Obama as C-in-C, folks.
Afghanistan. Night time. 3 badguys located. US forces have nightvision, Afghaniforces do not.
Plan: use illumination rockets to help Afghanis see and chase targets out of cover; use US forces to kill the targets when they appear.
End-of-plan: Some dipshit 100-mile-distant "safe warfare" REMF--the illum canister might 'land on a roof.'
3 badguys will resume mortar attacks on allied forces in less than 1 week.
VietNam Redux. Thanks, Obama!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Old and nasty, Dad29 . . . are you endorsing the burning of children in their beds? I assume you either have children or have children in your extended or immediate family. Can you imagine watching them cry and scream as they burn alive?
There's another way to defend life, a way that doesn't include burning children to ash.
No.
But I would be happy to burn your strawman "argument" with you strapped to the damn thing.
Idiot.
The BC thought that the danger of burning down a civilian's house was a greater risk than not firing the illumination round. You obviously disagree. But I wonder if you are sincere enough to accept the consequences of your thinking - the burning of innocent children in their beds for "military necessity".
Without a SHADOW OF DOUBT, you maintain that:
1) the canister would cause a fire
and
2) such a fire would completely demolish the house immediately
and
3) US/Afghan forces would NOT move to rescue the inhabitants thereof.
I think you have a mental problem. If it's not in your logic-lobe, then you need treatment.
I never said without a shadow of a doubt. I said, "the danger of burning down a civilian's house was a greater risk".
Risk and danger mean that there is a chance that the house would burn and kill people inside.
Am I wrong to say that you accept the "danger" and "risk" of burning children in their beds to ensure the success of a military operation?
Absolute certainty that there ARE "children in their bed".
Go someplace else and try your binary straw-man BS.
you gotta love an argument with dad29. it always involves him calling you an idiot. thought only liberals did that?
idiot.
Wrong, anony.
In the case at hand, a REMF, 100 miles distant, made a judgment call.
And so did Nate, from an even greater distance.
US troops have been VERY well-trained about avoiding civilian casualties. I'm willing to bet that their training guides their actions.
As to whether there is any risk of danger in a combat situation--doh.
Life itself is the riskiest proposition known to man.
I received the finest training any soldier can receive - as a forward observer with the 75th Ranger Regiment, 3rd Battalion, C-Co. As I recall, everyone, from Private to Master Sergeant, had a lot of fun calling in white phosphorus rounds. We knew that you could only use such rounds on equipment. So we made sure to call our fire in on "equipment, attached to women and children fleeing in the distance".
Military necessity, for men on that ground waging war, almost always takes precedence over civilian life. No amount of regulations or REMF commands will change that. Hence, over 90% of those who die in modern war are innocent civilians.
So YOUR immoral and inexcusable conduct spurs you to accuse OTHERS of the same, Nate?
Your personal war-criminal guilt-trip is your problem. Glad you confessed; it's good for the soul.
And of course, you can document that "90%" line of yours, right? Just as you can present testimony of OTHER SpecFor members swearing to the truth of your statements?
Otherwise, Nate, you have a vague resemblance to John Kerry, "Winter Soldier" extraordinaire--and known lying scumbag.
Dad29, your personal insults and judgments are not only incorrect (you don't know me), but conveys to me a sense of spite and bitterness. If you went to mass today, you'll know that Saint Paul taught us to put away all bitterness, all fury, all anger, and to replace it with compassion.
I've only made the simple point that soldiers on the ground have one primary purpose - to kill and destroy the enemy - and that this purpose leads to high civilian casualties unless tempered by stringent and well-enforced rules of engagement. Yes, there is always risk in military engagements, but Americans are different than terrorists because we risk our own lives rather than risking the lives of civilians.
Moreover, strategic concerns about civilian casualties take precedence over tactical concerns of minor military operations - especially in counter-insurgencies. Wars are won through willpower, not through firepower.
God bless, and peace,
Nate
You made the comments, Nate. I am not "bitter" nor "spiteful."
You're placing yourself as judge and jury sight unseen over the actions of US soldiers who are trained just as well as you were.
Worse, you're assuming that their actions will be as destructive as the ones you describe that YOU made.
As you well know, there is no such thing as a riskless war. St. Paul's Boss also suggested that one 'judge not,' which you seem willing to do.
Post a Comment