On Jun 5, 10:17*am, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 4, 1:26*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
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've pointed out your ridiculous misinterpretation of what
the general said. *Obviously you now see your mistake.
I made no mistake, 2pid. You imbecilically tried to create a strawman
(as usual).
"Troops in danger" includes all troops in Iraq and all troops in
Afghanistan. That's why they are drawing "imminent danger/hostile
fire" pay.
I'll make you a bet: troops in a firefight will not automatically get
CAS. And there is no such thing as a "mission [that] is no longer
capable of being completed".
Your a imbecile.