On Jun 4, 2:57*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 4, 12:37*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jun 4, 1:37*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 3, 11:27*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
The defense official said Wednesday that a military investigation
faulted some of the actions of American troops in air strikes May 4
that killed dozens of Afghan civilians in Farah province.
"Errors were made" in the attack, the official acknowledged on
condition of anonymity, discussing one of the preliminary findings on
an incident that has strained relations between Washington and Kabul
and bred deep resentment among the Afghan people. Civilian deaths in
Afghanistan have also enraged Muslims worldwide.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090604/...us_afghanistan
2pid will say "yes", that the tactic used is entirely circumstantial.
I say "no" and at least two incoming commanding general officers agree
with me.
Oh well, I'm sure 2pid's 'differing POV' is equally valid. LoL.
*It pretty sad that you stoop to such gross misrepresentations of what
our
military commanders have actually said.
No misrepresentation at all, 2pid. They both agree with me.
"Maj. Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti, commander of the 82nd Airborne
Division, responded that he planned to use close air support for
troops only when needed to protect them and to complete the mission."
What part of this statement says the use of air support does not
depend upon the circumstances of the situation? * *Hint: Nothing
Um, indeed there is, 2pid. There are two conditions necessary in his
statement. It's an "and" statement, not an "or" statement.
*So now you're going to claim that troops in danger won't get air
support
when the mission is no longer capable of being completed.
Huh? Where did I say that? Or are you arguing with the general now
(and, BTW, misrepresenting what he said)?
I rest my case.
2pid? You don't have one. Cases are based on logic and case law. You
don't use logic and you have no experience to know what case law is in
this case. LoL.
*You were a danger to our troops and they thanked God,
Jesus, and Mohammed the day you retired.
Sure, 2pid. Your strawman is no doubt true. LoL. But there's a uh-oh!
Guess what, 2pid?
I just got the word today, 2pid. I'm back in uniform in July. As a
Major. Would you like me to inquire if an out-of-shape, inexperienced,
self-centered and incredibly dumb civilian can join? As a Private?
LoL.
(snip the semantic claims of disagreement where none existed)
Uhm ya, 2pid. Other than that we totally agree. LoL. Like where you
argued for dropping 500-pound bombs on a small handful of snipers and
that "eyes on target" is unecessary. Or that protecting civilians
always takes second seat to force protection. LoL.