Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    4,853
    Thanks (Given)
    960
    Thanks (Received)
    3749
    Likes (Given)
    535
    Likes (Received)
    854
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    17759693

    Default It comes to this

    U.S. air support troops learn to hold back

    In an effort to reduce Afghan civilian casualties, U.S. air crews, when they get calls from colleagues under fire on the ground, must try to ensure they don't cause additional fatalities.
    By Tony Perry

    March 22, 2010 | 5:43 p.m.

    Reporting from the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower
    At the nightly "hot wash" debriefing on the Dwight D. Eisenhower, a pilot from the Pukin' Dogs squadron was explaining how he dropped a 500-pound bomb on a Taliban target in Afghanistan -- and why.

    The pilot, a Naval Academy graduate with combat experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, would face two such cross-examinations before he could get some sleep after his 12-hour mission.


    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,3420650.story

    So we have finally reached the point where we will risk soldier's lives rather than risk civilian casualties. IMO, that is not only a travesty, it is justification for withdrawing the US military from any combat engagement outside our borders.
    I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
    Thomas Jefferson


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    O-hi-o
    Posts
    12,192
    Thanks (Given)
    8017
    Thanks (Received)
    1650
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    7
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    3656128

    Default

    Yep, if they are going to tie their hands then pull them out.
    When I die I'm sure to go to heaven, cause I spent my time in hell.

    You get more with a kind word and a two by four, than you do with just a kind word.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    4,853
    Thanks (Given)
    960
    Thanks (Received)
    3749
    Likes (Given)
    535
    Likes (Received)
    854
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    17759693

    Default

    It isn't just this, there are other reports of soldiers being ordered NOT TO WEAR their protective gear ... too intimidating to the locals. So they leave their helmets and vests in the vehicles. All part of winning the hearts and minds.

    This is pure bull crap. McCrystal might be the expert but I will bet you a nickel to a donut that he has plenty of protection when he goes out to visit the local populace ... if he even does that.
    I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
    Thomas Jefferson


  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    O-hi-o
    Posts
    12,192
    Thanks (Given)
    8017
    Thanks (Received)
    1650
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    7
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    3656128

    Default

    Gooooooooooood morning vietnam!
    When I die I'm sure to go to heaven, cause I spent my time in hell.

    You get more with a kind word and a two by four, than you do with just a kind word.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    12,358
    Mentioned
    79 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    4760245

    Default

    Its a difficult one to judge.

    Bomb heavily, ensure protection for ground troops while you are bombing, but inturn risk higher civilian casualties, which will play into the hands of enemy propagandists.

    Or don't bomb as heavily, reducing your troops ground protection at the time of bombing, but reduce the possible civilian casualties and thus weaken the enemies propaganda machine.

    I'm glad i'm not the one making the calls.
    If you also agree that an animals suffering should be avoided rather than encouraged, consider what steps you can take.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    4,853
    Thanks (Given)
    960
    Thanks (Received)
    3749
    Likes (Given)
    535
    Likes (Received)
    854
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    17759693

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Noir View Post
    Its a difficult one to judge.

    Bomb heavily, ensure protection for ground troops while you are bombing, but inturn risk higher civilian casualties, which will play into the hands of enemy propagandists.

    Or don't bomb as heavily, reducing your troops ground protection at the time of bombing, but reduce the possible civilian casualties and thus weaken the enemies propaganda machine.

    I'm glad i'm not the one making the calls.
    I understand that whole issue but my belief is that if the risk is low enough for soldiers to remove their protective gear, then the risk is low enough to deploy diplomats instead of soldiers. If it is NOT safe enough for diplomats to engage then it is NOT safe enough for soldiers to remove their protective gear.
    I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
    Thomas Jefferson


  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    over here
    Posts
    13,380
    Thanks (Given)
    5579
    Thanks (Received)
    6629
    Likes (Given)
    5362
    Likes (Received)
    3977
    Piss Off (Given)
    35
    Piss Off (Received)
    2
    Mentioned
    88 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    17558169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CSM View Post
    I understand that whole issue but my belief is that if the risk is low enough for soldiers to remove their protective gear, then the risk is low enough to deploy diplomats instead of soldiers. If it is NOT safe enough for diplomats to engage then it is NOT safe enough for soldiers to remove their protective gear.
    CSM - it is because the American Soldier can be diplomats, however, the spinless diplomats CANNOT be soldiers. The unfortunate part of all this is that the spineless bastards are the ones making the decisions from the safety of their office and not letting the guys on the ground make the decision as to when it is safe to set aside the intimidation.

    And everyone wonders why no one is afraid of America anymore .... because we are not allowed to wear the necessary gear for our safety in order to "appease" the anxieties of our enemies. Go figure.
    If the freedom of speech is taken away
    then dumb and silent we may be led,
    like sheep to the slaughter.


    George Washington (1732-1799) First President of the USA.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    O-hi-o
    Posts
    12,192
    Thanks (Given)
    8017
    Thanks (Received)
    1650
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    7
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    3656128

    Default

    Maybe they can take away cops vests and guns because they are intimidating to criminals. wouldn't want anyone to be intimidated would we?

    The enemy uses civilians as shields. Many of those civilians are supporters of the enemy. hamas and hezbo have been using the tactic of hiding behind children for 40 years. Their high ranking leaders always keep a dozen or so children around them. This is not a new tactic. But this administration wants to fight the war in the time worn, proven way of Vietnam. Tie the troops hands and restrict combat actions to attain maximum friendly casualties.

    Bring the troops home, we will need then to take back washington.
    When I die I'm sure to go to heaven, cause I spent my time in hell.

    You get more with a kind word and a two by four, than you do with just a kind word.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    In my knickers
    Posts
    31,029
    Thanks (Given)
    13927
    Thanks (Received)
    15358
    Likes (Given)
    4384
    Likes (Received)
    5487
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    181 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475357

    Default

    This is the sad but logical extension of recent crying in the media that the world "doesn't like us". Once we started caring about that more than the state of the world and even our own safety, we were doomed.
    After the game, the king and the pawn go into the same box - Author unknown

    “Unfortunately, the truth is now whatever the media say it is”
    -Abbey

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    over here
    Posts
    13,380
    Thanks (Given)
    5579
    Thanks (Received)
    6629
    Likes (Given)
    5362
    Likes (Received)
    3977
    Piss Off (Given)
    35
    Piss Off (Received)
    2
    Mentioned
    88 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    17558169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Abbey View Post
    This is the sad but logical extension of recent crying in the media that the world "doesn't like us". Once we started caring about that more than the state of the world and even our own safety, we were doomed.
    Isn't this the truth!?!
    If the freedom of speech is taken away
    then dumb and silent we may be led,
    like sheep to the slaughter.


    George Washington (1732-1799) First President of the USA.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums