Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Is this how you fight an insurgency (III)
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. |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Shh shows disregard for troop safety
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. You cut this part, 2pid, which has always been my point: "And he said air strikes would be used carefully." And you missed this part, which has also been my point: "...bred deep resentment among the Afghan people. Civilian deaths in Afghanistan have also enraged Muslims worldwide." And you missed this, which has also been another point I made: "A report Wednesday by analysts at the think tank Center for a New American Security said that in order to turn around the Afghanistan/ Pakistan problem, the United States must "rapidly triage" its priorities. "Protecting the population must take precedence over all other considerations," the report said." (i.e. force protection as an example) This apparently didn't register with you either: "McChrystal said that if confirmed, he will review all existing rules of engagement and all tactical directives. But American military commanders on a number of occasions already have reviewed and rewritten the rules — including those on bombing missions and on how special forces operate — in an effort to avoid Afghan casualties. Rules tightened in a review last year may not have been followed by troops on May 4, said the official who spoke about the investigation." If you reviewed what I've said (and if you were smart enough and experienced enough to understand it) it is that airstrikes are *never* the right call against a very small group of insurgents with small arms, that you *must* have eyes on target and *positively* ID what you're dropping bombs on, that airstrikes are more appropriate for massed formations, that while force protection is always a consideration it is not always the *primary* consideration and that civilian casualties will do more toward mission failure in an insurgency like this than almost anything else. So the tactic remains available depending on the circumstances of the situation. Duh. Pin your hat on that, 2pid. LoL. I've never claimed mistakes don't happen, I have said that ruling out the use of air support under any circumstance I've never said "any circumstance", dum-dum. Ever. Imbecile. LOL! to prevent mistakes and civilian casualties is to put our troops in unreasonable danger. "Preventing civilian casualties puts our troops in unreasonable danger." The obverse of this imbecilic statement is "Not preventing civilian casualties makes mission failure very much more likely". But Shhtard is sitting in Minnesota swatting mosquitoes and obviously cares little about the safety of our forces in Afghanistan. LOL! What a one-dimensional little character you are. And I emphasize the "dim" in that statement. Um, 2pid? Remember when you were trying to pin the same kind of argument on me regarding the use of FA in the Swat Valley? Hm. What was it I said? Oh yes: "If you must use it, use it wisely." Yes, mistakes do happen. One of them is calling in CAS when you're against 2-4 snipers in a building. Another is not having eyes on and an absolute positive ID of the target. Another is prioritizing force protection above all else (if that was a valid position then General Petraeus should be tried for exposing his force by moving them off of FOBs). Another (perhaps the biggest one of all) is having an attitude like yours (protecting against civilian casualties is more of a nuisance than it's worth). As I said, 2pid: they both agree with me and not you. I'm very sorry, but your 'differing POV' isn't valid here. LoL. |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Shh shows disregard for troop safety
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. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Shh shows disregard for troop safety
On Jun 4, 12:57�pm, ScottW2 wrote:
�So now you're going to claim First you argue with people about claims they haven't made, and now you're going to argue with them for claims you think they're going to make. Amazing. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Shh shows disregard for troop safety
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. |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Shh shows disregard for troop safety
On Jun 4, 4:21*pm, wrote:
On Jun 4, 12:57 pm, ScottW2 wrote: So now you're going to claim First you argue with people about claims they haven't made, and now you're going to argue with them for claims you think they're going to make. 2pid would have made a great scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz for two reasons. First, because he creates more strawmen than anybody on the Usenet. Second, because the cry of "if I only had a brain" fits him like a glove. LoL, Amazing. What's amazing is that he hasn't been institutionalized. 2pid says that force protection is always the paramount consideration in any military mission (look at what he changed the subject line of this thread to). He cannot understand that it isn't. He can't understand that what we face in Afghanistan is not all about killing the Taleban. He cannot understand that often that is counterproductive. He are a imbecile. |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Shh shows disregard for troop safety
On Jun 5, 11:17*am, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 5, 8:45*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: 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). *"Two conditions". *That was obviously wrong and you know it. That was what the general said, 2pid. I even included the quote for you. There are two times he will use CAS. But who cares? 2pid, here's the dealio: going all the way back to the beginning you have been wrong. Period. Blowing up a building with at most a few snipers in it is wrong. Dropping bombs on targets that you do not have eyes on and absolute target identification is wrong. Petreus gets that. Understanding that helped turn Iraq around, at least for now. It appears the McChrystal gets it too. The only "obvious" thing here is that you do not. Petreus greatly *increased* the risk to US soldiers. Perhaps you'd like to claim that General Petreus "shows disregard for troop safety". LoL. As is your norm you want to nitpick and create strawmen to prove how "right" you are. You haven't been "right" since day one. That's because you don't kow what you're talking about, but you have a right to your 'differing POV'. LoL. Look at your subject header, 2pid. Understanding the mission, understanding how counterinsurgencies work and understanding strategic and tactical issues does not mean that I "disregard troop safety". I simply realize it isn't always the paramount concern in this case. Are there times when CAS is necessary/useful/appropriate? I've never said otherwise, dum-dum. Ever. LoL. Your a imbecile. "Troops in danger" includes all troops in Iraq and all troops in Afghanistan. That's why they are drawing "imminent danger/hostile fire" pay. * Lets argue what "in" means next. *That'll be fun. LoL. There's no need. All soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are in danger. Do you disagree? LoL. I'll make you a bet: troops in a firefight will not automatically get CAS. *Nor will they be automatically denied unless it serves to complete the mission. *It will be a decsion based upon the circumstances at the time as I've always said. OK, fine, 2pid. The problem is that your "depending on the circumstances" has always been very, very wrong. (See: 2-3 snipers in a building as an example). Petreus understood that protecting civilians *is* one of the paramount considerations in an operation like this. Let me guess: you 'think' the troop surge was entirely responsible for conditions in Iraq changing. LoL. We blew up a bunch of civilians, 2pid. You indicated that isn't a big deal in your 'mind'. It is to me (because I do want success in Afghanistan). So tell me, did this enhance our chances of overall mission accomplishment in Afghanistan? Was there absolute target identification? Was this episode productive or counterproductive in your 'mind'? Is this the best way to fight an insurgency, 2pid? In a counterinsurgency, 2pid, the statement "there was some regrettable collateral damage" may very well mean winning or losing. We're not winning right now. Remember this? "...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." Duh. All I can say is I dearly hope for the sake of our troops, you're not in the decision path. Guess what, 2pid? FA officers usually are. That's because we get things you apparently do not and we are trained and have experience on things you do not. LoL. What you do not seem to "get" is that the mission in both Iraq and Afghanistan is to win over the civilian populations. Killing them or making them question their safety is counterproductive. If you haven't learned anything from Petreus' tour in Iraq at least take that away. A soldier in a firefight will almost *always* request FA or CAS, 2pid. An infantry commander taking fire will almost *always* request FA or CAS. While it's a hard thing to do, frequently you just have to say "mission denied". There are usually many other alternatives available. And there is no such thing as a "mission [that] is no longer capable of being completed". I see....so you're still hunting for Osama at Tora Bora. *LoL. What a moron. The Battle of Tora Bora was a military engagement that took place in Afghanistan in December 2001, during the opening stages of the war in that country launched following the 9/11 attacks on the United States. The U.S. and its allies believed that al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was hiding in the rugged mountains at Tora Bora, but despite overrunning the Taliban and al-Qaeda positions they failed to kill or capture him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tora_Bora The battle of Tora Bora was a successful mission, 2pid. We captured it. Missions start and end all of the time. That one ended years ago. If you're arguing that we shouldn't have ended that mission and followed on with a more detailed search mission, or that we should have used our own forces instead of locals, I wouldn't disagree. (I see why you can't let ABSCAM go after 30 years though. You don't see that some things have a start and a finish. LoL.) A foot patrol is "mission", dum-dum. So is a supply convoy. When the patrol or convoy reaches their destination or returns that mission is over, 2pid. But a mission doesn't complete itself, dum-dum. A mission doesn't have "capabilities", imbecile. LoL. Anyway, there is not a mission that the US military cannot accomplish. What happens is that the cost becomes prohibitive, political considerations or boundaries enter in, or accomplishing that mission becomes counterproductive to the overall goal and the Commander's intent. You never answered, 2pid. Would you like me to check into whether an out-of-shape person of below average intelligence can still serve? LoL. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Shh shows disregard for troop safety
On Jun 5, 3:10*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 5, 10:24*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" But who cares? 2pid, here's the dealio: going all the way back to the beginning you have been wrong. Period. Blowing up a building with at most a few snipers in it is wrong. *What if those few snipers have a squad pinned down and a larger force of militants is rushing to the area? *The squad needs to pull out now but can't while the snipers are in position. *Do you blow up the building to save the squad? "What if they see a team of insurgents assembling a nuclear bomb, have a map to Jeruleselam and a recording of the Iranian President, as well as a battalion of heavy battle tanks coming in behind the building to reinforce the snipers?" Um, moron? What I said initially (like in 2006) is that CAS is appropriate for larger forces. You can go back and look, dum-dum. You're quick to criticize with the benefit of hindsight while not knowing at all what the situation was at the time the decision was made. But I do, 2pid. It's "obvious" to anybody with a little experience. It was spelled out then, and has been spelled out several times since. Recently our own military agreed that it was not a justified use of force (see OP). We know what the situation was and what went wrong. Eyes on target, absolute target ID, minimum force required, you know, all the **** I told you about in 2006 that you have a 'differing POV' about. LoL. Duh. I am not now nor ever have been advocating killing of civilians when it can be avoided, but I'm also not going to advocate excessive risk to our troops in action with unreasonable restrictions on use of force. * Define "excessive". Until now it's meant "any" when you say it. It's up to our commanders to determine what is appropriate based upon the circumstances of the moment. Um, no it isn't, 2pid. That's why there are ROE. There are even national-level ROE and "caveats" (I think I've seen you whine about Germany's, for example). You can't exceed them without clearance from WAY up. CGs don't usually delegate that authority and some are above the level of the CG. One commander just got relieved in Afghanistan, 2pid, and the incoming CG will be reviewing the ROE. Does that tell you anything, dum-dum? Oh, and since we invaded their country it is incumbent upon us to accept much more risk than we expect the civilians there to accept. Buh-bye, dimbulb. Time to go get some sun. LoL. Duh. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Why Europe Won't Fight | Audio Opinions | |||
Another tactic to fight the s p @ m | Pro Audio | |||
fight back against baldness | Pro Audio | |||
SET v. PP, the big fight tonight | Vacuum Tubes | |||
SET v. PP, the big fight tonight | Audio Opinions |