they dont have to tell us anything. you know what kind of missions you are on. smash and grab and just smash are very distinguishable.Dilbert_X wrote:
You think they tell the grunts anything of value?rdx-fx wrote:
So, unless SgtHeihn wants to chime in here, I think all the BF2S regulars that would have firsthand knowledge have pretty much said the same thing a few different ways for you all.
It seems like the main goal was to destroy AQ/Capture the top people and basically get rid of the Taliban so that they would not be able to give a save haven for AQ. They managed to remove the Taliban from proper power and remove the save haven of AQ, but then then most of AQ fucked off elsewhere unharmed and even top Taliban people managed to get away. Now the war is basically a war between the Taliban/Pashtun nationalists/Jihadists etc.. fighting ISAF for the sake of fighting ISAF.
Basically....because Pakistan didn't properly deal with them when they went into Pakistan, the whole plan went to shit. Now if anything it's the Taliban that are on the front foot, and AQ.....they're somewhere, but at least the war broke them up and they're not as effective as they could be
It's not all bad....
Basically....because Pakistan didn't properly deal with them when they went into Pakistan, the whole plan went to shit. Now if anything it's the Taliban that are on the front foot, and AQ.....they're somewhere, but at least the war broke them up and they're not as effective as they could be
It's not all bad....
There was never any real prospect they would.Mek wrote:
Basically....because Pakistan didn't properly deal with them when they went into Pakistan
Fuck Israel
If the Afghan war drags on I hope Obama faces a political backlash from the voters. You can't stay in a place like that and achieve nothing and expect everyone to think "well it's not your war, you just inherited it" while Pakistan sits on it's hands.
Afghanistan for Obama should turn into Iraq for Bush if he is there for a few more years and the casualties continue to mount with no progress.
Afghanistan for Obama should turn into Iraq for Bush if he is there for a few more years and the casualties continue to mount with no progress.
I know they do.Dilbert_X wrote:
You think they tell the grunts anything of value?rdx-fx wrote:
So, unless SgtHeihn wants to chime in here, I think all the BF2S regulars that would have firsthand knowledge have pretty much said the same thing a few different ways for you all.
American command structure is generally the higher ups give their subordinates orders as to what they want accomplished, and leave the how generally up to the lower units.
When your units in the field know the commander's intent, they can take the initiative and work their own plans in the field to suit rapidly changing conditions.
Also, the ground troops tend to be one of the best sources of relevant intelligence, if the higher ups tell them what they want them to look for.
Infantry Sergeant isn't going to be privy to whether GW Bush packs his junk left, right, or center in boxers or briefs - but the general intent of the missions tends to filter down.
Pretty much.Dilbert_X wrote:
There was never any real prospect they would.Mek wrote:
Basically....because Pakistan didn't properly deal with them when they went into Pakistan
Unfortunately, it looks like we'll be invading Pakistan eventually. Their government is on the verge of collapse.
We might have a chance at winning that one as Rumsfeld wont be involved.Turquoise wrote:
Pretty much.Dilbert_X wrote:
There was never any real prospect they would.Mek wrote:
Basically....because Pakistan didn't properly deal with them when they went into Pakistan
Unfortunately, it looks like we'll be invading Pakistan eventually. Their government is on the verge of collapse.
You're assuming your leaders aren't duplicitous.rdx-fx wrote:
I know they do.
How are you going to know the difference between "go fuck up Iraq because I think Saddam has WMD" and "go fuck up Iraq because my Daddy's pissed he failed last time and Bin Laden made me look a total ass".
Result the same, agenda was different, doesn't matter what you think it was about.
Fuck Israel
"Letting them move to the safe haven"? What color is the fucking sky on your world, Dilbert? "Let" them? Google Tora Bora, brainiac.Dilbert_X wrote:
By letting them move to the safe haven that is Pakistan?FEOS wrote:
Primary mission wasn't to capture/kill UBL. It was to ensure AFG was no longer a safe haven for terrorists. That has been accomplished.
I'm pretty sure the same order was given for Hitler, Ho Chi Minh, and sundry other adversary leaders. They never got captured either. Just because it's an order doesn't mean it will happen.Dilbert_X wrote:
What happened to the 'bring me Bin Laden dead or alive' order? Was that just another smokescreen?
Whatever it takes to make the tinfoil hat fit better.Dilbert_X wrote:
Bush didn't want the AQ leadership captured, if they were caught he'd have no excuse to go after Iraq.
Nothing new about me being right...you're just jealous.Dilbert_X wrote:
Even if you were right about the objective - which would be a new beginning for you - its hardly been 'accomplished', with the bulk of Afghanistan lawless and the rest bound to revert as soon as the US leaves.
As for the rest of your in-depth, fact-based analysis...we'll see. Unlike you, I don't claim to see into the future (or into world leaders' minds).
You really shouldn't post about things about which you clearly know fuck-all.Dilbert_X wrote:
The training thing is barely an issue, 9/11 could have been planned and rehearsed in any hotel room - don't really need desert for that, the flight training was done in the US, not sure whats been achieved exactly.
Oh, believe me...I know. You do it regularly in this forum.Dilbert_X wrote:
Changing the objective after the event to turn a failure into a success is nothing new BTW.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Note to FEOS... replying like "You shouldn't post about things which you clearly know fuck-all" is not exactly showing you know fuck all.... mabye if you replied with evidence or even an argument.
(just a suggestion, because i'm sick of people on this forum saying "you obviously dont know this or that" without presenting their own argument)
(just a suggestion, because i'm sick of people on this forum saying "you obviously dont know this or that" without presenting their own argument)
Well...I wasn't replying to you, now was I?Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
Note to FEOS... replying like "You shouldn't post about things which you clearly know fuck-all" is not exactly showing you know fuck all.... mabye if you replied with evidence or even an argument.
(just a suggestion, because i'm sick of people on this forum saying "you obviously dont know this or that" without presenting their own argument)
Maybe if that argument that he used wasn't as worn out as a Paris whore in 1940, you would have a point.
It is.
You don't.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
If you say so.FEOS wrote:
Well...I wasn't replying to you, now was I?Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
Note to FEOS... replying like "You shouldn't post about things which you clearly know fuck-all" is not exactly showing you know fuck all.... mabye if you replied with evidence or even an argument.
(just a suggestion, because i'm sick of people on this forum saying "you obviously dont know this or that" without presenting their own argument)
Maybe if that argument that he used wasn't as worn out as a Paris whore in 1940, you would have a point.
It is.
You don't.
Glad you see the light.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
If you say so.FEOS wrote:
Well...I wasn't replying to you, now was I?Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
Note to FEOS... replying like "You shouldn't post about things which you clearly know fuck-all" is not exactly showing you know fuck all.... mabye if you replied with evidence or even an argument.
(just a suggestion, because i'm sick of people on this forum saying "you obviously dont know this or that" without presenting their own argument)
Maybe if that argument that he used wasn't as worn out as a Paris whore in 1940, you would have a point.
It is.
You don't.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Wait, wait, haud the bus, phone, train or fat lady. We lost Gulf War Part 1? News to me.Dilbert_X wrote:
You're assuming your leaders aren't duplicitous.rdx-fx wrote:
I know they do.
How are you going to know the difference between "go fuck up Iraq because I think Saddam has WMD" and "go fuck up Iraq because my Daddy's pissed he failed last time and Bin Laden made me look a total ass".
Result the same, agenda was different, doesn't matter what you think it was about.
its dilbert dude. why are you trying?M.O.A.B wrote:
Wait, wait, haud the bus, phone, train or fat lady. We lost Gulf War Part 1? News to me.Dilbert_X wrote:
You're assuming your leaders aren't duplicitous.rdx-fx wrote:
I know they do.
How are you going to know the difference between "go fuck up Iraq because I think Saddam has WMD" and "go fuck up Iraq because my Daddy's pissed he failed last time and Bin Laden made me look a total ass".
Result the same, agenda was different, doesn't matter what you think it was about.
Need to pass the timeusmarine wrote:
its dilbert dude. why are you trying?M.O.A.B wrote:
Wait, wait, haud the bus, phone, train or fat lady. We lost Gulf War Part 1? News to me.Dilbert_X wrote:
You're assuming your leaders aren't duplicitous.
How are you going to know the difference between "go fuck up Iraq because I think Saddam has WMD" and "go fuck up Iraq because my Daddy's pissed he failed last time and Bin Laden made me look a total ass".
Result the same, agenda was different, doesn't matter what you think it was about.
BARACK Obama has warned the war in Afghanistan will continue for years, vowing the free world must not back down in the face of "vicious killers".
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st … 01,00.html
Politicians = pathetic.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st … 01,00.html
If the they were serious they would send far, far more troops. The current plan isn't working.“I think the American and the Australian people also recognise that in order for us to keep our homelands safe, in order to maintain our way of life in order to ensure order on the international scene, that we can't allow vicious killers to have their way,”
Politicians = pathetic.
The troops are spread too thin over a number of war zones. And the terrain of Afghanistan doesn't work in the favour of anyone except the terrorists.BN wrote:
If the they were serious they would send far, far more troops. The current plan isn't working.
Wait and see if Australia are asked to send more troops. If we are, you'll probably see a troop surge similar to Iraq.
Last edited by AussieReaper (2009-03-24 18:30:10)
yeah, agree 100%. Just not enough boots on the ground.AussieReaper wrote:
The troops are spread too thin over a number of war zones. And the terrain of Afghanistan doesn't work in the favour of anyone except the terrorists.BN wrote:
If the they were serious they would send far, far more troops. The current plan isn't working.
Wait and see if Australia are asked to send more troops. If we are, you'll probably see a troop surge similar to Iraq.
I would rather send 10,000 Aus troops over and have it done in 1 year, than send 1,100 and have it got for 10 years.
BN I'm not sure we have 10,000 combat soldiers that we could send without weakening our national defence capability unless we called up reservists.
Last edited by Flecco (2009-03-24 18:59:23)
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
Agreed, we would have to take resources from somewhere.Flecco wrote:
BN I'm not sure we have 10,000 combat soldiers that we could send without weakening our national defence capability unless we called up reservists.
That's my point, get serious or get out.