Erollisi Marr - The Nameless

Go Back   Erollisi Marr - The Nameless > NON EQ Stuff (Real life, other games, etc.) > Steam Vent


Reply
 
Add/Share Add/Share Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-02-2004, 05:31 AM   #1
bumbleroot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 7,756
Default Who's commanding this military anyways?

The most despicable thing since this war began was the atrocities by the US military allowing four contractors to be desecrated after their deaths.
The military said they did not go in because they knew the men were dead and it would make no difference. Now they are talking about revenge and going into Fallujah. WHY THE FUCK DID THEY NOT TAKE ACTION WHEN IT HAPPENED? They knew it was happening and for 10 hours it went on and on. I thought the military was not supposed to pussy away from aggressors and do their job protecting citizens dead or alive.
This is inexcusable. We have just handed Iraqi militants a blank check to take aggressive mob actions as they choose. This is terrible leadership. The generals or any commanding officers ought to be held accountable for this atrocity and failure to be American Soldiers.
bumbleroot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2004, 05:38 AM   #2
Felessan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 1,005
Its called a Chain of Command...and cost/benefit.

The individuals in question, were civilian (read Ex-Military advisors) and knew the risks. I agree with the commander on the ground, not to risk soldiers for dead civilians.

Im not truly familiar with all the peripheral intel on site, but I doubt they would have swayed my decision.
__________________
Felessan Oakhallow
Ginsu Stalker of Anlah 'Shok
Retired

"The things we do in life, echo in eternity!"
Felessan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2004, 05:40 AM   #3
Felessan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 1,005
Also,

Keep in mind the CC has to consider the risks not only to his men, but to the innocent civilians within the MOUT environment. An Infantry unit is not a surgical tool...more like a large bludgeon.

My .02, though with inflation probably worth much less.
__________________
Felessan Oakhallow
Ginsu Stalker of Anlah 'Shok
Retired

"The things we do in life, echo in eternity!"
Felessan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2004, 05:50 AM   #4
Siafore
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 42
Actually Bumble,

There is a thing called Rules of Engagement. They were probably following those. The R.O.E. is specifically made to provide a level of protection to both the military personnel as well as the civilians around them. This R.O.E. is usually approved way up in the Pentagon level for this type of operation. (I.E. Civilian) These R.O.E's also tie into the laws of land warfare. (Thus for instance you will never see a U.S. military personnel firing into a Church or Mosque unless it can be confirmed that that is where the fire is coming from. And that decision is probably coming from a 2-Star or above level..like in Bosnia/Kosovo) The R.O.E. is also there to prevent the soldiers from breaking international laws and making themselves open to criminal prosecution. It is a check for the soldier and provides the commander a way to control him after all if they were not there, then any soldier could take any action and what you would then have is chaos. The R.O.E. places the soldier under it for UCMJ action so they watch what they are doing.

Also take into fact that there have been numerous times that G.I.s have rushed into a situation and ended up being ambushed themselves. There was this little place in Africa that was like that...In my opinion I think the soldier's on the ground showed prudence at an unknown situation and did not engage to further inflame the situation...which is probably what the protesters wanted. It works like that all the time in another little place in the middle east. (Care to wager what I am talking about?)

Now to play on the morbid side..these civilians contractors for security were all Ex-Military personnel who with their full knowledge and consent elected themselves to go there. They did it for one thing..and one thing only..The might DOLLAR. Did they practice force protection? Was there a lapse in their judgement....???? There will be no way of knowing..and anytime you want to know about R.O.Es then lets talk...I enforced them in Bosnia..and Hell I write them now at my job....

Very Respectfully,

Siafore
Siafore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2004, 06:07 AM   #5
Caelie123
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Georgia
Posts: 2,027
Wouldn't you know...while everyone else is outraged with the insurgents, Bumbleroot looks for a way to blame the Bush Administration and our Military.

You're sad Bumble and eat up with it to say the least!

You can bet your sweet ass the marines would have liked nothing more than to reak havoc on that little town.
__________________
Caelie
65 Human Cleric
Caelie123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2004, 06:08 AM   #6
bumbleroot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 7,756
This has opened up the freedom for mob rule in Iraqi in other words.
bumbleroot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2004, 06:35 AM   #7
Felessan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 1,005
Originally Posted by Siafore
Actually Bumble,

There is a thing called Rules of Engagement. They were probably following those. The R.O.E. is specifically made to provide a level of protection to both the military personnel as well as the civilians around them. This R.O.E. is usually approved way up in the Pentagon level for this type of operation. (I.E. Civilian) These R.O.E's also tie into the laws of land warfare. (Thus for instance you will never see a U.S. military personnel firing into a Church or Mosque unless it can be confirmed that that is where the fire is coming from. And that decision is probably coming from a 2-Star or above level..like in Bosnia/Kosovo) The R.O.E. is also there to prevent the soldiers from breaking international laws and making themselves open to criminal prosecution. It is a check for the soldier and provides the commander a way to control him after all if they were not there, then any soldier could take any action and what you would then have is chaos. The R.O.E. places the soldier under it for UCMJ action so they watch what they are doing.

Also take into fact that there have been numerous times that G.I.s have rushed into a situation and ended up being ambushed themselves. There was this little place in Africa that was like that...In my opinion I think the soldier's on the ground showed prudence at an unknown situation and did not engage to further inflame the situation...which is probably what the protesters wanted. It works like that all the time in another little place in the middle east. (Care to wager what I am talking about?)

Now to play on the morbid side..these civilians contractors for security were all Ex-Military personnel who with their full knowledge and consent elected themselves to go there. They did it for one thing..and one thing only..The might DOLLAR. Did they practice force protection? Was there a lapse in their judgement....???? There will be no way of knowing..and anytime you want to know about R.O.Es then lets talk...I enforced them in Bosnia..and Hell I write them now at my job....

Very Respectfully,

Siafore
Actually...what you are reffering to is commonly known as LOAC, Law of Armed Conflict. This is what delineates who is a combatant and who is not. Sets guidelines on available targets for the military, etc.

ROE are rules set inplace by the theatre commander governeing the release of deadly force or weapons free. These are specificaly utilized to protect/defend US assets and personnel...and prevent unauthorized killing.
__________________
Felessan Oakhallow
Ginsu Stalker of Anlah 'Shok
Retired

"The things we do in life, echo in eternity!"
Felessan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2004, 06:55 AM   #8
Caelie123
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Georgia
Posts: 2,027
Originally Posted by Bumbleroot
This has opened up the freedom for mob rule in Iraqi in other words.
I hardly think so Bumble.
Taken from an article:
The Wednesday mutilation of the bodies of four American contractors, meanwhile, continues to cause an uproar. The U.S. military and coalition has vowed to stay in Iraq and make sure the insurgency is put down.

"Fallujah's just a very, very small part of the country and the people who did this are just a very, very small part of the population there," Kimmitt told Fox News on Friday.

Kimmitt said the U.S. military will respond to the brutal killings by a "combination of iron fist and velvet club for those who want to move toward better Iraq, we're there to help them. For those who choose violence, we will respond."

Kimmitt also noted that there is still a "significant amount" of Saddam Fedayeen (search) in Fallujah. The Fedayeen was a prewar irregular Iraqi militia.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115960,00.html
__________________
Caelie
65 Human Cleric
Caelie123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2004, 07:06 AM   #9
Felessan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 1,005
Originally Posted by Siafore
(Thus for instance you will never see a U.S. military personnel firing into a Church or Mosque unless it can be confirmed that that is where the fire is coming from. And that decision is probably coming from a 2-Star or above level..like in Bosnia/Kosovo)
Just to clarify...

The moment a squad recieves fire from any position...church/mosque/hospital...they lose their non-combatant status and are guaranteed a fire mission. The commander on the ground, needs to be able to confirm the origin of the contact but once that is done... woe be unto them.
__________________
Felessan Oakhallow
Ginsu Stalker of Anlah 'Shok
Retired

"The things we do in life, echo in eternity!"
Felessan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2004, 07:07 AM   #10
Caelie123
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Georgia
Posts: 2,027
Bumbleroot this may answer your question as to why the Marines didn't go barging in.
U.S. troops remained outside the city Thursday, and commanders said they would act "at the time and place of our choosing."

They also defended their decision not to send forces into the city Wednesday to retrieve the charred remains of the Americans, who were dragged through the streets for hours after insurgents ambushed their SUVs.

Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt (search) said troops didn't respond for fear of ambushes and the possibility that insurgents would use civilians as human shields. "A pre-emptive attack into the city could have taken a bad situation and made it even worse," he said.
Kimmitt told Fox News Thursday that the response against the contractors' attackers will be "deliberate, precise and it's going to be overwhelming."
Now I like that! the response against the attackers will be deliberate, precise and overwhelming.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115822,00.html
__________________
Caelie
65 Human Cleric
Caelie123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2004, 07:11 AM   #11
AresProphet
Priest of Hiroshima
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,932
Send a message via MSN to AresProphet
For once Bumble has a point.

What has the U.S. promised to do? nothing they aren't already. Cracking down on insurgents? Well gee, I'm sure glad they are doing that now, instead of before, considering we're in the fucking country.

Really, the U.S. can spit and fume and make threats but we can't do anything new. Anti-Americanism in Iraq has existed for a while, and this isn't an "eye-opener" as I have heard it called; otherwise, we were ignorant jackasses keeping ourselves blindfolded.

It's a sort of strange scenario. The U.S. should be, and should have been all along, doing everything in it's power to keep insurgents from doing things like this. Read that again: everything in it's power. Why? Because we don't want to get fucking killed over there! So what can we do? Step up our efforts? If we committ to doing that it is essentiually an admission that we didn't care enough about it before, and it took the deaths of innocent civilians to get us to stop this kind of shit. I firmly believe we are trying to do all we can to prevent this from happening (again), so it's empty rhetoric to threaten increased interference.

These speeches about "standing strong" against insurgents don't even make it past logic without becoming bear traps.
__________________
One of the wonders of the world is going down
It's going down I know
It's one of the blunders of the world that no-one cares
No-one cares enough


Attachment 181
AresProphet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2004, 07:19 AM   #12
chukzombi
The Undead Shaman
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Bowels of Hell, A.K.A. New Jersey
Posts: 9,564
You can thank Bill Clinton for the lack of US troops scouring Iraq. If we had the military we had 12 years ago we would be in every city and a military presence would be felt, the way things are now, we have to put our men in the most important spots they can be. I predict a series of air attacks on falujah with a massive clean and sweep ground attack in the next few days.
__________________
Chukzombi Astrocreep
Magister (re-united)
chukzombi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2004, 07:25 AM   #13
Felessan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 1,005
Originally Posted by AresProphet
For once Bumble has a point.

What has the U.S. promised to do? nothing they aren't already. Cracking down on insurgents? Well gee, I'm sure glad they are doing that now, instead of before, considering we're in the fucking country.

Really, the U.S. can spit and fume and make threats but we can't do anything new. Anti-Americanism in Iraq has existed for a while, and this isn't an "eye-opener" as I have heard it called; otherwise, we were ignorant jackasses keeping ourselves blindfolded.

It's a sort of strange scenario. The U.S. should be, and should have been all along, doing everything in it's power to keep insurgents from doing things like this. Read that again: everything in it's power. Why? Because we don't want to get fucking killed over there! So what can we do? Step up our efforts? If we committ to doing that it is essentiually an admission that we didn't care enough about it before, and it took the deaths of innocent civilians to get us to stop this kind of shit. I firmly believe we are trying to do all we can to prevent this from happening (again), so it's empty rhetoric to threaten increased interference.

These speeches about "standing strong" against insurgents don't even make it past logic without becoming bear traps.
Detection, control, and destruction of Insurgents/Guerrillas take on new meaning within the confines of the MOUT environement. Intelligence gathering is key here, as well as the abiltiy to mobilize at a moments notice, with controlled lethality. There is a noted weakness in Intel gathering resources within the AO. This is currently being worked.

Keep in mind we are trying to not alienate the local populace. The "Insurgents" are their brothers, cousins, uncles, etc. and they are conditioned to a regime who had rather stiff penalties so they are understandably a bit leery of assisting US Forces. Occupation, even for a limited time, is a tricky business...hopefully we will be succesful.

You cannot run pellmell into a situation and hope to come out on top. More often than not, this generates a "Lessons Learned" and a bunch of body bags.
__________________
Felessan Oakhallow
Ginsu Stalker of Anlah 'Shok
Retired

"The things we do in life, echo in eternity!"
Felessan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2004, 07:53 AM   #14
AresProphet
Priest of Hiroshima
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,932
Send a message via MSN to AresProphet
Detection, control, and destruction of Insurgents/Guerrillas take on new meaning within the confines of the MOUT environement. Intelligence gathering is key here, as well as the abiltiy to mobilize at a moments notice, with controlled lethality. There is a noted weakness in Intel gathering resources within the AO. This is currently being worked.

Keep in mind we are trying to not alienate the local populace. The "Insurgents" are their brothers, cousins, uncles, etc. and they are conditioned to a regime who had rather stiff penalties so they are understandably a bit leery of assisting US Forces. Occupation, even for a limited time, is a tricky business...hopefully we will be succesful.

You cannot run pellmell into a situation and hope to come out on top. More often than not, this generates a "Lessons Learned" and a bunch of body bags.
This doesn't really address my point.

I am talking about the politgenerals who are out there on TV talk shows giving rhetoric-laden oratories about toughening up on terrorism in Iraq. All they are doing in blowing hot air. Can you toughen up if you're already doing the best you can? And if you weren't doing the best you can, why the hell not?!

Most intelligent people understand that occupying Iraq is not so black-and-white as "blowing up those who oppose us". You'd blow up about half the country. Thing is, 95% of our opposition isn't going to start shooting us over it; they'll grumble, some will get politically vocal, but the large majority will simply breathe a sigh of relief when (or if) they get control of their own country. It doesn't help even if you could pinpoint every person in that crowd in Fallujah and make an example out of him; there still will be more, and since you can only catch them after the fact it's not as though you are preventing anything.

The occupation has to be geared towards two things. First, gaining (and keeping) support from as many Iraqis as possible. At the very least, make them ambivalent to our presence. They don't have to like us; we invaded them for fucks sake. Saddam evil this, Saddam evil that, there weren't carbombs going off with alarming regularity. At least Saddams evil was pretty controlled as opposed to the chaos now. Fix the chaos by taking away the reasons to fight us. Yes, it's appeasement, but it works. Better to be loved than feared.

Second, we have to do what we came to do: get the hell out. For whatever misguided reason we invaded Iraq, I hope to fucking hell that we didn't invade for the sake of colonizing it. Unless we specifically fought for that purpose, we have no reason to remain in there any longer than it takes to clean up our mess. I'm not seeing progress in this; we simply are getting mired in further.

In fact, if you work toward this secondary goal, you can effectively ignore the guerillas. Since thier major gripe is that we're in their country, why don't we leave? This hardline stance America has taken of not bowing to any pressure is ridiculous. Bin Laden himself wants a holy war, and we're giving it to him, thinking we can beat him at his own game. Maybe, but what if we refuse to play? Deos it mean we cave in? Not at all. He can fume all he wants, as impotently as any schoolyard child, but ultimately we would just be refusing to dance to his tune.

Most people don't seem to understand this. Do you honestly think suicide bombers will stop attacking American targets if our military withdraws? After all, that's what they say they will do. Scouts honor, and all that . Fact is, even if we do get out, they'll find a new reason to perpetuate their holy war. What they really want is a fight, martyrdom, an example to the rest of Islam that America really is just out for Muslim blood. Reverse psychology is the tactic. Really, how is it appeasing the terrorists if they never intend to uphold their end of the bargain anyway? They make an offer unrealistic enough that we know they won't comply, so we just keep fighting.

What if we stopped? After a very brief period where Osama and his cronies trumpeted out a hollow "victory", what then? As soon as the next suicide bombing or assassination happened (and they would, swiftly), we can point the finger right back at them. Illuminate every bit of their hypocrisy to the world, and make them not martyrs but fools. They would be set up in their own trap, either forced to play the game they started, or break the rules they created. And if they did decide to comply, at the cost of humiliation we would achieve a goal that is nowhere in sight after hundreds of lives have been lost: terrorists in Iraq would stop. This is unrealistic, so we'd end up in the first situation.

If you think about it we do have a golden opportinity to turn these martyrs into hypocrites. They are counting on our pride to keep us from making the one move that puts the ball back in their court, and at the same time offers them no chance of escape intact.

But we'll keep fighting the Pointless War on Terror, because our collective pride is so fucking big even a black hole would choke on it.
__________________
One of the wonders of the world is going down
It's going down I know
It's one of the blunders of the world that no-one cares
No-one cares enough


Attachment 181
AresProphet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2004, 08:06 AM   #15
Felessan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 1,005
I agree with you for the most part...

The vast majority of those ""Politgenerals" are paid consultants of the network. They rarely speak of any substance as they are brought in to fill air time and to provide "perspective". I tend to tune these clowns out...they are selling out.

US policy in Iraq needs to be solidified, goals need to be established, and the roadmap to its completion needs to be drafted. Otherwise, we may be looking at a very bad situation.

Good post, Aresprophet.
__________________
Felessan Oakhallow
Ginsu Stalker of Anlah 'Shok
Retired

"The things we do in life, echo in eternity!"

Last edited by Felessan; 04-02-2004 at 08:23 AM.
Felessan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2004, 08:45 AM   #16
bumbleroot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 7,756
You can thank Bill Clinton for the lack of US troops scouring Iraq. If we had the military we had 12 years ago
Chuk you seem to forget that Clinton followed the Bush Sr. admin goals of reducing the military. In fact, you obviously don't follow Rumsfeld much. He has praised reducing the military and I believe he was part of the move in Bush I to reduce the military.
In a sense, Rumsfeld is right on his efforts. We don't need massive military buildups for conventional wars. You don't fight terrorism with conventional warfare. You fight it with manned drones and precision strikes. That is a far cry from what we have done in Iraq. You fight terrorism with intelligence and special forces. However, our war is not necessarily a conventional war it is a terror war and Iraq is not the central war on terror as Bush says it is.
The big error of this administration is that terrorism is not run by states. It is run by cells. State sponsorship is sporadic and even though it does exist, it is not hardly necessary for terrorism to exist. Pretty much the same way any religion thrives. This LIE of terrorism being state run is evident by looking at 9/11. WE KNOW IT WASN'T! So why are we following this doctrine of state run terrorism battles? Perhaps Rumsfelds words to Clarke of "We know where the targets are" fits into this plan. Hence, we appear to be at war with Iraq solely to be at war and not for a purpose.

Now as far as Fallujah, I don't care what the deal is, when we have American citizens being attacked- we defend them. That is our militaries job. That mob was not something that couldn't be handled by a military force.
bumbleroot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2004, 09:41 AM   #17
Wildane
Psychopath w/a conscience
 
Wildane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Hospitality State, asshole!
Posts: 10,540
Now as far as Fallujah, I don't care what the deal is, when we have American citizens being attacked- we defend them. That is our militaries job. That mob was not something that couldn't be handled by a military force.
So, you would have our boys run into a situation dealing with unknowns, who very well may have been wanting exactly that, to put them in harm's way for folks no one could help anyway? It is entirely possible that these people were doing this to bait the military there into acting in haste and could have turned into a huge catastrophe. These people could have been good ole boys or they could have been trained fighters. You rush in without your head on straight, it's going to get blown the fuck off.
__________________
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." - Umberto Eco

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson
Wildane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2004, 11:49 AM   #18
AresProphet
Priest of Hiroshima
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,932
Send a message via MSN to AresProphet
Originally Posted by Felessan
Good post, Aresprophet.
I was expecting rotten tomatoes. You realize I am advocating a "capitulation" to the terrorists . At least, that's how most of the pro-military or right-wing crowd views it.

It's all the more appealing a solution because it's an elegant trap already set out by our enemies that they would have to step in, or else just sit with their thumbs up their asses. Instead, we are the ones jumping for the bait, and getting mangled more than we should.

If the Pointless War on Terror has any definitive method, it has to be primarily a psychological war, secondly a diplomatic war, and as a last result a military war. Why? Because you're not fighting an army, you're fighting an ideal, a concept. You can't march troops into Terrorism, occupy the capital and force the leaders to surrender. You don't have planes with the Terrorist national flag engaging yours in dogfights. There are no uniforms, no armies, no generals; in short, there is nothing to fight, in the conventional sense.

Frankly I think it's a matter of semantics. We call it "terrorism" and that's the modern-day equivalent of "fascism". A terrorist is no better than a Nazi. At the same time, "terrorism" has become synonymous with "radical Islam". The two terms are inextricably linked and when you mention terrorism to someone he invariably gets a picture of an Evil Ayrab in his minds eye.

The irony here is that the exact same thing has happened, except it wasn't terrorists, it was Charlies, and they were generally termed guerillas. That word has become taboo since Vietnam, so we've just brought up a new one. Makes no difference really, it's all the same.

Terrorism is not inherently evil. Yes, you read that correctly. Just as communism is not intrinsically evil, just as capitalism is not essentially good. It's psychological warfare, nothing more. The reason we term such tactics as evil and criminal is because they aren't playing by our rules. We want them to face us on the battlefield. Well guess what: only the most fucking idiotic opponent in the world would do that to the U.S., and we know it. Yet we expect someone to be stupid enough to take us on man-for-man, tank-for-tank. China is the only nation with enough power to put up a worthwhile conventional fight. This is not exaggeration, it is a fact. We are the dominant military force on the planet, and we use it as a double standard. We abuse our might and cry foul when our enemies don't fight "fair" (a.k.a. by our rules). When the fact is, if a nation did stand up to us and give us trouble, we'd just nuke them to save the effort.

I'm not condoning terrorist actions. I think car-bombs are cowardly and overly destructive (to civilians), suicide bombers are crazies and not martyrs, and most terrorists out there right now need to be rounded up and slain on the spot. But we can't act surprised when anyone who stands up to us, and does so in the only manner that might give them a slight chance of doing some damage, politically, economically, or even physically. The colonists won the American revolution with guerilla tactics (partially) because Britain had the superior force.

We can't win using conventional tactics. Or rather, we can. However, in the process we'd leave more nations battered, destroyed, and worse off than before in the process. We are not so desperate to win that a Pyrrhic victory would be justified by the end.

As I said before, America needs to swallow it's pride and use the terrorists own game against them.
__________________
One of the wonders of the world is going down
It's going down I know
It's one of the blunders of the world that no-one cares
No-one cares enough


Attachment 181
AresProphet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2004, 12:15 PM   #19
Felessan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 1,005
Again...a good post.

Conventional warfare has a limited use against "Guerrilla Warfare". Small SOF units in conjunction with solid intelligence are much more effective. And...less destructive on the local populace. This is the future of modern warfare.

My only differing in opinion is you do not give in to a terrorist. You smoke them out, identify your target, and destroy them. The problem is we have to do all three.

They only have to get on the news.
__________________
Felessan Oakhallow
Ginsu Stalker of Anlah 'Shok
Retired

"The things we do in life, echo in eternity!"
Felessan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2004, 12:27 PM   #20
bumbleroot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 7,756
So, you would have our boys run into a situation dealing with unknowns
They do this everyday.
bumbleroot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2004, 12:32 PM   #21
Felessan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 1,005
Yes, Bumbleroot...but the idea is to minimize unnecessary exposure to these "unknowns". Or, as I like to call them, "Mr Murphy's hiccups" (Tm).
__________________
Felessan Oakhallow
Ginsu Stalker of Anlah 'Shok
Retired

"The things we do in life, echo in eternity!"
Felessan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2004, 12:39 PM   #22
Wildane
Psychopath w/a conscience
 
Wildane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Hospitality State, asshole!
Posts: 10,540
They do this everyday.
Yes, but they usually have some sort of battleplan and don't tearing off unprepared. If they thought there was a chance of an ambush, they made the right decision.
__________________
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." - Umberto Eco

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson
Wildane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2004, 12:45 PM   #23
AresProphet
Priest of Hiroshima
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,932
Send a message via MSN to AresProphet
Again...a good post.

Conventional warfare has a limited use against "Guerrilla Warfare". Small SOF units in conjunction with solid intelligence are much more effective. And...less destructive on the local populace. This is the future of modern warfare.

My only differing in opinion is you do not give in to a terrorist. You smoke them out, identify your target, and destroy them. The problem is we have to do all three.

They only have to get on the news.
There is more to beating terrorism, than beating the terrorists themselves. You have to beat their cause, turn them from martyrs to monsters in the eyes of the world. Without support, they have nothing; without a cause, they are worthless.

Oddly, this leads to a problem. Generally, when someone takes away the reasons for you to do something, it's termed a solution. So if we were to remove any reason whatsoever for Al Qaeda to attack us... they could technically call it a victory. It wouldn't matter if the only reason they aren't fighting us is because we've won the undying adoration and respect of every single human being on the planet; they can claim a victory. Seems a bit unfair.

So instead of looking for the solution that will benefit us, we seek the solution that will damage them. This is fighting war for war's sake, and something I can't condone under any circumstances. I don't care how much you think they deserve it, if there is no benefit for you to take someone out, it is not worth it to kill them for spite. Revenge is no excuse either, though it's very appealing. History is history, and a few heads on a platter aren't going to change it.
My only differing in opinion is you do not give in to a terrorist.
It's like fishing. Just throwing in your bait with big loud splashes, and tugging nonstop with all your strength, isn't going to do you much good. You have to give a little slack now and then, conserve your energy and be patient. Otherwise the fish just avoid your bait.
__________________
One of the wonders of the world is going down
It's going down I know
It's one of the blunders of the world that no-one cares
No-one cares enough


Attachment 181
AresProphet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2004, 01:01 PM   #24
Wildane
Psychopath w/a conscience
 
Wildane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Hospitality State, asshole!
Posts: 10,540
You have to beat their cause, turn them from martyrs to monsters in the eyes of the world. Without support, they have nothing; without a cause, they are worthless.
You don't beat the cause, not with those that believe in it. If watching your peers slaughter 5,000 innocents by flying a plane into a building doesn't shake your faith, nothing will. To them, we are, and always will be, infidels, deserving nothing better than death. For anyone that would support that, I would gladly show them death.
__________________
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." - Umberto Eco

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson
Wildane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2004, 01:05 PM   #25
Felessan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 1,005
I have to agree with Wildane...this is a cultural as well as religious ideal we fighting. For the faithful, there is no turning back.
__________________
Felessan Oakhallow
Ginsu Stalker of Anlah 'Shok
Retired

"The things we do in life, echo in eternity!"
Felessan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:59 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.