| Submit your comments on this article |
| Afghanistan |
| 9 Taliban Killed in NATO Airstrikes |
| 2010-10-13 |
| [Tolo News] At least 9 Taliban forces of Evil were killed in NATO These men were killed in NATO A local Taliban capo is also reportedly among the killed. Civilians have received no casualties in the attack. Foreign forces have killed a number of Taliban capos in their Taliban forces of Evil have suffered heavy casualties in clashes with NATO forces recently, and a number of Taliban capos have been killed in NATO ground and air attacks so far. Afghan and coalition forces have escalated their counter-insurgency operations in the country's volatile regions, and have had some advancement in these operations so far. |
| Posted by: |
| #6 OP...not in our lifetime. the WH would get their collective panties all bunched up. |
| Posted by: anymouse 2010-10-13 23:54 |
| #5 Age before beauty, OP, lol! |
| Posted by: Rhodesiafever 2010-10-13 19:31 |
| #4 The B-52H wing at Barksdale AFB has a full complement of aircraft - 36. Send 12 against Rawalpindi/Islamabad, 12 against Quetta, and 12 against Peshawar. Allow the Navy and the folks in Afghanistan to provide air cover. Afterwords, call on the few survivors to surrender, or we'll start running such strikes from Quetta to Chitral DAILY until they do. I'm sure even the most diehard Taliban would be willing to surrender after having the sh$$ bombed out of him (literally) every day for two or three weeks. NATO would get an object lesson on why you still need manned bombers in the so-called "missile age", and the entire Muslim world would get an object lesson on why you don't piss off the United States. Once the Afghan/Taliban problem is solved, we can then concentrate on Al-Shabaab in Somalia and the mess in Sudan. The quiet following the destruction of those two countries should last for a couple of years, at least. During that time, we could probably come up with a replacement for the B-52 that would be both cost-effective and capable of carrying an adequate payload anywhere in the world and back. I get nervous trusting my freedom to an aircraft that's almost as old as I am... |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2010-10-13 17:15 |
| #3 Can I suggest a target? The black rock of Satan, and multiple strikes, just wait long enough for the "Faithful" to regather and WHAMMO again, perhaps that'll qualify as a "Contest" target. Sounds good to me(I'll watch fom a safe distance, say right here.) |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2010-10-13 15:00 |
| #2 Why not have a competition? |
| Posted by: gorb 2010-10-13 10:13 |
| #1 Because the US is part of NATO, one can say that NATO has B-52 Stratofortresses. And I agree that Arclight strikes would put the fear of Allah into those Taliban fighters that were far enough away to survive the strike. A B-52H can carry a conventional bomb load of 70,000 lbs. A B-1B Lancer can carry a 134,000 lbs bomb load (75,000 lbs of internal payload plus 59,000 lb on 6 external hardpoints). You would either need fewer B-1Bs or, better yet, the arclight would be even more spectacular. |
| Posted by: Mike Ramsey 2010-10-13 05:24 |