Page 19 of 20 FirstFirst ... 917181920 LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 195

Thread: American General Killed in Shooting at Afghan Military Academy

  1. #181
    Sage
    poweRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    34,887

    Re: American General Killed in Shooting at Afghan Military Academy

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    Electric cars may be one way, but we don't want to put all of our eggs into one basket. We can run cars on natural gas or on diesel made from coal. We need to get serious about bio fuel research. We can exploit the oil shale and tar sands in North America. We can attack this problem from several angles at the same time.
    Absolutely. I'm a fan of the algae bio-fuel path I've been keeping abreast with. It repopulates itself fast and constantly.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    The sad fact is that having a pedophile win is better than having a Democrat in office. I'm all for a solution where a Republican gets in that isn't Moore.

  2. #182
    Educator
    USViking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Greensboro NC USA
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,111

    Re: American General Killed in Shooting at Afghan Military Academy

    PART ONE OF REPLY

    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier
    Sorry for the sonny reference. I assumed your juvenile tone pointed to someone that is under the age of 25.
    No need to apologize for the reference, and I won’t apologize for getting in the face of anyone who deserves it.


    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier
    Ahh, so you're one of those guys. You had the opportunity to volunteer and chose college instead.
    You don’t think the only people allowed to have an opinion of issues of war and peace should be active duty personnel and vets do you? That is not the way Democracy is supposed to work, bro- maybe you ought to take a few political science courses after all.

    Furthermore, I had to take my chances in the 1969 Draft lottery, same as everyone.

    I had a college deferment 1967-1969, and I agree such deferment is a travesty since it places a life-and-death burden of risk on some but not others.


    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier
    Things are starting to make sense now....Make sure you flex those GPA muscles though. I wouldn't be bragging about a 3.3 in English Lit and Political Science bro. Both of those perennially make the top 10 most worthless majors list.
    The 1960s job market was the best in history, and it was still cresting when I got out in 1971. Plus with grades like mine finding a job was never a problem. Plus EnglishLit-PolSci would have been fine for Law School. Plus back then grades were a surer sign of critical thinking ability because all tests were essay question: no multiple choice questions, as in not one in four years for me. Ergo I have a few bragging rights to take.


    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier
    Speaking of education. Maybe you should educate yourself on what is required of Marines as far as Professional Military Education when they progress in rank. I'd be willing to wager that I have far more hours and college credits than you in the aforementioned subject as well as other similar subjects. We're not the simple automatons that you assume we are or the one you avoided being back when your went to college instead of joining in the late 60's.
    I commend your efforts to continue your education. However, either the curriculum or your study habits are deficient because you do not have a clear view of the issues at stake in Afghanistan 2001-present.


    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier
    I love how you accuse me of inadequate education IRT Afghanistan and 9/11 then address my statement about SF and a MEU in Afghanistan later in the same post. Maybe if YOU knew a little about history you would know that SF, the CIA, and a MEU were the first ones on the ground in Afghanistan back in 2001. Oh wait, I even noted the year 2001 in that statement. Read much? Obviously my reference to them points to the fact that I know exactly what has happened in our world during my time in the Marine Corps. I was guarding an Air Force communications plane that has a higher security clearance than Air Force 1.
    Here is what I said, and you are doing nothing but confirming it in this thread:

    "you are oblivious to the fact that the people who planned 9/11 were based in Afghanistan"

    And no, knowing what year something happened does not mean you know enough about it otherwise to form a reasonable opinion about anything, and neither does guard duty.


    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier
    Where were you? Being the "working man" with your Phi Beta Dodga graduate status? Take a step back and get a hold of yourself. Deal with your inner draft dodging demons and move on.
    Previously addressed.


    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier
    2) Most of Afghanistan was not a "giant safe house" for the Taliban. They were mostly concentrated in the southern desert region.
    Totally incorrect.

    Here, according to the US Army, is what Taliban controlled:

    Afghanistan 10/01: Strategic Setting

    (from link, emphasis added):
    Most of the country was under Taliban control by 2001 except for some small areas held by Northern Alliance forces in the Panjshir Valley northeast of Kabul and a few scattered pockets of resistance in the northwest of the country…


    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier
    3) Your comparison of Milosevic to the Taliban makes absolutely no sense. Milosevic committed genocide against his people. The Taliban actively sought to commit terrorist acts against us and other countries. Big, big difference in the two.
    I’ll say there’s a big difference!- Milosevic was an out-of-the-way local small-fry whereas AQ had been attacking us all over the world for years, and Taliban was in 2001 providing them with what was by far the most secure base they ever had.

    Just to clue you in to the point I was making, though: once you have an certified homicidal maniac under control it is usually a good idea to keep him under control, right? Especially if you personally are 100% sure to be at the top of the maniac’s victim list once he gets loose.


    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier
    Good for you. Got better things to do.
    You mean your attention span can’t take it.

  3. #183
    Educator
    USViking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Greensboro NC USA
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,111

    Re: American General Killed in Shooting at Afghan Military Academy

    PART TWO OF REPLY

    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier
    Nonsense. We were faring much better in Afghanistan until "jointness" reared it's ugly head…
    Off-topic because what I obviously meant was that more force should have been committed at the start.


    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier
    Tell me, oh great military genius, how could more ground troops have helped during OBL's epic run in Tora Bora?
    How could more ground troops have helped? Man, that’s a tough one!

    I guess I just have to fall back on the premise that more troops are better than less troops for carrying out most missions. I think it is safe to say there is no reason 2001 Afghanistan might be an exception to that premise.

    You think less troops would have had a better chance of interdicting OBL on his way to Tora Bora? You think less troops would have had a better chance of nailing him while he was on Tora Bora? You think less troops would have had a better chance of nailing him before he got to Pakistan?


    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier
    Where would we have based them? We held one airfield at that point.
    How would we have logistically supported them? Do you know that over 70% of supplies are brought in to Afghanistan via tractor trailer along the southern border How could we have established that supply line AND chased OBL? You have to do one or the other.?
    I am not talking about supplying two million people for two years like we did during the Berlin Airlift (ever hear about that one, Bro?- tells us about what kind of things we can do with a real can-do attitude like the one you are supposed to have). I am talking about supplying additional ground forces of less than one Division in number for about 2-4 months Oct-Dec 2001.


    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier
    Do you even know how taxing it would have been on a regular infantry unit to move through the terrain they would have had to move through to chase him? Of course you don't because you've never done it. You keep talking about that degree though.
    I can’t believe I am hearing this “taxing” sh*t from a US Marine. OMG! Mountainous terrain! We’re licked!


    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier
    Statements such as this are why I assumed you were under the age of 25. You have never met me. Have never even exchanged posts with me. And you make this broad assumption? lol.
    I have been a history buff since grade school (20 years before the cable TV era) and I probably knew more history than you do now before I got to college.


    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier
    Please keep up. Why, WW2 buff, did we begin the Pacific Campaign during WW2? Because we were attacked first. Thus, our reaction to that was defensive. If Japan hadn't attacked first, we would not have attacked them. Thus, the Pacific Campaign can be classified as National DEFENSE.
    Now you are playing word games and ignoring the fundamental military concepts of strategic offence and strategic defense. If that is the best you can do then you must have received some kind of social promotion to have gotten through those continuing education courses of yours.


    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier
    Also, as with National Security policy, I would wager I have far more hours in military history than you. In fact, I know I do. The only way you would have more is if you majored in it. Watching the History Channel doesn't make you an expert.
    I don’t think I have ever watched an entire HC program. Probably what you grew up on, though, eh?

    Any time you want to compare bibliographies let me know. I can start with Shirer’s Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (1245p, read in HS), or, if you prefer something more strictly military, Werth’s Russia at War (1136p).


    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier
    My point is that anytime we go on the offensive for stupid political reasons such as the ones you are advocating for, it turns out bad. Korea, Vietnam, etc, etc have all turned out bad for us. The area we left was not any better than when we first arrived. Desert Storm is the lone exception and Pres Bush I demonstrated enormous restraint by not listening to neocons such as yourself and doing exactly what he said he would do and no more. If a people do not WANT freedom we can't MAKE them take it.
    Korea was a crystal mystic perfection of a just war against a invasive aggressor. It turned out not merely well but great for the now prospering people of South Korea, who would otherwise be laboring in unimaginable torment under the rule of the loathsome NK Communist party. Korea and Viet Nam both began as strategic defensives.

    Somalia was a mistake, but not a neocon mistake (you remember who was POTUS then, don’t you?)

    Iraq II was also crystal mystic perfection of a just war, even though there were no WMB, against a man who had started two wars and who was the serial murderer of his own people. The ~65% voter turnout for the 1st ever elections showed that a clear majority of the Iraqi people DID WANT FREEDOM. THEY STILL DO. Unfortunately terrorist-criminal elements of the remaining 35% have been ruthless enough to deny the majority their longed-for peace, so the practical benefits of our just war have gone tragically unrealized.

    And I see we keep straying from Afghanistan. I may not have the energy for any more globetrotting, and I may not have any more energy for you unless you come up with something really enticing.

  4. #184
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: American General Killed in Shooting at Afghan Military Academy

    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    A military one? What do you have in mind, we start shooting Afghan soldiers? Unfortunately, the military can not solve all of our problems.... actually, there are very, very few problems that can be solved with the military. In fact, the use of the military probably creates more problems than it solves.... the Afghan occupation, for example.
    There is no problem that cannot be cured by the proper application of high explosives.

    Of course, since it was a General probably appointed under Obama, the military may actually now be more capable.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  5. #185
    Sage
    poweRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    34,887

    Re: American General Killed in Shooting at Afghan Military Academy

    Quote Originally Posted by CRUE CAB View Post
    So? Its true. Peel back the onion and that is all you liberals do. Blame Bush and cry racist. Since 2008 every death in Iraq and Afghanistan is squarely on Obama's shoulders.
    nahh... what is true is that you preemptively played a whiny victim card for no reason which is fast becoming a favorite right-wing past time.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    The sad fact is that having a pedophile win is better than having a Democrat in office. I'm all for a solution where a Republican gets in that isn't Moore.

  6. #186
    Student
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Last Seen
    01-17-17 @ 02:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    152

    Re: American General Killed in Shooting at Afghan Military Academy

    Quote Originally Posted by Blue_State View Post
    It is our number export. Just ask anyone in the ME. 20 years ago, ask anyone in South America. We haven't messed with Asia in 70 years...they are probably due.
    Wow so you and Obama went to the same school. Maybe you can tell me what the 57 states are?

  7. #187
    Student
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Last Seen
    01-17-17 @ 02:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    152

    Re: American General Killed in Shooting at Afghan Military Academy

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    im·pe·ri·al·ism
    imˈpi(ə)rēəˌlizəm/
    noun
    a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force.
    "the struggle against imperialism"


    EXTENDING POWER AND INFLUENCE THROUGH MILITARY FORCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Ah yes, we certainly have alot of power and influence in foreign countries.... you would think that with us being so imperialistic they would fall over to agree with us.

  8. #188
    Haters gon' hate
    MarineTpartier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    01-04-16 @ 04:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,586
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: American General Killed in Shooting at Afghan Military Academy

    Quote Originally Posted by USViking View Post
    PART ONE OF REPLY


    No need to apologize for the reference, and I won’t apologize for getting in the face of anyone who deserves it...........

    You mean your attention span can’t take it.
    Quote Originally Posted by USViking View Post
    PART TWO OF REPLY


    Off-topic because what I obviously meant was that more force should have been committed at the start.
    A couple of things so we can wrap up the extracurricular crap you seem to love engaging in and revert back to what this is all supposed to be about. Afghanistan. You know, the country that housed the perpetrators of 9/11. <-I'm going to keep saying that because apparently in your convoluted world of debate my stating that we went there in 2001, my debate of tactics there, and my debate of logistical support there doesn't mean I know why we went there in the first place. Idk how, for the life of me, that line of reasoning makes sense to you but apparently it does so I guess I'll have to repeatedly acknowledge what every person in the US that was over the age of 12 knows: We invaded Afghanistan due to 9/11.

    A)This is the internet. Simply saying you have a high GPA, naming battles or engagements that occurred during any war that you are allegedly an expert on, or any other attempt at propping one's self up does a couple of things. One, it makes you look as if you are compensating for something. A person that is confident in their abilities shouldn't feel the need to yell far and wide every little thing they allegedly know or think they know. Two, any decent points you do make are hidden by the fact that you feel the need to not only comment on the topic at hand, but also comment on things that no one really cares about and attempt to insult people who haven't insulted you. Comments such as "Or were you too busy keeping up with your homework to pay attention to the news back then? (Haha- homework? you?)" are unwarranted. Again, this references my belief that you were in fact a teenager or early 20's punk.

    B) You can tell yourself whatever you need to in order to feel better about your not serving in Vietnam. I agree that you don't need to have served to be able to have an opinion on wars that our country does or doesn't participate in. What I don't agree with is your willy nilly belief that we should just send troops where ever we want because, whatever, they are supposed to do that. This isn't Star Wars where the "troops" are heartless, emotionless bodies sent forth to fight and die at the will of whomever is in charge of them. Troops are actual people with families who shouldn't be sent forth to every friggin country in this world that thumbs their nose at us. It doesn't strike me as a coincidence that as the numbers of House and Senate members that have served decreases, wars and "conflicts" seem to increase. People such as yourself, who haven't felt the loss of a comrade in combat nor had to notify their wife and kids of their death, shouldn't treat the lives of those people as if they were disposable capital. That's what you act like and you can keep whatever back pedaling comments you may post to yourself. Your previous posts reveal your true nature.

    Now, on to Afghanistan. (You know, the country that housed the perpetrators of 9/11.)

    More Troops in 2001:
    No, more doesn't always mean better. If that were the case, we would have gone in heavy at the beginning like we did in Iraq. As it is, we went in with small groups of elite troops such as ODA's, CIA paramilitary, etc. Their mission was to train the Northern Alliance and lead them in to combat against the Taliban. Note the NORTHERN Alliance ie the North was not a haven for the Taliban like the south was. I never said there wasn't a Taliban presence anywhere else in the country. I simply stated they were concentrated in the south. Again, you jump to a conclusion instead of taking a comment at face value. Small groups like ODA's, which I have worked with extensively in Iraq, do not need nor do they want the burden of conventional units attached to them during the type of mission they were conducting in 2001. Large, conventional units (especially US Army infantry) are typically slow to react, require a large amount of logistical support, and do not have the physical capability of scaling and climbing mountains like the ones seen in Afghanistan. (You know, the country that housed the perpetrators of 9/11.) I will stop here to make a point.

    ***You MAY have a college degree. You MAY be a guy who studies history. I don't know if any of that is true or not. If it is, you MAY have more knowledge of history than I do. However, one thing I know to be true is that you have NO EXPERIENCE in the type of effort and energy that is required to operate in mountainous terrain such as the terrain that is present in Afghanistan. (You know, the country that housed the perpetrators of 9/11.) Especially up north. Sure, you can come back and say something like "I used to hike the Rockies" or "I completed the Appalachian Trail". Those things are not even in the same ball park as conducting combat operations in a mountainous environment. Those things allow you to pick and chose where you walk. You can take a break when you want. You aren't wearing nearly the amount of gear a soldier/Marine is wearing. You don't have that whole threat of death thing going on either. So to attempt to make it sound like our troops are simply weak because they can't operate in mountainous terrain is, in my opinion, ignorant and disrespectful. Simply pointing to terrain on a map and saying "Go there and complete this mission" is the type of arm chair quarterback crap that gets people killed. I'm sure you, being the alleged history buff, can remember quite a few battles with incompetent leaders doing such things.***

    Further, tactics do not win wars. Logistics do. As a "history buff" you should know this. Again, less is more when conducting operations in a country where you have no established way of supplying troops. In the beginnings of the Afghanistan (You know, the country that housed the perpetrators of 9/11.) invasion, the only resupply available to our guys were via air drop or what the SF teams could purchase locally with money they brought in with them. This is not an environment where you can air drop in troops from the 82nd or helo in a battalion of Marines and expect to sustain them. It takes 3 logistics personnel to support every infantry Marine (this includes mechanics to keep air up, landing support, etc, etc) and it takes 4 logistics personnel to support every Army infantryman. You also have to feed, house, etc those 3-4 logistics personnel that are there for every infantryman. SF, on the other hand, only require 2 logistics personnel per man. They also can procure enough supplies for themselves due to their small footprint. I say all that to demonstrate that, despite our not getting OBL in Tora Bora, the way the 2001 Afghanistan invasion was conducted was MASTERFUL compared to way we did it in Iraq. With barely 2% of the troops used in Iraq, we accomplished a full route of the enemy in difficult terrain with no established logistical support network. Remember, COIN wasn't something that any conventional troop even considered as a way of conducting war in 2001. The ONLY people trained in it's ways were SF. The reason Iraq turned out the way it did is because we sent in a blunt object to correct a problem that required a precision instrument. I was there for the invasion of Iraq and it was much bigger debacle that was portrayed on TV.

    Finally, I won't argue the points with you about Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq, etc. You are obviously convinced that sending troops to every country that doesn't agree with our point of view is the way to force them to freedom. I disagree wholeheartedly.
    “Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
    Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

  9. #189
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: American General Killed in Shooting at Afghan Military Academy

    Quote Originally Posted by DrPepper View Post
    Ah yes, we certainly have alot of power and influence in foreign countries.... you would think that with us being so imperialistic they would fall over to agree with us.
    They're falling over.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  10. #190
    Guru

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In a Blue State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,732

    Re: American General Killed in Shooting at Afghan Military Academy

    Quote Originally Posted by DrPepper View Post
    Wow so you and Obama went to the same school. Maybe you can tell me what the 57 states are?
    Help me here...how did I Obama go to the same school? I pull for Yale, not Harvard.

    With that said, please make a point. I guess it is something against America being imperialists. We send weapons to Syria. We have troops in South Korea, Afghanistan, Germany, Italy and list of other countries. That is the military. Military force. Don't be so blind.

    Look around the world. Realize we are the world police and we use our military to do it.
    We went from sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me to safe spaces.

Page 19 of 20 FirstFirst ... 917181920 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •