[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

(Words you'll never hear 2pid say.)

The report says that U.S. air and ground forces headed to Afghanistan
should receive advance training in the kinds of scenarios they could
face, including situations that have resulted in civilian deaths, one
official said. The report suggests periodic refresher training
throughout troops' tours of duty in the war zone, meaning that forces
would get training early and often to reinforce battlefield tactics.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and other top military officials have
said that reducing civilian deaths is crucial to winning Afghan
support for American and coalition operations against the insurgents
and boosting the population's support for the central government.

http://www.startribune.com/nation/48...oDEy3LGDiO7aiU

WASHINGTON - Stricter new rules for combat and bombing raids in
Afghanistan may well complicate the battlefield for American forces,
but officials say the changes are crucial to reducing civilian deaths
that have been undermining the war effort.

"We are not in Afghanistan to make sure that fewer Americans die,"
said Andrew Exum of the Washington think tank Center for a New
American Security. "We are in Afghanistan to make sure fewer Afghan
civilians die."

"But if there is a compound they're taking fire from, and they can
remove themselves from the area safely, without any undue danger to
the forces, then that's the option they should take," Smith said.
"Because in these compounds we know there are often civilians kept
captive by the Taliban."

Though guidelines have been tightened before, the order would be one
of the strongest measures taken by a U.S. commander to protect the
Afghan population.

Commanders and top Defense Department officials alike, say such deaths
hurt their counterinsurgency mission because they turn average Afghans
against the government and U.S. and NATO forces.

http://www.startribune.com/nation/48...oDEy3LGDiO7aiU

WASHINGTON -- The big goals of the new American general taking charge
of the war in Afghanistan start with fixing a problem that bedeviled
the man he is replacing: the repeated, inadvertent killing of
civilians.

Gates emphasized the imperative of avoiding civilian casualties,
calling the deaths "one of our greatest strategic vulnerabilities." In
his few public comments, McChrystal also has highlighted the problem.

Robert Scales, a retired Army two-star general who has advised U.S.
commanders in Afghanistan, said in an interview Friday that he
believes McChrystal will focus mainly on shifting emphasis from
killing Taliban and al-Qaida fighters to protecting Afghans from those
fighters - and from unintended U.S. bombings.

"The metric has changed. The metric is no longer how much territory in
Afghanistan do we control, but how effective are we in securing the
people," Scales said. "Not how many bad guys do we kill or how many
American casualties do we suffer, but how few Afghans are killed - by
both the bad guys and by us."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...061300246.html

Did you see that, 2pid? "We are not in Afghanistan to make sure that
fewer Americans die," said Andrew Exum of the Washington think tank
Center for a New American Security. "We are in Afghanistan to make
sure fewer Afghan civilians die."

"But if there is a compound they're taking fire from, and they can
remove themselves from the area safely, without any undue danger to
the forces, then that's the option they should take," Smith said.
"Because in these compounds we know there are often civilians kept
captive by the Taliban."

One might expect 2pid to say, "Ooops! Sorry, Shhhh!! You were right
all along!"

But that assumes two things: One, that 2pid has integrity. Two, that
he's arguing the same side that he has since 2006. LoL.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

One might expect 2pid to say, "Ooops! Sorry, Shhhh!! You were right
all along!"

But that assumes two things: One, that 2pid has integrity. Two, that
he's arguing the same side that he has since 2006. LoL.

Good luck trying to anticipate Witless's motivations or responses. My take
is that Scottie, like the Krooborg before him, is only interested in
arguing for its own sake. Saying "I was wrong" or "I'm sorry for yapping
out of ignorance" is conciliatory, which does not fit at all with
argumentativeness.

You might as well hope Witlessmongrel will stop chasing the delivery truck
of "libs" that torments him every day.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 24, 1:37*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 24, 10:33*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:

One might expect 2pid to say, "Ooops! Sorry, Shhhh!! You were right
all along!"

But that assumes two things: One, that 2pid has integrity. Two, that
he's arguing the same side that he has since 2006. LoL.

*or the most obvious but ignored 3rd option.
That you simply can't accurately represent my (nor anyone's) position
which isn't "shhtard is right no matter what". *I've never argued that
civilian lives and the struggle for hearts and minds is not
important. *I have argued that your arm chair critique of US
operations is BS

Well. "BS" as far as the SECDEF and CG of the operation agreeing with
me...

Speaking of "armchair", where were you stationed when you were
serving? LoL.

and soldiers in trouble deserve all the support they
need. *Obviously Smith agrees as he said, "But if there is a compound
they're taking fire from, and they can remove themselves from the area
safely, without any undue danger to the forces, then that's the option
they should take,"

Clearly if they cannot remove themselves safely without undue danger,
that compound may be bombed.

Duh.

You probably don't recall that I proposed this three years ago and you
scoffed. LoL.

*So now we've told the Taliban every Afghan village is safe haven.
Interesting tactic.

You obviously and clearly do not understand what was said, 2pid.
There's no surprise there.

I'm not sure how that will guarantee civilian security nor advance the
war effort.
But it is good to know that we aren't fighting " to make sure that
fewer Americans die".

I've known that all along, 2pid.

You probably don't recall that I proposed this three years ago and you
scoffed. LoL.

So I'll ask again, what are you fighting for? *Obama's war grows ever
more questionable.

It's the exact same goal as we have in Iraq, 2pid. Remove bad guys
from power and give democracy a chance to flourish. The difference, of
course, is that there *was* an actual tie between the Taliban and
9/11.

Meanwhile,

Meanwhile, will you ever figure anything out? On your own I mean. LoL.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 24, 3:01*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 24, 12:18*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jun 24, 1:37*pm, ScottW2 wrote:

On Jun 24, 10:33*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
One might expect 2pid to say, "Ooops! Sorry, Shhhh!! You were right
all along!"

But that assumes two things: One, that 2pid has integrity. Two, that
he's arguing the same side that he has since 2006. LoL.

*or the most obvious but ignored 3rd option.
That you simply can't accurately represent my (nor anyone's) position
which isn't "shhtard is right no matter what". *I've never argued that
civilian lives and the struggle for hearts and minds is not
important. *I have argued that your arm chair critique of US
operations is BS

Well. "BS" as far as the SECDEF and CG of the operation agreeing with
me...

Speaking of "armchair", where were you stationed when you were
serving? LoL.

*I have assumed command of all the Starship Troopers.
Bend over and give me 20.

Oh, I was just wondering what your definition of "armchair" was.

You have this 'differing POV' about definitions. LoL.

and soldiers in trouble deserve all the support they
need. *Obviously Smith agrees as he said, "But if there is a compound
they're taking fire from, and they can remove themselves from the area
safely, without any undue danger to the forces, then that's the option
they should take,"

Clearly if they cannot remove themselves safely without undue danger,
that compound may be bombed.

Duh.

You probably don't recall that I proposed this three years ago and you
scoffed. LoL.

* I scoff at almost eveything you claim as little of it ever turns out
correct.

Except for like now for example. LoL.

*So now we've told the Taliban every Afghan village is safe haven.
Interesting tactic.

You obviously and clearly do not understand what was said, 2pid.
There's no surprise there.

Chirp chirp. LoL.

I'm not sure how that will guarantee civilian security nor advance the
war effort.
But it is good to know that we aren't fighting " to make sure that
fewer Americans die".

I've known that all along, 2pid.

You probably don't recall that I proposed this three years ago and you
scoffed. LoL.

*Looks like the simple cut and paste skill has failed you again.

The fact remains, you have argued the wrong side of an argument and
now you cannot admit it. LoL.

So I'll ask again, what are you fighting for? *Obama's war grows ever
more questionable.

It's the exact same goal as we have in Iraq, 2pid. Remove bad guys
from power and give democracy a chance to flourish.

*Here I thought Obama said this was to focus on Al Qaeda and bin
Laden. Aren't we
after them for killing Americans?

Nope. You confuse vengeance with reality.

We're after them so they don't kill again, dum-dum.

*Since the objective has clearly morphed into something else, this war
in Afghanistan is as you admit, no different than Bush's war in Iraq.

Since he started them both, that makes all kinds of sense. bushie was
a moron.

I think your integrity demands that you RIP again.

Integrity making demands? LOL!

Your thumb demands that you extricate it from your ass.

*The difference, of
course, is that there *was* an actual tie between the Taliban and
9/11.

* And you're off to build them a new country for it. *Good luck.

What is it we're doing in Iraq...again?

LMAO!

When you end up fighting, try to remember what you're fighting for.
Obama apparently has already forgotten.

Why would you say that?

Part of the reason we want to make Iraq and Afghanistan democracies is
to keep the possibility of terrorists having bases there low.

So bushie had the same goals in both places, but on one hand it's OK
and on the other it's no good.

What changed (besides the administration)? LoL.

What an imbecile.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 25, 1:46*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 24, 1:18*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Jun 24, 3:01*pm, ScottW2 wrote:

On Jun 24, 12:18*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jun 24, 1:37*pm, ScottW2 wrote:

On Jun 24, 10:33*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
One might expect 2pid to say, "Ooops! Sorry, Shhhh!! You were right
all along!"

But that assumes two things: One, that 2pid has integrity. Two, that
he's arguing the same side that he has since 2006. LoL.

*or the most obvious but ignored 3rd option.
That you simply can't accurately represent my (nor anyone's) position
which isn't "shhtard is right no matter what". *I've never argued that
civilian lives and the struggle for hearts and minds is not
important. *I have argued that your arm chair critique of US
operations is BS

Well. "BS" as far as the SECDEF and CG of the operation agreeing with
me...

Speaking of "armchair", where were you stationed when you were
serving? LoL.

*I have assumed command of all the Starship Troopers.
Bend over and give me 20.

Oh, I was just wondering what your definition of "armchair" was.

You have this 'differing POV' about definitions. LoL.

and soldiers in trouble deserve all the support they
need. *Obviously Smith agrees as he said, "But if there is a compound
they're taking fire from, and they can remove themselves from the area
safely, without any undue danger to the forces, then that's the option
they should take,"

Clearly if they cannot remove themselves safely without undue danger,
that compound may be bombed.

Duh.

You probably don't recall that I proposed this three years ago and you
scoffed. LoL.

* I scoff at almost eveything you claim as little of it ever turns out
correct.

Except for like now for example. LoL.

*So now we've told the Taliban every Afghan village is safe haven.
Interesting tactic.

You obviously and clearly do not understand what was said, 2pid.
There's no surprise there.

Chirp chirp. LoL.

* "You don't understand" usually predicates something of substance.
* You have none.


I suppose not, since you obviously and clearly do not understand what
was said, 2pid.

LoL.

I'm not sure how that will guarantee civilian security nor advance the
war effort.
But it is good to know that we aren't fighting " to make sure that
fewer Americans die".

I've known that all along, 2pid.

You probably don't recall that I proposed this three years ago and you
scoffed. LoL.

*Looks like the simple cut and paste skill has failed you again.

The fact remains, you have argued the wrong side of an argument and
now you cannot admit it. LoL.

*I argued you were not in a position to judge any one action from your
armchair. *That remains true as these issues are admittedly above your
pay grade and forever will be.

Oh, how wrong you are, 2pid. We can judge and I have judged correctly.

Go back to the original thread *three years ago* and look what I said
about options ILO CAS. One was backing off. Instead we bombed a house
with a small handful of snipers (and took a ****load of bad press).

Now look at what was said, 2pid.

Yes, there *are* correct and incorrect usages of CAS. You cannjot
judge because you weren't trained on them, 2pid. That does not apply
to everybody. LoL.

So I'll ask again, what are you fighting for? *Obama's war grows ever
more questionable.

It's the exact same goal as we have in Iraq, 2pid. Remove bad guys
from power and give democracy a chance to flourish.

*Here I thought Obama said this was to focus on Al Qaeda and bin
Laden. Aren't we
after them for killing Americans?

Nope. You confuse vengeance with reality.

We're after them so they don't kill again, dum-dum.

"we aren't fighting " to make sure that fewer Americans die".

*Houston, I think we have a problem.

In your muddled 'brain' perhaps.

What that means is, 2pid, that *we* get to accept more risk than the
Afghani civilians do. Again, go back to the thread from *three years
ago* to see that my position has not changed on that, either.

It's just that you're still too ****ing stupid to understand what's
being said. LoL.

*Since the objective has clearly morphed into something else, this war
in Afghanistan is as you admit, no different than Bush's war in Iraq.

Since he started them both, that makes all kinds of sense. bushie was
a moron.

I think your integrity demands that you RIP again.

Integrity making demands? LOL!

*Spineless integrity demands nothing.
*I've long known what integrity you have.

Um, 2pid? "Integrity" cannot demand anything.

Your thumb demands that you extricate it from your ass.

Chirp chirp LoL.

*The difference, of
course, is that there *was* an actual tie between the Taliban and
9/11.

* And you're off to build them a new country for it. *Good luck.

What is it we're doing in Iraq...again?

*Winning. * But if you think you can turn Afghanistan in Iraq....good
luck.
Enjoy your long, very very long, deployment.

Six years and hundreds of billions of dollars.

Um, 2pid? The stakes in Afghanistan are far higher.

Quit your treasonous whining. Your a looser. LoL.

LMAO!

When you end up fighting, try to remember what you're fighting for.
Obama apparently has already forgotten.

Why would you say that?

*Because most Americans believe we're fighting to save American lives
from being lost to future terrorist attacks.

Now, *"we aren't fighting to make sure that fewer Americans die".

Oh, the thought that military personnel have to accept risk is a new
'thought' for you. I've known it all along, dum-dum.

In fact, go back to that thread from *three years ago* (LoL.) and see
my statements about moving US troops off fortified FOBs and into
neighborhoods. That's what Petreaus did too. That wasn't about "making
sure that fewer Americans die", 2pid. It exposed them to much the same
risk as the civilians.

Duh.

Part of the reason we want to make Iraq and Afghanistan democracies is
to keep the possibility of terrorists having bases there low.

*Why would we care if that doesn't save American lives?

Duh.

We aren't fighting *Obama's war " to make sure that fewer Americans
die" .
So what are you fighting for?

You claim to understand context, nimrod. Figure it out.

What a numbskull.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 26, 1:35*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 25, 7:06*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Jun 25, 1:46*pm, ScottW2 wrote:

On Jun 24, 1:18*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jun 24, 3:01*pm, ScottW2 wrote:

On Jun 24, 12:18*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jun 24, 1:37*pm, ScottW2 wrote:

On Jun 24, 10:33*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
One might expect 2pid to say, "Ooops! Sorry, Shhhh!! You were right
all along!"

But that assumes two things: One, that 2pid has integrity. Two, that
he's arguing the same side that he has since 2006. LoL.

*or the most obvious but ignored 3rd option.
That you simply can't accurately represent my (nor anyone's) position
which isn't "shhtard is right no matter what". *I've never argued that
civilian lives and the struggle for hearts and minds is not
important. *I have argued that your arm chair critique of US
operations is BS

Well. "BS" as far as the SECDEF and CG of the operation agreeing with
me...

Speaking of "armchair", where were you stationed when you were
serving? LoL.

*I have assumed command of all the Starship Troopers.
Bend over and give me 20.

Oh, I was just wondering what your definition of "armchair" was.

You have this 'differing POV' about definitions. LoL.

and soldiers in trouble deserve all the support they
need. *Obviously Smith agrees as he said, "But if there is a compound
they're taking fire from, and they can remove themselves from the area
safely, without any undue danger to the forces, then that's the option
they should take,"

Clearly if they cannot remove themselves safely without undue danger,
that compound may be bombed.

Duh.

You probably don't recall that I proposed this three years ago and you
scoffed. LoL.

* I scoff at almost eveything you claim as little of it ever turns out
correct.

Except for like now for example. LoL.

*So now we've told the Taliban every Afghan village is safe haven.
Interesting tactic.

You obviously and clearly do not understand what was said, 2pid..
There's no surprise there.

Chirp chirp. LoL.

* "You don't understand" usually predicates something of substance.
* You have none.

I suppose not, since you obviously and clearly do not understand what
was said, 2pid.

* Shhhtard sets a new standard for truth in his posts.
I know it isn't much but any progress is a plus.

Thank you. I see the fog of stupidity lifted temporarily.

*I argued you were not in a position to judge any one action from your
armchair. *That remains true as these issues are admittedly above your
pay grade and forever will be.

Oh, how wrong you are, 2pid. We can judge and I have judged correctly.

Go back to the original thread *three years ago* and look what I said
about options ILO CAS. One was backing off. Instead we bombed a house
with a small handful of snipers (and took a ****load of bad press).

*You don't know if backing off was an option in any individual action.
That was my point.

But I do, 2pid. A few snipers in a single building are easily screened
with smoke. Breaking contact with snipers like that is one of the
easiest actions you can do. And as I said, there are times when CAS
*is* appropriate. That wasn't one of them.

I don't care if *you* agree with me, 2pid. You're an unintelligent and
inexperienced dumb****.

The Army leadership agrees and that what does matter. LoL.

You also at one point advocated soldiers kicking in doors at
incredible risk to our guys. * I'm not going to advocate a door to
door campaign in the interest of rooting out the Taliban. * How
selfish would I be to demand our young soldiers expose themselves to
such risk to prevent Al Qaeda from maybe doing something?

The point was (and is), 2pid, that we're not there to make sure fewer
Americans die. LoL.

Cost/benefit isn't close IMO. *Buy, hey, if you're all gun-ho to go
kick some
doors in, good luck. *Idiocy is the only trait evolution can still
address in the human race.

"Cost/benefit" is in human lives, and may mean success or failure.
Nobody looks forward to kicking doors in, 2pid. Nobody sane actually
looks forward to being in a combat zone. It's very counterintuitive.
LoL.

And BTW: nice slam on American troops. You should be supporting them.
LoL.

We aren't talking cell phone chips here, dum-dum.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 26, 2:21*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 26, 12:10*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

But I do, 2pid. A few snipers in a single building are easily screened
with smoke. Breaking contact with snipers like that is one of the
easiest actions you can do. And as I said, there are times when CAS
*is* appropriate. That wasn't one of them.

*How do you know the "snipers" were the only enemy forces in the area?
*You don't.

Do too. It was an official report on a Marine Corps site, dum-dum.

Don't you suppose if there was a brigade of T-84 tanks coing around
the bend they might just have mentioned that?

Duh. Off we go into 2pid's imaginary "what if" game.

* You also don't know if the snipers were in a position to cover the
path of escape our troops needed to take and you don't know how
long they had to effect their escape from peril.

As I said, 2pid, snipers are easily screened with smoke. Patrols carry
smoke genades, dum-dum.

I don't care if *you* agree with me, 2pid. You're an unintelligent and
inexperienced dumb****.

*The list of things you don't know grows.

Oh, I do know that you're an unintelligent and inexperienced dumb****.
There's no doubt there at all. LoL.

The Army leadership agrees and that what does matter. LoL.

BS, even in the last action where rules were broken they still the
use of CAS was justified. *You're just too blockheaded to accept
anything that shows your "black and white" claims are meaningless
in the fog of war.

Um, 2pid? Did you see the part about "poorly planned" operation?
That's why CAS was "justifiede": They got their asses in a sling
because the operation was "poorly planned"

Now I know you approve of stupidity like that. I don't. LoL.

You also at one point advocated soldiers kicking in doors at
incredible risk to our guys. * I'm not going to advocate a door to
door campaign in the interest of rooting out the Taliban. * How
selfish would I be to demand our young soldiers expose themselves to
such risk to prevent Al Qaeda from maybe doing something?

The point was (and is), 2pid, that we're not there to make sure fewer
Americans die. LoL.

*Welcome to the front of the line on that.

If that was the point of a military operation, 2pid, we wouldn't have
military operations.

Go back and reread what I've said about balancing force protection
with mission accomplishment.

Jesus you're obtuse. LoL.

Cost/benefit isn't close IMO. *Buy, hey, if you're all gun-ho to go
kick some
doors in, good luck. *Idiocy is the only trait evolution can still
address in the human race.

"Cost/benefit" is in human lives, and may mean success or failure.
Nobody looks forward to kicking doors in, 2pid. Nobody sane actually
looks forward to being in a combat zone. It's very counterintuitive.
LoL.

And BTW: nice slam on American troops.

*I don't slam the troops. I slam the idiot majors with a political
agenda who put their troops at unnecessary and IMO excessive risk
in a campaign that ultimately won't matter.

What a treasonous defeatist.

But it's Obama's war now and your party bound to support it.

I supported operations in Afghanistan even when bushie was President.
You can go back and look, dum-dum.

But then bushie just *had* to take his eye off the ball. The reason
there's an "Obama's War" is because bushie was too stupid to see what
happens when you are trying to fight on two front. See "Operation
Overlord" and "Operation Barbarossa" for a lesson on that. LoL.

What a numbskull.