BF2S Forums US Could Have Caught Bin Laden

Privates in the US and British forces are obligated to report unlawful orders though. Why are you dismissing that fact as propaganda?

I'm sorry, but somehow I find it very... inconsistent how the same people who supposedly wanted to fight a politically correct war in Afghanistan (where the criminal responsible for 9/11 has escaped justice) then charge into Iraq guns blazing, relatively unprovoked, compared to the act of war which were the 9/11 attacks.

The very fact that Osama Bin Laden is not sitting in a prison serving a life sentence (or we could execute him and make him a martyr) IMO is the hugest foreign policy fuck up in the past decade, maybe much longer.

Last edited by Spearhead (2009-11-30 14:39:09)

Kmarion wrote:

I know this story has come back, but isn't this old news?

Theres a Senate report out which blows away the Bush lies.

Yes we could have caught/killed him.  Where have you been?  It was a flubbed job.  The locals were supposed to apprehend him for us (foreign relations). Tora fucking bora.  Guess what though smart guy.  Those responsible for the flub admitted it.

Did you know that Clinton was given him several times before that?  He never pulled the trigger.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

I know this story has come back, but isn't this old news?

Theres a Senate report out which blows away the Bush lies.

Bush said they couldn't have caught him? I've seen the report. It looks like the same stuff they were saying way back when we were entering tora bora. Really. I sense some dog wagging/slight of hand going on with the timing of this and Obama's afghan sell.

I'm just saying it's very suspect.

Kmarion wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

I know this story has come back, but isn't this old news?

Theres a Senate report out which blows away the Bush lies.

Bush said they couldn't have caught him? I've seen the report. It looks like the same stuff they were saying way back when we were entering tora bora. Really. I sense some dog wagging/slight of hand going on with the timing of this and Obama's afghan sell.
http://i49.tinypic.com/t8t3zs.jpg
I'm just saying it's very suspect.

Just now you suspect this man's motives?  Everything he has or hasn't done is with an underlying agenda.  Have we seen anything "transparent" yet?   But now? He HAS to do it.  Even so, he isn't doing enough.   I seem to recall many more troops requested...

Kmarion wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Bush said they couldn't have caught him? I've seen the report. It looks like the same stuff they were saying way back when we were entering tora bora. Really. I sense some dog wagging/slight of hand going on with the timing of this and Obama's afghan sell.
http://i49.tinypic.com/t8t3zs.jpg
I'm just saying it's very suspect.

Just now you suspect this man's motives?  Everything he has or hasn't done is with an underlying agenda.  Have we seen anything "transparent" yet?   But now? He HAS to do it.  Even so, he isn't doing enough.   I seem to recall many more troops requested...

No not just now. But this is about as obvious as it gets. Hashing up shit everyone in the world knew years ago. .. "oh and btw I think we need more troops".

Smoke and mirrors to a whole new level.

Shahter wrote:

yeah yeah. manual. i should've known.
look, dude, you know this better than me: when you are at war, and all the hell is about to break loose, there's never time for considerations. somebody has to call the targets and everybody else just pulls the trigger. you hesitate - you die. it's that simple. what fancy words you have there written in the fucking manual doesn't mean shit, and you know it. "unlawful order", what a load of waffle.

You've described the Soviet doctrine well.
You've also partially described air-to-ground laser guided bombs, where the pilot in the aircraft has to trust that the guy on the ground is pointing the laser designator at a valid target. Key difference is, there's a guy on the ground with eyes on target.

There's always "time for considerations", as you put it.
Before you bring your rifle to your shoulder, there is time to determine if there is a target you're allowed to engage according to your ROE.
Once you put your sights on a target, there is that last split second before you pull the trigger where you decide whether or not to twitch that last finger muscle.

It is most definitely not a "load of waffle".
It's the rules we work under.
It takes about 5 minutes to recite the key rules out of the manual.
It takes about 4 or 8 more hours to go over the "what and why" of the rules, so the soldiers can truly understand the rules.
Understanding enables one to apply knowledge in a rapidly changing, high pressure situation.
Blind memorization of rules, just allows one to strictly and robotically follow those rules.

Until you've experienced it firsthand, you will have a hard time understanding just how insanely frustrating and disheartening it is to not be able to shoot back at what you know is a valid target, because your ROE disallows it on some technicality.
For example, a hostile (not in uniform), firing on you while mixed in with civilians.  Your ROE might not allow you to shoot back if there are any civilians nearby (even if the civilian is knowingly playing human shield for a shooter...).  Or, the hostile throws his AK-47 to the ground right after he empties a magazine at you -- and your ROE says he's a civilian as soon as he isn't holding a weapon.  or, or, or.

Leading to the smartass retort, heard somewhere, "So, we're supposed to get shot up and blown up, so we don't cause a scene in Al Jazeera or CNN?  Great, so.. how many of our lives do you think a 5 minute headache for Bill Clinton is worth?  A squad per minute sound about right?"

(For an illustration of the difference in training philosophy between "understanding" and "robotic following", compare the two sides of the Gulf War.  Coalition troops understood, and were flexible in a fluid situation.  Iraqi troops were paralyzed into inaction, after their doctrinally set chain of command was broken.)

Flexibility, initiative, and allowing junior sergeants to "interpret orders, react to changes, and follow the rules" simultaneously, is a hallmark of western military thought.
Contrast with Soviet strict doctrinal thought, no interpretation of orders, and a very strict "command from above" command and control method.
(Again, the Iraqi army used said Soviet doctrine in the 1st Gulf War.  It didn't work out well for them).

Shahter wrote:

well, you didn't get it. "wolf" stands for "a wild beast" in that saying. nazi germany wasn't one, as wasn't imperial japan and soviet russia: those were very well developed social systems with their own ideology and stuff. tribal afghani, on the other hand, are just a bunch of barbarians who respect strength and nothing else.

No, they're not "just a bunch of barbarians who respect strength and nothing else.".
You treat them as such, and you've lost any hope of enlisting their aid as allies.
You've lost their respect, and gained an enemy.
They have a much different world-view, different culture, different understanding of history, different ethics, etc.
Trick is to find the common points - stability, security, food, shelter, respect, trust, and an equitable exchange of resources (i.e. you spot the targets, make sure we're not targeting your people -- we call in the scary AC-130 or B-52 strikes on the bad guys).

The problem above, is when you cannot reach any degree of mutual trust.
(Pakistani ISI, some of the Afghani warlords playing both sides, Syria in gulf war 1, etc)

If you treat them as simple-minded barbarians, you will find yourself fighting those simple barbarians.
Soviet Russia found this out in Afghanistan.
We're trying to not repeat that lesson ourselves.  It looked like it sucked.

Shahter wrote:

of course. only russians have ever been subjected to propaganda. those who live in the land of teh free and the brave have never heard of it.

No, of course not.
The difference is in the number of flavors of bullshit available.
Under the Soviet system, you all had ONE flavor of bullshit to sample - Soviet Iron Gray Pravda.
In the USA, we get at least TWO different flavors of bullshit, often many many more.
You got a soup kitchen, one flavor for all, helping of bullshit.
We get a veritable buffet table of bullshit.

Shahter wrote:

oh, i see. you are right, it's pretty damn hard to imagine just how incredibly idiotic the rules are in the most powerfull army in the world. what can i say - good luck. you'll need it, a LOT of it, if you are hoping to achieve anything with the notion of war and of your enemy you just described.

1- You missed the point.  You seem, actually, incapable of getting any point. So, I'm pretty much done with you.

2- We're doing a hell of a lot better than you all did in Afghanistan. 

3- So, trying to understand the culture of the natives, work with those that we can find common ground, and show a little respect.. that's crazy talk, in your opinion?  We should do it Soviet style, and if a village is harboring a few insurgents, we bombard it ALL into pure rubble, you say?

Shahter wrote:

and, just for the record - iraq war didn't prove shit. you never really fought against those, who would properly use so called "soviet war doctrine" against you. so, wipe that drool, dude, and hope you'll never have to actually face those who do.

Iraqi army used Soviet equipment (export grade, true), Soviet Doctrine, and troops trained about at the level of Soviet conscripts -- and it's not a fair comparison?

Oh, and "hope you'll never have to actually face those who do".  LMAO.  We did.  It was called the Cold War.  You lost.  Horribly.
I won't bother to mention the little nudge we gave your opponents in Afghanistan, because that was a little .. unfair.
(And, truth be told, I'm not a great fan of the way many of the little CIA sideshows were handled, anyways).

Shahter wrote:

as to "different kinds of bullshit" - don't make me laugh. your so called "choise" is always obvious and spoon fed to you. democracy is as prone to manipulations and abuse as any other system, and you know it. it is completely controllable and predictable, and that's the whole point of spreading it.

I was trying to relate that both of our systems have their share of bullshit and propaganda.
You, however, seem wholly incapable of detecting sarcasm, humor, or any attempts to find a common ground.

Shahter wrote:

but anyway - go on, your chestbeating is pretty good. for lulz that is.

Oh, get over yourself.
Can't make a point, so you denigrate and insult.
Don't like the picture painted from first-person experience, so you disregard and redirect.
"lulz", you say?  I've not yet seen any evidence of a sense of humor from you yet.

rdx-fx wrote:

We're doing a hell of a lot better than you all did in Afghanistan.

no doubt. you are. applaues all around. but you know why? as the matter of a fact you answered this yourself:

rdx-fx wrote:

I won't bother to mention the little nudge we gave your opponents in Afghanistan

nobody's backing up your apponents in afghanistan, not the way you did in their war against soviet union anyway.

rdx-fx wrote:

So, trying to understand the culture of the natives, work with those that we can find common ground, and show a little respect.. that's crazy talk, in your opinion?

yes.

rdx-fx wrote:

We should do it Soviet style, and if a village is harboring a few insurgents, we bombard it ALL into pure rubble, you say?

yes.

rdx-fx wrote:

Shahter wrote:

and, just for the record - iraq war didn't prove shit. you never really fought against those, who would properly use so called "soviet war doctrine" against you. so, wipe that drool, dude, and hope you'll never have to actually face those who do.

Iraqi army used Soviet equipment (export grade, true), Soviet Doctrine, and troops trained about at the level of Soviet conscripts -- and it's not a fair comparison?

do you really think those, who apposed you in iraq, had any hope of winning that war? do you actually beleave anybody bothered to do it by the book? you are barking mad if you do, man.

rdx-fx wrote:

Oh, and "hope you'll never have to actually face those who do".  LMAO.  We did.  It was called the Cold War.  You lost.  Horribly.

huh? what did cold war have to do with military doctrines again? do you want' to really know who won the cold war? - i'll tell you: hollywood, mc'donalds, sony, mercedes benz and the likes.

rdx-fx wrote:

And, truth be told, I'm not a great fan of the way many of the little CIA sideshows were handled, anyways.

but those actually worked, you know. unlike your "superrior war doctrine".

rdx-fx wrote:

Shahter wrote:

but anyway - go on, your chestbeating is pretty good. for lulz that is.

Oh, get over yourself.
Can't make a point, so you denigrate and insult.
Don't like the picture painted from first-person experience, so you disregard and redirect.
"lulz", you say?  I've not yet seen any evidence of a sense of humor from you yet.

you should have started by directing all this to yourself. from were i stand between the two of us it's you who should get over yourself and your national pride.

rdx-fx wrote:

Shahter wrote:

as to "different kinds of bullshit" - don't make me laugh. your so called "choise" is always obvious and spoon fed to you. democracy is as prone to manipulations and abuse as any other system, and you know it. it is completely controllable and predictable, and that's the whole point of spreading it.

I was trying to relate that both of our systems have their share of bullshit and propaganda.
You, however, seem wholly incapable of detecting sarcasm, humor, or any attempts to find a common ground.

well, yeah. it's me who's trying to discuss stuff in the foreign language here, remember? my english is far from perfect - tbh, i wouldn't even call it "fair". let me assure you, i am trying my best.
i'll let you in on a secret - improving my english is about the only purpose i'm posting here on these forums. books and movies only get one so far and i don't have any real opportunities to practice my spoken english these days. i used to work for an american company (in moscow rep office of one that is), but that was some five years ago.
as to common ground - i think we already found plenty. you are just too stuck on yourself and you bloody "great nation" to see it.

Shahter wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

We're doing a hell of a lot better than you all did in Afghanistan.

no doubt. you are. applaues all around. but you know why? as the matter of a fact you answered this yourself:

rdx-fx wrote:

I won't bother to mention the little nudge we gave your opponents in Afghanistan

nobody's backing up your apponents in afghanistan, not the way you did in their war against soviet union anyway.

It's all about being 'Fair and Balanced'!

[Sarcasm: referencing Fox news' tagline of being 'Fair and Balanced', while actually pointing out something we did that wasn't as well thought out as it should've been, while also intentionally parroting the stereotypical Fox news flag-waving opinion show bobble-head.  See, the humor.. it doesn't work so well when it's overexplained]

Shahter wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

So, trying to understand the culture of the natives, work with those that we can find common ground, and show a little respect.. that's crazy talk, in your opinion?

yes.

rdx-fx wrote:

We should do it Soviet style, and if a village is harboring a few insurgents, we bombard it ALL into pure rubble, you say?

yes.

That approach is more likely to manufacture more hatred for the Americans, not less.

Yes, there is definitely too much of the wimpy, 'politically correct' bullshit now.  Too soft of a touch, and the people of that region have no respect for you. If they have any hope of respecting you, it's over the handshake and word of a man, not the wimpy vacillations of a career politician or some vague reference to a distant committee's documents.
In this, the Afghanis would probably respect a Russian diplomat's approach more than an American diplomat.

On the other hand, if you use too much force, you've just bombed the shit out of all your potential allies in the region.

Shahter wrote:

do you really think those, who apposed you in iraq, had any hope of winning that war? do you actually beleave anybody bothered to do it by the book? you are barking mad if you do, man.

No, the Iraqi army was not defending their homeland with, say, the tenacity of the Russians defending in WW-2.
That side of Russia, no one in the western militaries was enthusiastic to face.
Though, if you would've come across the Fulda Gap as an invading force, we had plans for that...

(regarding gulf war 1 below)
And, again, it was proper use of strategy that made the ground war a little easier for us.
We played up our military might, with the use of smart bombs, constant bombardment of their armor, crippling their communications, blinding their radar, being where they didn't expect us, not being where they thought we'd be, etc.
By the time the ground war really got going, the non-elite Iraqi troops were starving, without orders from headquarters, shell-shocked from constant bombardment, afraid to be near their tanks, and generally convinced they were overmatched.
Some still maintained their morale, and fought.. remarkably.

Shahter wrote:

huh? what did cold war have to do with military doctrines again? do you want' to really know who won the cold war? - i'll tell you: hollywood, mc'donalds, sony, mercedes benz and the likes.

True enough.
Though East Berlin looking over into West Berlin probably didn't help things much either.
Hard to sell ideology when the other side is wearing Levis, eating Big Macs, and driving BMWs.
(okay.. to be fair, Big Macs suck.  Try an In-n-Out burger)

Shahter wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

And, truth be told, I'm not a great fan of the way many of the little CIA sideshows were handled, anyways.

but those actually worked, you know. unlike your "superrior war doctrine".

And some of them came back to bite us in the ass later.  Remember one of the people we helped fund in the Soviet/Afghan war was.. Osama Bin Laden.  We knew he was bad news back then, we backed him over a much more 'trustworthy' adversary of his.
Just a few too many of the CIA's projects in the middle east have had some temporary success, only to end up doing far more long-term harm to the USA's reputation in the region. 

Shahter wrote:

well, yeah. it's me who's trying to discuss stuff in the foreign language here, remember? my english is far from perfect - tbh, i wouldn't even call it "fair". let me assure you, i am trying my best.
i'll let you in on a secret - improving my english is about the only purpose i'm posting here on these forums. books and movies only get one so far and i don't have any real opportunities to practice my spoken english these days. i used to work for an american company (in moscow rep office of one that is), but that was some five years ago.
as to common ground - i think we already found plenty. you are just too stuck on yourself and you bloody "great nation" to see it.

Your English is better than "fair". Other than the occasional transposition of letters, or telling misspelling (showing you're still mostly thinking in cyrillic but translating) - I'd say you write better than most natives I know.  Better than my Russian is currently; Can count to 4, say yes/no, say please/thank you, and remember what most of the cyrillic alphabet sounds like.

Норильский Никель owns a majority share in the Stillwater Mining Company here in the US.  Only real platinum/palladium mine in the world that's outside South America or Russia, and we let the Russians buy it in 2002.  If your English is that good, why not look at being a translator for them?

Shahter wrote:

you are just too stuck on yourself and you bloody "great nation" to see it.

Only when it comes to posting here in D&ST.  Give a balanced opinion, weighing both sides, and showing the downsides of your own argument - and the quibblers, nitpickers, trolls, and lulz-seekers will eat you alive here.
Mostly still around D&ST so I can get a glimpse at differing opinions.  Russians, Euros, English, Muslims, and the odd nutcase of varying stripes.

Last edited by rdx-fx (2009-12-02 02:20:26)

rdx-fx wrote:

<explanation about Fox news removed> See, the humor.. it doesn't work so well when it's overexplained

k, next time i will quote something out of some similar nonsencial russian media and we'll see if you catch it.

rdx-fx wrote:

That approach is more likely to manufacture more hatred for the Americans, not less.

it's too late to be nice to them anyway.

rdx-fx wrote:

And, again, it was proper use of strategy that made the ground war a little easier for us.
We played up our military might, with the use of smart bombs, constant bombardment of their armor, crippling their communications, blinding their radar, being where they didn't expect us, not being where they thought we'd be, etc.
By the time the ground war really got going, the non-elite Iraqi troops were starving, without orders from headquarters, shell-shocked from constant bombardment, afraid to be near their tanks, and generally convinced they were overmatched.
Some still maintained their morale, and fought.. remarkably.

none of this matters anyway. you outranged and outrun iraqis completely. supperior ballistics and targetting equipment, survelliance satellites, uav's, total dominance in the air, when in doubt - cruise missiles. all that against... what? - ak's and t-72's? a baby would have won that war, man.

rdx-fx wrote:

Though East Berlin looking over into West Berlin probably didn't help things much either.
Hard to sell ideology when the other side is wearing Levis, eating Big Macs, and driving BMWs.

you still don't get it. those, whom the ideology didn't seem to agree with, were all there - in gulag camps, felling trees and mining uranium ore and what not. ussr failed because those who were supposed to operate it thought they could somehow transform soviet union into something which could sustain living standards comparable to those of the west. for this country with it's enormous population and harsh climate that's simply impossible.

rdx-fx wrote:

Shahter wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

And, truth be told, I'm not a great fan of the way many of the little CIA sideshows were handled, anyways.

but those actually worked, you know. unlike your "superrior war doctrine".

And some of them came back to bite us in the ass later.  Remember one of the people we helped fund in the Soviet/Afghan war was.. Osama Bin Laden.  We knew he was bad news back then, we backed him over a much more 'trustworthy' adversary of his.
Just a few too many of the CIA's projects in the middle east have had some temporary success, only to end up doing far more long-term harm to the USA's reputation in the region.

i agree. but, aparrently, going in guns blasing is even worse.

rdx-fx wrote:

Your English is better than "fair". Other than the occasional transposition of letters, or telling misspelling (showing you're still mostly thinking in cyrillic but translating) - I'd say you write better than most natives I know.

you don't take into account the obscene amount of time it takes me to construct these posts. i seriously doubt i'd be able to actaully speak to anybody in english.

rdx-fx wrote:

Shahter wrote:

as to common ground - i think we already found plenty. you are just too stuck on yourself and you bloody "great nation" to see it.

Only when it comes to posting here in D&ST.  Give a balanced opinion, weighing both sides, and showing the downsides of your own argument - and the quibblers, nitpickers, trolls, and lulz-seekers will eat you alive here.
Mostly still around D&ST so I can get a glimpse at differing opinions.  Russians, Euros, English, Muslims, and the odd nutcase of varying stripes.

well... to each his own, i guess.

Amra wrote:

And people bag on fox.

" enemy camp ", what a numbfuck.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTbJcixsLq8

All I can say is wow.