I thought Afghanistan was the "good war"???

[Huh?]

Still with your off-topic nonsense, eh? LMAO.

Focus.

ADD is nothing to brag about.

You ADD so much to the conversation Sigh moron.

I realize others off topic comments seem like shiney objects for those spinning their wheels, but it's really not an excuse to let your ADD get control of you. Now, try not to focus on me, either.

The "good war"?

I already commented on Afghanistan and now the adults are trying to converse here...are you always this worthless or just trying to pace yourself?

 

[Huh?]

The part that I have a hard time understanding is what happened between Bush Sr. and Saddam that made Bush want to turn on him..er?

History Repeating, But Faster​

On July 25th, after the massing of Iraqi troops on the Kuwaiti border, U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie told Saddam regarding a possible invasion of Kuwait, that "the United States has no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait." "James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this."

On July 26th, the Washington Post reported that "some officials" in the White House, Pentagon, and State Department "asserted yesterday that an Iraq attack on Kuwait would not draw a U.S. military response."

On July 30th, assistant secretary of state John Kelly confirmed to the House Middle East subcommittee, in response to a question by Lee Hamilton (D-IN), that nothing obligated us to engage U.S. forces there."

When Saddam, acting on the winks and nods, invaded Kuwait on August 2, he went from ally to Adolf overnight. Bush poured troops into Saudi Arabia, but to do so, he had to twist the Saudis' arm with angry visits from Dick Cheney and others.

Unnamed Defense Department officials were quoted as complaining about Saudi "wimps who don't want to defend themselves." The pressure worked, of course, and now – as Baker crows – the U.S. will protect its kings and kinglets with a "new regional security arrangement," courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer.

Bush's lying lips told us the troops were there for purely defensive purposes; meanwhile he and Baker worked busily, checkbooks in hand, getting U.N. members to authorize an attack. Then, right after the November election, Bush doubled the number of troops, forbade rotations, went on the offensive, and announced that he would attack if Saddam weren't out unconditionally by January 15th.

For home consumption, Bush announced that Baker would go to Baghdad, and travel the "last mile for peace," on "any date between now and the U.N. deadline of January 15th" that Iraq picked. But the offer was fraudulent. When Saddam said OK, and picked January 12th, Bush denounced him and cancelled the deal.

.

And then we can throw in Nayriah and the false "throwing babies out of incubators" bullshit and the fake satellite photos showing the massive amounts of Saddam's troops on the Saudi border who miraculously disappeared and we have another selling of a bullshit war...but why?

 

[Maple]

800 dead how many wounded....and there is no resolution....we should have never engaged afghanistan given its history ..they were not shocked or awed by our military toys....they had fought russian for decades and held them off.

bush elected to smack the tar baby....

So you are saying that we should not have responded to the terrorists who murdered 3,000 American citizens on American soil?? That's a pretty weak position to take on the defense of your freedom. THIS STATEMENT IS WHY YOU DO NOT LET LIBERALS LEAD.

 

[JW Frogen]

I fought in the First Gulf War. (Not that this gives me any special knowledge on the geo-politics of the issue but it does give me special interest and knowledge on the real results, in particular the joy I witnessed in Kuwait City when we liberated it.)

In retrospect it is clear when Saddam started saber rattling that the Bush Administration should have unequivocally stated that Kuwait was a UN sponsored nation state and a friend of the United States, that all disputes should be negotiated peacefully but to assert that Bush wanted a war is a massive over-assumption: "Your next stop the Twilight Zone."

The confusion coming from the Whitehouse was more to due with other priorities, managing the rapidly shifting relationship with the collapsing Soviet Union, the relationship with China which had just one year prior crushed all dissent at Tieneman Square and the belief that the US should not make commitments in a border dispute between two nations in the volitile Middle East, two nations that until that point had both served US strategic interests balancing Iran.

No one in the Administration believed Saddam would attempt to gobble an entire UN recognized nation by force, they were all assuming he would use the threat to renegotiate is debt to Kuwait.

Remember, after Saddam invaded the entire country Bush negotiated for almost half a year giving him a chance to avoid war. Saddam’s intransience on the issue and on subsequent UN resolutions caused by the issue reveals he probably would have invaded Kuwait regardless of prior US signals. Saddam was assuming the US would not go to war with his million man army under any circumstances.

There is no way the US could have allowed Saddam to extinguish a UN recognized state that had been a friend to the US, had that much oil and was a voice for the other Sunni states balancing Iran.

Indeed this principal was so obvious that Bush had no trouble assembling the largest coalition of nations the UN has ever assembled to fight along side the US, including US enemy Syria.

People like to assume every nation acts according to US will or secret plans, but Saddam had his own will and agenda and he was prepared to exercise it no matter what the US did.

 

[Intense]

WH Weighs Pakistan's Role in Winning War
October 08, 2009
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Recognizing the U.S. can neither win in Afghanistan nor succeed more broadly against al-Qaida without Pakistan's cooperation, President Barack Obama's war council is weighing a new role for Pakistan in the 8-year-old struggle in the region.

Obama planned sessions Thursday with Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton at the White House to continue the intense discussion about the increasingly unpopular war in Afghanistan. The White House scheduled another, larger war council session - a fifth of five announced - for Friday, when the focus may finally shift to just how many additional troops would be needed to execute Obama's vision for a war he inherited but now must execute.

The White House disclosed that Obama has in hand - and has for nearly a week - the troop request prepared by the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal. It is said to include a range of options, from adding as few as 10,000 combat troops to - McChrystal's strong preference - as many as 40,000.

A senior Pentagon official said Thursday that the Obama administration's delay in deciding on a strategy has, in turn, stalled European allies who are weighing how much more to contribute to Afghanistan.

Allies "who may be asked to vote for additional resources at some point are all waiting to see exactly what the U.S. decides to do in the wake of the McChrystal assessment," Assistant Defense Secretary Alexander Vershbow, who oversees international security affairs, told reporters. "In the meantime, they have their own domestic issues and each individual country, those countries that have suffered high casualties are obviously having to deal with some who are arguing that the cost of this war isn't worth it."

WH Weighs Pakistan's Role in Winning War

 

[DiveCon]

The best stabilizing Force in the Middle East was The Shah of Iran. We should have supported Him. We will be paying for Carter's Blunder for years to come.

HUH?

The shah was a US puppet and murderous dictator. The US deposed the duly elected Iranian Premier Mohammad Mossadeq and installed the scumbag as a prime minister. for shame.

There is no such thing as a duly-elected communist... Where such exists it is the duty of every free sovereign to destroy it; as the very presence of communism is a clear and present threat to the Rights of free people.

And this is how the above noted communist was dispatched... and his successor, the Shah came to power... governing over a prosperous Iran until Jimma Cawta failed to support him; where upon Islamic Jihad was born... which lead directly to 9-11 and the US GWOT.

Nothing particularly complicated about it; except where you rationalize that a people have a right to be communists if they choose; whereupon you establish yourself as the advocate of tyranny and suffer the certainty of diametrically oppossing 'means-end' calaculation, where you also lay claim to the advocacy of freedom.

correction, the Shah was already IN power, he was already Shah when this all happened, the US didnt put him in power

 

[Intense]

HUH?

The shah was a US puppet and murderous dictator. The US deposed the duly elected Iranian Premier Mohammad Mossadeq and installed the scumbag as a prime minister. for shame.

There is no such thing as a duly-elected communist... Where such exists it is the duty of every free sovereign to destroy it; as the very presence of communism is a clear and present threat to the Rights of free people.

And this is how the above noted communist was dispatched... and his successor, the Shah came to power... governing over a prosperous Iran until Jimma Cawta failed to support him; where upon Islamic Jihad was born... which lead directly to 9-11 and the US GWOT.

Nothing particularly complicated about it; except where you rationalize that a people have a right to be communists if they choose; whereupon you establish yourself as the advocate of tyranny and suffer the certainty of diametrically oppossing 'means-end' calaculation, where you also lay claim to the advocacy of freedom.

correction, the Shah was already IN power, he was already Shah when this all happened, the US didnt put him in power

We had Treaties with Iran. We were in a very strong position as allies.

 

[DiveCon]

Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally?

Why?

.

Well, we could start with the Invasion of Kuwait.

OK , let's start there.

As you know, or should know, during the Iran-Iraq war Saddam was Bush's boy.

Kuwait took advantage of the situation and stole Iraq's Ramallah Oil fields.

Saddam asked Bush I whether he would allow him to invade Kuwait to recover his property.

BUSH I TOLD SADDAM THAT THE US DOES NOT GET INVOLVED IN ARAB TO ARAB CONFLICTS AND GAVE HIM THE GREEN LIGHT.

BUT BUSH I HAD A CHANGE OF HEART AND ATTACKED IRAQ.

Next subject, please.


.

wow, massively wrong
Saddam was told we didnt have a position on his dispute, not that he could invade

 

[Si modo]

You ADD so much to the conversation Sigh moron.

I realize others off topic comments seem like shiney objects for those spinning their wheels, but it's really not an excuse to let your ADD get control of you. Now, try not to focus on me, either.

The "good war"?

I already commented on Afghanistan and now the adults are trying to converse here...are you always this worthless or just trying to pace yourself?

Nah. I just make it a point to ridicule non-thinkers such as yourself in the hope that the quality of discussion will increase. I especially enjoy the desperation of non-thinkers with a serious case of lastworditis - they are so easy to play.

 

[DiveCon]

Secondly, Bush never gave Iraq the green light to invade Kuwait...

It appears those with more knowledge of the circumstances disagree with you.

"Meanwhile, in Baghdad, April Glaspie, the US ambassador in Baghdad had a meeting with Saddam Hussein. According to the Wall Street Journal, which quotes a summary of the interview, Glaspie told Hussein that "the President personally wants to expand and deepen the relationship with Iraq". Concerning the dispute with Kuwait, she said: "We don't have much to say about your Arab-Arab differences, like your border differences with Kuwait." In mid-July, the Central Intelligence Agency warned the White House that Iraqi troops were being mobilized on mass along the border with Kuwait and that an invasion looked imminent, probably within a week. Nevertheless, on 31 July, a senior State Department official (Kelly) told a House Foreign Affairs sub-committee that "we have historically avoided taking a position on border disputes". Two days later, Saddam invaded Kuwait. "

uh, no, they disagree with you
if you think that says "go ahead and invade Kuwait" you are a ******* MORON

 

[PatekPhilippe]

So what did she think Saddam would do after the meeting?

Just take some of it?

What the zombified fail to understand is that Kuwait was part of Iraq andthat Iraq never recognized its independence.

.

True that.

The part that I have a hard time understanding is what happened between Bush Sr. and Saddam that made Bush want to turn on him...Saddam had been our ally, even to the point that we, long before Bush, ignored his civil rights violations to do business with him...backed his play against Iran...granted we were a bit two-faced on that one but why did Bush do it?
Perhaps to gain points with the Saudi's?

Or maybe the Israeli's?

If memory serves correctly, Saddam didn't threaten to change over to the Euro as a base for oil trade until later on.

Perhaps Bush just felt he needed a war and Saddam was the most likely sucker?

Perhaps the reason why you have a hard time understanding this may be the fact that you haven't got any idea about what you are talking about.

The only place where you will find references to the alleged Saddam-U.S.A. alliance is on left wing loon websites and the only people to subscribe to this sort of thinking are themselves, idiots.

The facts are these.
Carter fucked up the middle east real bad in his failed attempt to rescue the U.S. hostages in Iran. The U.S.A. despised the Ayatollah so much that Saddam became a convenient tool to use against Iran. The U.S.A. at the same time wished to encourage elements in Iran to attempt to overthrow the fledgling Islamic Republic so we supplied them with military hardware. We supplied satellite intel to Iraq and sold military hardware to Iran...hardly the alliance Huh? thinks was in place...two faced or not. I defy ANYONE to find any government policy from the 1980's that specifically states that Iraq was an ally of the U.S.A.

Then we have the U.S.S. Stark incident. Hardly the actions of this alleged ally of the United States.

Then we have the implementation of the Northern NFZ in Iraq (1991) to protect the Kurds in the north from further air attacks by Saddam Hussein's Air Force. This was done by Bush I.

backed his (Saddam) play against Iran...granted we were a bit two-faced on that one but why did Bush do it

What the **** are you talking about? Bush didn't have jack shit to do with Saddam fighting Iran...the Iran-Iraq war was OVER IN 1988!!

Please get your facts straight before attempting to educate other people on your revisionist libtard history.

 

[geauxtohell]

What branch, unit, MOS, etc.?

11A, 3rd BDE 25th ID, July 2002-July 2005

We might have overlapped if you were at Shkin/Paktika Province in the Spring of '04. I was at Shkin for the first month or two of my deployment before moving up to Orgun-E. I think an element from 2nd Bat was there as well.

Were you at Harriman?
I was out of 'stan in mid march '03. We diverted to N. Iraq days before "shock and awe".
But it's quite possible that elements of 2nd bat were in your area at the time you stated.

I don't think so. Though, I never paid attention to the "military names" of the FOBs. I don't even remember what soldier Orgun-E was named after, I just called it Orgun-E. I was strictly in the Paktika Province. That was our AO. We didn't overlap. I didn't get there until March of '04 and left in March of '05. I was our Battalion's Recon Platoon Leader for 6 months and then the S5 for the last six months.

One recon unit that I was tremendously impressed with was RRD. Those guys were amazing. In fact, I was impressed with all of the 75th. We tagged along on some missions, and I was amazed at the way everything was to standard, from the OPORDER with a sand table to the execution of the mission. You were truly part of a great unit.

I am pretty sure 2nd bat (or elements of it) where there when we got into country. I remember being around those guys when the Tillman accident happened. You could tell the unit was torn up about it.

 

[geauxtohell]

Look at this blanket statement about the entire country of Afghanistan.

LMFAO. Ground recon is useless in Afghanistan.

Since when is every single part of Afghanistan exactly the same, every situation exactly the same, every single piece of terrain exactly the same in ANY part of the world. It's a good thing the person who posted this rubbish about recon missions isn't in charge. It's single minded thinking and blanket statement mentality like this that gets troops in trouble. Perhaps in the specific area this poster was in, a completely barren landscape with ZERO coverout to 5 miles surrounded by goat herds, was not conducive to recon ops. I can understand that but to make a completely ludicrous statement like "recon is useless in Afghanistan" is quite disingenuous.

and then...read this stuff:

Like when a goat herder's child stepped over the top of a claymore mine and into my OP.

How did a "goat herder's child" get into your "OP" completely undetected???!!! Who set up that Claymore??!!

Now you wonder why I question the validity of your claims???!!! With statements like that!!!???



Seriously now...who are you trying to kid? Are you saying you..and troops put under your leadership .... failed to detect a child walking around in your minefield? UNTIL HE WAS INSIDE YOUR "OP"???!!! What does that say about your competence as a leader?

Look...if you served..that's great...thanks for the service and no disrespect was intended towards my fellow vets but don't come in here and post bullshit that makes the Army look like the Keystone Cops.

and order your lapdogs to mind their own business

Patek,
I don't think GTH was implying that all of Afghanistan is useless for recon ops. He's guilty of not wording it properly, that is all. The areas that he mentioned to me that he served in, makes recon ops a *****. Particularly the Orgun area that is not so affectionately referred to as the "box of rocks". And that's exactly what it is. It's like operating in a box of rocks. If you're not on top of said rocks, you're fucked, because that's where the "goat herders" tend to be. They've got a birds eye view, and if they're not friendly's, you are thereby compromised.
Think of the University of Texas tower sniper a few years back. That's is the situation we basically face in those regions.
As far as the child stepping over the Claymore goes, that shit happens all the time. Chances are, it was set up as command detonated. Meaning it would be detonated by remote, by perimiter security personnel. The ROE set for security are very strict. You don't just turn children into swiss cheese because they wandered into your area of ops. If it was set for VID, victim initiated detonation, and it failed to engage, it was most likely improperly set, or it was a dud. Or, the child was too light in weight to set off the vibration sensor. But then, I doubt it was set that way due to ROE set forth. I'm sure GTH can clarify.
Anyhow buddy, CARRY ON!

Thanks. That about sums it up. We watched the kid walk into our OP (a static position as you know) and there is basically nothing you can do about it. It's a soft compromise and that happened all the time to us. All of our claymores where command detonated. There is no way in hell I am hitting the clacker on some kid. That's just evil (and you are compromised the second you do that as well). I suspect that PP doesn't know the difference between an OP, CP, and patrol base. I am done trying to explain infantry tactics to him.

At any rate, my response was to PP's second guessing the unit at the FOB that got lit up. Konar is even more mountainous than Paktika and more barren.

That's why ground recon is, IMO, useless in Afghanistan. You can't hide anywhere.

Without cover and concealment, recon is a limited asset. My boss realized this pretty quickly.

When did you go to Ranger School? I was class 04-02.

 

[EriktheRed]

The part that I have a hard time understanding is what happened between Bush Sr. and Saddam that made Bush want to turn on him...Saddam had been our ally, even to the point that we, long before Bush, ignored his civil rights violations to do business with him...backed his play against Iran...granted we were a bit two-faced on that one but why did Bush do it?
Perhaps to gain points with the Saudi's?

Or maybe the Israeli's?

If memory serves correctly, Saddam didn't threaten to change over to the Euro as a base for oil trade until later on.

Perhaps Bush just felt he needed a war and Saddam was the most likely sucker?

Perhaps the reason why you have a hard time understanding this may be the fact that you haven't got any idea about what you are talking about.

The only place where you will find references to the alleged Saddam-U.S.A. alliance is on left wing loon websites and the only people to subscribe to this sort of thinking are themselves, idiots.

The facts are these.
Carter fucked up the middle east real bad in his failed attempt to rescue the U.S. hostages in Iran. The U.S.A. despised the Ayatollah so much that Saddam became a convenient tool to use against Iran. The U.S.A. at the same time wished to encourage elements in Iran to attempt to overthrow the fledgling Islamic Republic so we supplied them with military hardware. We supplied satellite intel to Iraq and sold military hardware to Iran...hardly the alliance Huh? thinks was in place...two faced or not. I defy ANYONE to find any government policy from the 1980's that specifically states that Iraq was an ally of the U.S.A.

Then we have the U.S.S. Stark incident. Hardly the actions of this alleged ally of the United States.

Then we have the implementation of the Northern NFZ in Iraq (1991) to protect the Kurds in the north from further air attacks by Saddam Hussein's Air Force. This was done by Bush I.

backed his (Saddam) play against Iran...granted we were a bit two-faced on that one but why did Bush do it

What the **** are you talking about? Bush didn't have jack shit to do with Saddam fighting Iran...the Iran-Iraq war was OVER IN 1988!!

Please get your facts straight before attempting to educate other people on your revisionist libtard history.[/QUOTE]


He looked pretty chummy with Rummy here:


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rBlEIRxnZU]YouTube - Rummy And Saddam[/ame]

 

[potter 58]

ah PP's trying to rewrite history again, big surprise , not

 

[geauxtohell]

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...this soldier let a child waltz around in his minefield and the child completely escaped detection until he was inside the "OP".

One claymore mine =/= a minefield.

You're an incompetent leader at best and a totally inept buffoon who had no purpose being placed in charge of combat troops at worst.

A sailor's opinion of my tactical prowess is meaningless to me.

and then cite a wikipedia source as your "expertise"

No, I cited it to show that soft compromises happen to the best of units.

I thought your were the consummate expert on all things related to infantry tactics!!!

You thought wrong. I never claimed that. I am certainly more knowledgeable than someone whose never been on patrol.

That would be you.

and then you cite an operation (Red Wing) as your source of expertise!!??

No I didn't.

...maybe you were in Afghanistan...Recon platoon leader?

Yes. For six months. That was after 19 months as a platoon leader.

Are you saying your a Lieutenant?? And you only served 3 years?

My active duty time was four years. I was with the 25th ID for three of those. I was in schools for 1.

The 3rd Brigade deployed to Afghanistan in March of 2004. They returned in June of 2005. So your 3 year tour in 25thID turns out to be 13 months of duty in Afghanistan.......

The whole unit returned in June. My battalion was the first in and first out. I was in Afghanistan for 12 months. Not 13.

I am guessing that is 12 more months in a combat zone than you have.

I find your citing a SEAL Op extremely insulting considering the fact that you don't deserve to walk on the same planet as any SEAL who ever existed.

Why do you care? You aren't a SEAL.

If you are a Lieutenant ......

I was a Captain (O-3) for most of my time when I was in A-stan. That is the rank I resigned this past December at the end of my obligation.

why only 3 years in the Army?....

Because I wanted to do other things with my life, like go to Medical School, which is what I am doing now.

were you kicked out for letting a child defeat your perimeter defenses and penetrate your "OP"?

No, I was honorably discharged.

Who was the fricken dumb ass who set that Claymore up? Who was on watch? What does this say about your effectiveness as a leader of combat troops?

Like when a goat herder's child stepped over the top of a claymore mine and into my OP.

Why don't you tell me, Rambo? You seem to know how this operation should have run.

I am sure you enjoy the Navy. I assure you, it's a lot harder in real life and in no way resembles your playstation.

 

[EriktheRed]

I'm finished wasting my time with another liberal fake vet.

Good bye....and good luck with that I led my platoon into a herd of goats story....there is a sea story competition every year put on by the Navy League...try that shit there.

GTH is the real deal, dude.

You've made yourself look really bad in this thread.

Apparently he didn't listen to you, A15.

 

[Huh?]

The part that I have a hard time understanding is what happened between Bush Sr. and Saddam that made Bush want to turn on him...Saddam had been our ally, even to the point that we, long before Bush, ignored his civil rights violations to do business with him...backed his play against Iran...granted we were a bit two-faced on that one but why did Bush do it?
Perhaps to gain points with the Saudi's?

Or maybe the Israeli's?

If memory serves correctly, Saddam didn't threaten to change over to the Euro as a base for oil trade until later on.

Perhaps Bush just felt he needed a war and Saddam was the most likely sucker?

Perhaps the reason why you have a hard time understanding this may be the fact that you haven't got any idea about what you are talking about.

The only place where you will find references to the alleged Saddam-U.S.A. alliance is on left wing loon websites and the only people to subscribe to this sort of thinking are themselves, idiots.

The facts are these.
Carter fucked up the middle east real bad in his failed attempt to rescue the U.S. hostages in Iran. The U.S.A. despised the Ayatollah so much that Saddam became a convenient tool to use against Iran. The U.S.A. at the same time wished to encourage elements in Iran to attempt to overthrow the fledgling Islamic Republic so we supplied them with military hardware. We supplied satellite intel to Iraq and sold military hardware to Iran...hardly the alliance Huh? thinks was in place...two faced or not. I defy ANYONE to find any government policy from the 1980's that specifically states that Iraq was an ally of the U.S.A.

Then we have the U.S.S. Stark incident. Hardly the actions of this alleged ally of the United States.

Then we have the implementation of the Northern NFZ in Iraq (1991) to protect the Kurds in the north from further air attacks by Saddam Hussein's Air Force. This was done by Bush I.

backed his (Saddam) play against Iran...granted we were a bit two-faced on that one but why did Bush do it

What the **** are you talking about? Bush didn't have jack shit to do with Saddam fighting Iran...the Iran-Iraq war was OVER IN 1988!!

Please get your facts straight before attempting to educate other people on your revisionist libtard history.

Listen, asswipe, I may not have written the clearest of sentences but you might try a little better at understanding my point before you go all dip shit on me...I said "long before Bush" as regards the Iraq /Iran war and previous involvements, although Bush was not completely uninvolved as VP and head of the CIA prior to that...and the "why did Bush do it" goes to my original question regarding the '91 battle.

You still haven't answered the question.

 

[Wicked Jester]

look at this blanket statement about the entire country of afghanistan.


Since when is every single part of afghanistan exactly the same, every situation exactly the same, every single piece of terrain exactly the same in any part of the world. It's a good thing the person who posted this rubbish about recon missions isn't in charge. It's single minded thinking and blanket statement mentality like this that gets troops in trouble. Perhaps in the specific area this poster was in, a completely barren landscape with zero coverout to 5 miles surrounded by goat herds, was not conducive to recon ops. I can understand that but to make a completely ludicrous statement like "recon is useless in afghanistan" is quite disingenuous.

And then...read this stuff:


How did a "goat herder's child" get into your "op" completely undetected???!!! Who set up that claymore??!!

Now you wonder why i question the validity of your claims???!!! With statements like that!!!???



Seriously now...who are you trying to kid? Are you saying you..and troops put under your leadership .... Failed to detect a child walking around in your minefield? Until he was inside your "op"???!!! What does that say about your competence as a leader?

Look...if you served..that's great...thanks for the service and no disrespect was intended towards my fellow vets but don't come in here and post bullshit that makes the army look like the keystone cops.

And order your lapdogs to mind their own business

patek,
i don't think gth was implying that all of afghanistan is useless for recon ops. He's guilty of not wording it properly, that is all. The areas that he mentioned to me that he served in, makes recon ops a *****. Particularly the orgun area that is not so affectionately referred to as the "box of rocks". And that's exactly what it is. It's like operating in a box of rocks. If you're not on top of said rocks, you're fucked, because that's where the "goat herders" tend to be. They've got a birds eye view, and if they're not friendly's, you are thereby compromised.
Think of the university of texas tower sniper a few years back. That's is the situation we basically face in those regions.
As far as the child stepping over the claymore goes, that shit happens all the time. Chances are, it was set up as command detonated. Meaning it would be detonated by remote, by perimiter security personnel. The roe set for security are very strict. You don't just turn children into swiss cheese because they wandered into your area of ops. If it was set for vid, victim initiated detonation, and it failed to engage, it was most likely improperly set, or it was a dud. Or, the child was too light in weight to set off the vibration sensor. But then, i doubt it was set that way due to roe set forth. I'm sure gth can clarify.
Anyhow buddy, carry on!

thanks. That about sums it up. We watched the kid walk into our op (a static position as you know) and there is basically nothing you can do about it. It's a soft compromise and that happened all the time to us. All of our claymores where command detonated. There is no way in hell i am hitting the clacker on some kid. That's just evil (and you are compromised the second you do that as well). I suspect that pp doesn't know the difference between an op, cp, and patrol base. I am done trying to explain infantry tactics to him.

At any rate, my response was to pp's second guessing the unit at the fob that got lit up. Konar is even more mountainous than paktika and more barren.

That's why ground recon is, imo, useless in afghanistan. You can't hide anywhere.

Without cover and concealment, recon is a limited asset. My boss realized this pretty quickly.

When did you go to ranger school? I was class 04-02.

83-01

 

[PatekPhilippe]

A video of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam doen't mean a goddam thing.....you liberals are too ******* stupid to see one of your own propaganda tactics being used to influence the targeted audience...namely Iran.

Check this shit out....

why only 3 years in the Army?....

Because I wanted to do other things with my life, like go to Medical School, which is what I am doing now.

0-1 to 0-3 in 3 years???!!!!

For all to see..here are Officer time in grade requirements set down by CFR.

0-2 18 months 18 months Fully qualified (nearly 100 percent)
0-3 4 years 2 years Fully qualified (nearly 100 percent)

The first column is the normal time in grade requirement for promotion path to 0-3 meaning 01 to 02 is 18 months and 0-2 to 0-3 is 4 YEARS!!!.
Let's do some math.
1.5 years plus 4 years equals 5.5 years.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm GTH says he had a 3 year obligation and made CAPTAIN in what 2 YEARS!!

but look at this a few lines down!!!

Are you saying your a Lieutenant?? And you only served 3 years?

My active duty time was four years. I was with the 25th ID for three of those. I was in schools for 1.

Now it's 4 years...what are we to believe here? 3 years...4 years.... 0-3 in way less than the law allows for? Even with the MINIMUM set down by law which is referenced in the second column of the TIG requirements I posted above IT'S 3 AND ONE HALF YEARS TO GET TO 0-3...and you spent 1 year of that in school as a 2nd Lt, another 6 months at 25thID as a 2nd Lt. before making 0-2 and then made 0-3 BEFORE THE LAW ALLOWED IT. You claimed to have had 1 year time in grade as a 0-3!!!!

I was a Captain (O-3) for most of my time when I was in A-stan.

I know for a FACT that Army Officer service obligations are for 8 YEARS!!

Seriously...who the **** do you think you are addressing? Even if you were a shit hot Lt. (which obviously you are not because you let a child penetrate your perimeter and only put out one claymore as a perimeter defense) with all of your FITREPs reflecting that, your time line is FUBAR.

Hmmmmmmmmmm..... This is getting beter by the day...please....... keep it up.