regime change, most call it justice.
Treblaine 2 years ago
I don't know what to call it, i feel like the public never gets the whole story from either side of the conflict
eternalnate 2 years ago
There''s 2 sides in war, counties controlled by banks, and those that aren't. We are the former.
cas343 2 years ago
unfortunate
eternalnate 2 years ago
That's a pretty pointless thing to say.
You might as well say: "there are two sides to every war: those that eat Sauerkraut and those that don't"
No shit the Taliban have nothing to do with banks, they would never have anything to do with any institution related to development and investment, the only thing the Taliban know is to destroy, dominate and oppress.
BTW, in WWII, let me guess, it was the Nazis that weren't "controlled" by the banks... is that a good thing?
Treblaine 2 years ago
You're assuming that the Taliban are our real enemies. Every soldier I've talked to that has been there agrees that NATO is not trying to win, their goal is simply to fight a war.
cas343 2 years ago
@cas343
No. The Taliban ARE the enemy. Your personal interest may seek to obfuscate that issue but this is all down to NATO's general lack of overall direction or leadership. I mean Obama got a Nobel Peace Prize just as he sent 30'000 troops to Afghanistan... talk about mixed messages from the global community.
Treblaine 2 years ago
My personal interests are in the safety and prosperity of my country, not provoking endless, unwinnable wars to secure oil pipelines in far off countries that are in no way a threat to us. If you want to find our REAL enemies go to Washington DC and look in any direction. Remember that the oath is "Protect the Constitution from enemies foreign AND domestic". If the Patriot Act isn't an attack on the constitution idk what is.
cas343 2 years ago
@cas343
Yeah, I can think of a few foreign enemies in Afghanistan and it is THEM who are provoking war with that 9/11 thing. Remember that? And left alone they are a REAL threat.
And for the love of god, an Oil Pipeline? That is the DUMBEST conspiracy theory yet I have heard to explain why America "really" went into Afghanistan. It just makes no sense at all.
People like you obfuscating this issue will cost us the war in Afghanistan.
Treblaine 2 years ago
We've been in the middle east for how many years now? We've bombed Iraq for 10 years, we've caused a coup in Iran to replace a democratically elected leader with a brutal dictator, and then we prop up the Saudi royal family in the repression of its own people. Then 911 happens and we think "It's because of our freedom". Every soldier I have asked thinks NATO is not trying to win. Ever wonder why the amount of opium exports from A-Stan have gone up since we've invaded?
cas343 2 years ago
@cas343
Simple, the Taliban in fact banned opium so when they got a removed from power there was a resurgence in production. We didn't go into Afghanistan on an anti-drug mandate.
NATO isn't trying to win because this is not a universal NATO operation like Kosovo.
Treblaine 2 years ago
So what's the DEA doing there then?
Look you should watch a documentary called "money masters". Our system is corrupt from the top straight to the bottom.
cas343 2 years ago
@cas343
Well we are going in circles here, but obviously when they saw this surge in opium don't you think the DEA would want to get involved just to stem the tide?
There dilemma is so many anti-Taliban groups want to grow and export opium.
That's the problem, that is the shade of grey we must deal with, one have to make a choice, drugs or terrorism, we can't get both, not yet.
We collaborated with the Soviets to beat the Nazis, aided the lesser evil. That's the real world I'm afraid.
Treblaine 2 years ago
They should leave the drugs alone. It is not the US law. We are there for a war.
pbgw123 2 years ago
I agree. People will believe any thing a fake wrestler name Jesse Vintura tells them LOL
pbgw123 2 years ago
@Treblaine nice that you can speak for the rest of the world
Jambozal 2 years ago
When I'm not speaking out of my arse, lol.
Seriously, I'm just speaking my opinion, if you don't like it why don't you go to Afghanistan and join those crazy Taliban zealots. Go on, it'll be a blast.
Treblaine 2 years ago
Absolutely right ! But politicians are like hot girls, you can see them, but you can't touch them.
OnTheLimits 2 years ago 9
@OnTheLimits that only happens if you are a nerd looking idiot :P
marck1293 8 months ago
Not the sort of bunker I was thinking of. I was thinking of a concrete bunker buried deep underground to protect those inside from normal bombs. In which case a "bunker-buster" bomb would be needed to penetrate the earth and concrete roof before exploding.
HunterXray 3 years ago
You were thinking of such a bunker when the headlines reads "TOW missile", which has a warhead of 3 Kgs?
sobr21azzaro 3 years ago
the bunker buster TOW can penetrate 16ft of reinforced concrete. But it is only made in small numbers the thermobaric TOW is the most widely used for bunkers now.
Blacklung27 2 years ago
Wow that was a really weak ass bunker Buster
xaviorkanemuhaha 3 years ago 3
when it hits a tank its worse
sw9carbon 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
thats looks like what hit the pentagon on 911
isn t that strange
truth stands clear from error
911 was a inside job
poodleinsky 3 years ago
no it doesn't..
Dragonpico1 3 years ago 9
what a dumbass. if that hit the pentagon it would have made a small hole not collapse the whole side of the building. your fubar in the head.
disturbedone5009 3 years ago
fuck all ur conspiracies lmao
LeSPauldude45 3 years ago
kosova is albanian and now indipendent and prishtina airport (slatins) also has one of these aerodromes
shkodrani16 3 years ago
is it of any use against bunkers in albania
shkodrani16 4 years ago 3
You mean like that massive airbase that was actually inside a mountain, like NORAD but infinitely more impressive?
Or was that Croatia...
ukrobbo 3 years ago
yea in what was yugoslavia but they are all out of use
albania has 4 of them
shkodrani16 3 years ago
Yeah those were some seriously badass constructions.
ukrobbo 3 years ago
thats not all
did u no that albania has 400.000 700.000 bunkers all over the country
most of them are 1 mand and 2 mand bunkers but the are about 80.000 big bunkers for big canons and the walls are thicker than 2 metres
and there are more than 8 big weapons storage bukers in mountains and there are also lots of tunels through the mountains wich conect bukers
but albania has lots of ald amuniton and wepons and they have all ben pur out of use
coz albania is modernizing its army
shkodrani16 3 years ago
i'm sure J1zzardOfOz ment people made of sand not real people
tkdagger 4 years ago
sweet
skullmasta2 4 years ago
If only that had a few sand people in it.
J1zzardOfOz 4 years ago
lol you racist cunt
KaylinJH 4 years ago
What a stupid remark. Not only is that not actually racist, but you've proved yourself worse using that word.
ukrobbo 3 years ago
Well, it's not technically racist but Sand people still don't like being called that, they are easily startled and will return in greater numbers.
Treblaine 2 years ago
You mean jawa's?
TheRealDucman749 3 years ago
hey, it works!
andrmike 5 years ago
These TOWs are good aginst bunkers, but not in urban city environments.
UziMaster1 5 years ago
You're right, but they are still used all the time in Iraq. My battalion used them dozens of times to destroy buildings that were just too dangerous to assault because insurgents were too well dug in.
Infantry1982 5 years ago
I agree, we did use them a couple times, but we had to stay far away and there was a lot of unuseful destruction, the buildings were too close together.
UziMaster1 5 years ago
"useless"
azz666 4 years ago
how about rural city environments? ha
donlightbody 4 years ago
cooooooool
waleed273 5 years ago