vmax190
Well-Known Member
at the height of ww2 the germans were flying in at least 1k planes a day, for thirty days in a row in 1944, and today we cannot overtake the towelheads, we are being played men.
Help Support VMAX Forum:
gunrunner
Well-Known Member
Those Towelheads as you put it control world oil and they have more money than the US government plus its more hi tech now , what the steath bomber does is more than half those planes used to do .:confused2:
Hatter
Well-Known Member
We could do a lot more about back in WWII, because we wasn't fighting our own media propaganda machine back then.
It took weeks and months for Newsreels to get back to the states and by the time anyone could object to ANYTHING we did, it was already history.
Nowadays, with instant global communication, we hear about it as it happens, or even BEFORE it happens, and the liberal weenies have kittens.
Also the enemy has also learned that the propaganda weapon works as well or better than a AK47, and with the Internet, can reach right into the homes of all Americans, which is something the Germans couldn't do in the 1940s.
It took weeks and months for Newsreels to get back to the states and by the time anyone could object to ANYTHING we did, it was already history.
Nowadays, with instant global communication, we hear about it as it happens, or even BEFORE it happens, and the liberal weenies have kittens.
Also the enemy has also learned that the propaganda weapon works as well or better than a AK47, and with the Internet, can reach right into the homes of all Americans, which is something the Germans couldn't do in the 1940s.
TRUTH!!!
Could yo imagine trying a D-Day invasion today?????
The public outcry would be STUPENDOUS!!!!:bang head:
This country no longer has the stomach to fight a real war.....
To say nothing of the eroded industrial base that could not support it either....
Our enemies know this.....and we end up where we are today:damn angry:
WWII was a conventional war, in vietnam we dropped more lbs of bombs a day than we did in 30 days of WWII, we are currently fighting a non-conventional force in a counterinsurgency. You cant just bomb the shit out them and expect it to be over before Christmas, a counterinsurgency traditionally takes one - two generations to completely win.
ghostntheshell
Well-Known Member
(1.) The whole dynamics of war have changed. We will never see a war like WW2 again.
(2.) The "towel heads" as you put it - and I will not refer to them as such, are fighting, like ghosts among their citizens. It would be easy to wipe a country off the face of the earth with todays technology - but you must understand that America is fighting a regime. They are not fighting a country. THAT would be easy.
(3.) The "media machine" you refer to? Like the one George bush used when he tried to convince the world we were on the brink of extinction because S.Hussain had some weapons of mass destruction? The whole Iraq war - and the war on terror are two separate fronts, you understand. Right? Or have you been fooled by the mass media you refer to? Because they are two separate fronts. They always have been, and always will be.
(4.) The people are not behind the war. Plain and simple.
________
drug test
(2.) The "towel heads" as you put it - and I will not refer to them as such, are fighting, like ghosts among their citizens. It would be easy to wipe a country off the face of the earth with todays technology - but you must understand that America is fighting a regime. They are not fighting a country. THAT would be easy.
(3.) The "media machine" you refer to? Like the one George bush used when he tried to convince the world we were on the brink of extinction because S.Hussain had some weapons of mass destruction? The whole Iraq war - and the war on terror are two separate fronts, you understand. Right? Or have you been fooled by the mass media you refer to? Because they are two separate fronts. They always have been, and always will be.
(4.) The people are not behind the war. Plain and simple.
________
drug test
Last edited:
medic981
Well-Known Member
Alright, time to throw my hat in. Here's a thought or two from someone who has actually traded lead with the so called 'towel heads'...
In WWII, both sides wore uniforms. It was easy to tell friend from foe. The definition of conventional warfare. In Afghanistan (I can't speak about Iraq, I haven't been there), your foe looks like ever other civilian. They are guerrilla fighters, the definition of unconventional warfare. These guys would fight from the homes of non-combatants. So if level the villages that we take fire from, the news headlines read that our air strikes killed civilians.
There are two major factions of coalition forces in Afghanistan. ISAF, or International Security Assistance Force, is one of them. This force is controlled by and consists of NATO forces. And they are just that, a security force. They are guards. They do not conduct offensive operations. They are conventional forces. The other force is CJSOTF-A, or Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force - Afghanistan. This force is comprised of Special Operations units from many counties, included NATO forces. They do conduct offensive operations. They are unconventional forces. These two forces have different goals for Afghanistan. They do not work well with one another.
Karzai recently selected his new running mate for the upcoming elections. Mohammad Qasim Fahim Khan. While I was there, he was 'helping' us with a large convoy, providing route clearing and security. His forces moved about 15 km in front of ours. His forces were never fired upon while we fought for three days straight. Point is, you really can't tell over there who is your friend and who is your foe. The world wants us to make it all better but the media is holding the microscope over us, waiting for us to make what could even be perceived as a mistake.
The bottom line is that this is not the same war that our grandfathers fought in WWII. We are, and I am, fighting an enemy that we rarely ever see.
Oh, and I won't say which of those two forces I belonged to in Afghanistan...
In WWII, both sides wore uniforms. It was easy to tell friend from foe. The definition of conventional warfare. In Afghanistan (I can't speak about Iraq, I haven't been there), your foe looks like ever other civilian. They are guerrilla fighters, the definition of unconventional warfare. These guys would fight from the homes of non-combatants. So if level the villages that we take fire from, the news headlines read that our air strikes killed civilians.
There are two major factions of coalition forces in Afghanistan. ISAF, or International Security Assistance Force, is one of them. This force is controlled by and consists of NATO forces. And they are just that, a security force. They are guards. They do not conduct offensive operations. They are conventional forces. The other force is CJSOTF-A, or Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force - Afghanistan. This force is comprised of Special Operations units from many counties, included NATO forces. They do conduct offensive operations. They are unconventional forces. These two forces have different goals for Afghanistan. They do not work well with one another.
Karzai recently selected his new running mate for the upcoming elections. Mohammad Qasim Fahim Khan. While I was there, he was 'helping' us with a large convoy, providing route clearing and security. His forces moved about 15 km in front of ours. His forces were never fired upon while we fought for three days straight. Point is, you really can't tell over there who is your friend and who is your foe. The world wants us to make it all better but the media is holding the microscope over us, waiting for us to make what could even be perceived as a mistake.
The bottom line is that this is not the same war that our grandfathers fought in WWII. We are, and I am, fighting an enemy that we rarely ever see.
Oh, and I won't say which of those two forces I belonged to in Afghanistan...
Kind of like Viet Nam. Friend of mine made friends with some locals. Ate dinner with them, played with the kids, brought gifts, etc. In an ambush, the son popped up and was about to shoot my friend. He hesitated upon recognizing the young man. His buddy shot the VC before he could shoot my friend. After that he didn't try to be friends with the locals....
Can somebody answer these questions for me?
1) What is the objective of the 'war' in Afgahnistan?
2) Who benefits?
3) If, in order to subdue/neutalize/pacify/ kill insurgents operating out of the homes of non-combatants, it is deemed appropriate and acceptable to create collateral damage (i.e kill non-combanants) at what point does military action become a policy of extermination of the sovereign population?
4) Does this have anything to do with defending America?
1) What is the objective of the 'war' in Afgahnistan?
2) Who benefits?
3) If, in order to subdue/neutalize/pacify/ kill insurgents operating out of the homes of non-combatants, it is deemed appropriate and acceptable to create collateral damage (i.e kill non-combanants) at what point does military action become a policy of extermination of the sovereign population?
4) Does this have anything to do with defending America?
Medic981.....
thank You for your service....
And your insight.....
I always assume there are things going on....and reasons for them.....
That I am not privy to.....somtimes you just have to accept it.....
Even if you do not agree with, or understand it.......
Thanks again for your serviceunk:
thank You for your service....
And your insight.....
I always assume there are things going on....and reasons for them.....
That I am not privy to.....somtimes you just have to accept it.....
Even if you do not agree with, or understand it.......
Thanks again for your service
unk:
medic981
Well-Known Member
1) From the ISAF website...
"In accordance with all the relevant Security Council Resolutions, ISAF?s main role is to assist the Afghan government in the establishment of a secure and stable environment. To this end, ISAF forces are conducting security and stability operations throughout the country together with the Afghan National Security Forces and are directly involved in the development of the Afghan National Army through mentoring, training and equipping."
And more of their objectives...
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_8189.htm
2) Everyone, but mainly the Afghan people. I myself provided medical care to an entire village for the duration of my stay there. I assisted with several bridge projects for the Ring Route (http://www.rferl.org/content/Article/1078916.html). I assisted with the Kajaki Dam project (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89821168). All of which we, the military, did for the Afghan people.
3) At no point did I ever say that it our policy to "create collateral damage". It is neither appropriate or acceptable. Does it ever happen? Yes. But it is never done with the intention to harm innocent civilians. "NATO blames Taliban fighters for causing the majority of civilian deaths in Afghanistan." (http://www.voanews.com/english/arch...essionid=88307b7cdfa9503a695b761a6c9761d396a3)
You use the word 'extermination' as if to refer to me and my fellow soldiers to the Nazis of World War II. I take great offense to that.
4) Directly, probably not. Indirectly, yes. By ensuring that terrorist organizations, such as Al Qaida and the Taliban, have no safe haven, we decrease their ability to affect their end goals. We've taken from them their home by giving the people of Afghanistan back their country. We've destroyed their revenue flow by disrupting narcotics trafficking in the region.
And what ever happened to just doing the right thing? To just helping to free an oppressed people?
1) From the ISAF website...
"In accordance with all the relevant Security Council Resolutions, ISAF?s main role is to assist the Afghan government in the establishment of a secure and stable environment. To this end, ISAF forces are conducting security and stability operations throughout the country together with the Afghan National Security Forces and are directly involved in the development of the Afghan National Army through mentoring, training and equipping."
And more of their objectives...
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_8189.htm
OK So the goal is to create a corporate friendly Satrap.
2) Everyone, but mainly the Afghan people. I myself provided medical care to an entire village for the duration of my stay there. I assisted with several bridge projects for the Ring Route (http://www.rferl.org/content/Article/1078916.html). I assisted with the Kajaki Dam project (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89821168). All of which we, the military, did for the Afghan people.
So you participate in the part of the operation that is designed to win the hearts and minds of the general populace while the other part is responsible for combat operations.
3) At no point did I ever say that it our policy to "create collateral damage". It is neither appropriate or acceptable. Does it ever happen? Yes. But it is never done with the intention to harm innocent civilians. "NATO blames Taliban fighters for causing the majority of civilian deaths in Afghanistan." (http://www.voanews.com/english/arch...essionid=88307b7cdfa9503a695b761a6c9761d396a3)
You use the word 'extermination' as if to refer to me and my fellow soldiers to the Nazis of World War II. I take great offense to that.
I didn't say that you said 'ever say that it our policy to "create collateral damage".
You said that it is impossible to determine who the enemy combatant is because they all look alike. So if a combatant can't be distinguished from non-combatants (like Vietnam) it seems to me that every combat operation that produces collateral damage was pre-approved by someone with the full knowledge that collateral damage would occur. Yet this action was ordered anyway. One can ONLY assume, that by their ready reckoner, the collateral losses justified the combatant kills.
If you can't separate the combatants from the non-combatants how many non-combatants must be pre-meditatively killed in order to catch every last bad guy? It's obvious that you will kill more non-combatants. Therefore you have no chance of winning hearts and minds of the friends family and relatives of the dead combatants. You will end up with generational dissent like in palestine.
4) Directly, probably not. Indirectly, yes. By ensuring that terrorist organizations, such as Al Qaida and the Taliban, (which the CIA & ISI created http://www.ptinews.com/pti\ptisite.nsf/0/8227CE5AED148A8A652575B30020EBE7?OpenDocument) have no safe haven, we decrease their ability to affect their end goals. We've taken from them their home by giving the people of Afghanistan back their country. We've destroyed their revenue flow by disrupting narcotics trafficking in the region.
Narcotics production has been reported by international monitoring agencies to be at an all time high in Afghanistan. Much higher than when the Taliban were in control.
And what ever happened to just doing the right thing? To just helping to free an oppressed people?
Nothing ever happens to doing the right thing.
The problem is always deciding what is the right thing.
Which brings me back to one of my original questions for which I now have an answer. The war in Afghanistan has as much to do with defending America as that Vietnam war did. The is no threat to American, Australian, British sovereignty.
This war is being fought to secure a geopolitical corporate asset i.e. the pipeline route to various 'stani' countries on Russia's southern borders and the containment and re-establishment of the Iranian Satrap.
This war, like most (if not all) wars is about economics NOT principles of humanity.
The corporations who stand to benefit from the infrastructure you build at taxpayers expense don't give a shit who is killed and MOST people are starting to wake up to that fact.
It just doesn't matter how the spin doctors dress it up any more.
Keep your head down medic.
"In accordance with all the relevant Security Council Resolutions, ISAF?s main role is to assist the Afghan government in the establishment of a secure and stable environment. To this end, ISAF forces are conducting security and stability operations throughout the country together with the Afghan National Security Forces and are directly involved in the development of the Afghan National Army through mentoring, training and equipping."
And more of their objectives...
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_8189.htm
OK So the goal is to create a corporate friendly Satrap.
2) Everyone, but mainly the Afghan people. I myself provided medical care to an entire village for the duration of my stay there. I assisted with several bridge projects for the Ring Route (http://www.rferl.org/content/Article/1078916.html). I assisted with the Kajaki Dam project (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89821168). All of which we, the military, did for the Afghan people.
So you participate in the part of the operation that is designed to win the hearts and minds of the general populace while the other part is responsible for combat operations.
3) At no point did I ever say that it our policy to "create collateral damage". It is neither appropriate or acceptable. Does it ever happen? Yes. But it is never done with the intention to harm innocent civilians. "NATO blames Taliban fighters for causing the majority of civilian deaths in Afghanistan." (http://www.voanews.com/english/arch...essionid=88307b7cdfa9503a695b761a6c9761d396a3)
You use the word 'extermination' as if to refer to me and my fellow soldiers to the Nazis of World War II. I take great offense to that.
I didn't say that you said 'ever say that it our policy to "create collateral damage".
You said that it is impossible to determine who the enemy combatant is because they all look alike. So if a combatant can't be distinguished from non-combatants (like Vietnam) it seems to me that every combat operation that produces collateral damage was pre-approved by someone with the full knowledge that collateral damage would occur. Yet this action was ordered anyway. One can ONLY assume, that by their ready reckoner, the collateral losses justified the combatant kills.
If you can't separate the combatants from the non-combatants how many non-combatants must be pre-meditatively killed in order to catch every last bad guy? It's obvious that you will kill more non-combatants. Therefore you have no chance of winning hearts and minds of the friends family and relatives of the dead combatants. You will end up with generational dissent like in palestine.
4) Directly, probably not. Indirectly, yes. By ensuring that terrorist organizations, such as Al Qaida and the Taliban, (which the CIA & ISI created http://www.ptinews.com/pti\ptisite.nsf/0/8227CE5AED148A8A652575B30020EBE7?OpenDocument) have no safe haven, we decrease their ability to affect their end goals. We've taken from them their home by giving the people of Afghanistan back their country. We've destroyed their revenue flow by disrupting narcotics trafficking in the region.
Narcotics production has been reported by international monitoring agencies to be at an all time high in Afghanistan. Much higher than when the Taliban were in control.
And what ever happened to just doing the right thing? To just helping to free an oppressed people?
Nothing ever happens to doing the right thing.
The problem is always deciding what is the right thing.
Which brings me back to one of my original questions for which I now have an answer. The war in Afghanistan has as much to do with defending America as that Vietnam war did. The is no threat to American, Australian, British sovereignty.
This war is being fought to secure a geopolitical corporate asset i.e. the pipeline route to various 'stani' countries on Russia's southern borders and the containment and re-establishment of the Iranian Satrap.
This war, like most (if not all) wars is about economics NOT principles of humanity.
The corporations who stand to benefit from the infrastructure you build at taxpayers expense don't give a shit who is killed and MOST people are starting to wake up to that fact.
It just doesn't matter how the spin doctors dress it up any more.
Keep your head down medic.
medic981
Well-Known Member
My apologies, I should have clarified. When they do not have a gun or IED in their hands, it's difficult to determine who is friend from foe. When they are shooting at me, or burying an IED, it's actually quite easy to tell friend from foe. You have obviously never seen our ROE, or Rules of Engagement if you think we go out guns-a-blazin' and trying to kill everything that walks. We can shoot unless fired opon or if we are witnessing them comit an offensive act, such as putting in an IED.
"Nothing ever happens to doing the right thing."
This line pretty much sums up your whole rant.
One, your grammar sucks.
Two, it's pretty obvious you have a negative outlook on everything. You sit behind your computer or your tv and beleive whatever bullshit is fed to you by the liberal media. They only focus on the bad things that happen in war, and you are doing the same thing.
And here am I, a soldier who has actually fought this war. I'm telling you what I did. I'm telling you what I saw. I'm telling you what is happening over there. Yet you stand behind your liberal media, blindly beleiving that the corporations are behind it all. That no good is coming from this war.
I discussed the same things with you the last time we bumped heads. It's aparent that you are still as ignorant to the truth as you were then, and you are happily so. I've grown tired or your downtroden view of the world. I've grown tired of you putting down the soldiers. You would make myself and my brothers out to be babykillers, just as your like did in Vietnam.
So for you I say this. Stupidity is your right. It's one of the many rights I've fought to give you. Enjoy it. I'm finished agruing with the ignorant.
Now, back to the real world. I'm gonna go help stop the illegal flow of narcotics into the US.
"Nothing ever happens to doing the right thing."
This line pretty much sums up your whole rant.
One, your grammar sucks.
Two, it's pretty obvious you have a negative outlook on everything. You sit behind your computer or your tv and beleive whatever bullshit is fed to you by the liberal media. They only focus on the bad things that happen in war, and you are doing the same thing.
And here am I, a soldier who has actually fought this war. I'm telling you what I did. I'm telling you what I saw. I'm telling you what is happening over there. Yet you stand behind your liberal media, blindly beleiving that the corporations are behind it all. That no good is coming from this war.
I discussed the same things with you the last time we bumped heads. It's aparent that you are still as ignorant to the truth as you were then, and you are happily so. I've grown tired or your downtroden view of the world. I've grown tired of you putting down the soldiers. You would make myself and my brothers out to be babykillers, just as your like did in Vietnam.
So for you I say this. Stupidity is your right. It's one of the many rights I've fought to give you. Enjoy it. I'm finished agruing with the ignorant.
Now, back to the real world. I'm gonna go help stop the illegal flow of narcotics into the US.
Right Medic. Let’s get a few things perfectly straight for the record.
1) In answer to your question “And what ever happened to just doing the right thing?”
You have my response.
“Nothing ever happens to ‘doing the right thing’”
There is always a need to do the right thing. The problem is always deciding what is the right thing.
I hope the quotation marks make the grammar a little clearer. I’m more interested in getting my thoughts down before the forum times out on me, than with creating a grammatically perfect reply. I see you do the same with regard to spelling.
I can assure you that I am literate and well educated. So what?
2) I have never accused any soldier in a theatre of war of being a ‘baby killer’ and I have never, ever belittled the work that a soldier has to do in any theatre of war and never will. However, I must question (and ask questions about) the war (any war) instead of placidly towing the patriotic line and accepting government spin and liberal media mantra that most of the citizenry never question because they are too damned apathetic, distracted or desperate to think about the issues. Thinking about the issues is not easy when EVERYONE has their own agenda to push.
3) Being on the front line does NOT give you the whole picture. It gives you a vivid view of part of the picture and I take what you have said on board along with the rest of the information that’s presented to me from all sources.
4) From what you have said, it is clear that you view your role as non-combative?, supportive and constructive and you serve in that part of the war effort which is ‘good’. The effort to win the hearts and minds of the Afghani’s through good works is a combative Psychological Operations strategy employed by occupying powers to foster local support for the Satrap. There is no denying that YOU do good works for the Afghani’s. However, that does not alter the fact that good works are the psychological weapons of warfare. You will leave behind a set of tax payer funded infrastructure (physical and political) that will benefit the same corporate interests who, in senate hearings in the ‘90’s, urged your government to establish a stable regime (Satrap) in Afghanistan before they could construct a viable oil and gas pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is not propaganda or liberal bullshit. It is fact. You can look it up in your own congressional records. The modern soldier in Afghanistan serves these corporate ends whether you choose to accept it or not.
5) Too many people are now conditioned to believe that ANY opposing view of the war is a betrayal of the troops in service. That is complete bullshit deliberately spun to make ANY argument critical of the war look unpatriotic and dissenters appear to be traitors. It crushes any reasoned and intelligent debate of the issues by marginalizing those who hold reasoned views at odds with foreign policy goals. It is exactly the same psychological tactic that propagandists everywhere have used throughout history to silence opposition. Two example of this in everyday use are “If you are not with us, you are with them” and if you are critical of Israeli foreign policy you are an anti-Semite. Both pronouncements are Patent Bullshit. The other classic is to attempt to discredit the source by accusing them of being stupid, uneducated and illiterate.
6) Yes we did discuss some of these issues before and I learned some things as I have this time. However, simply because I have reasons to believe that your view is incomplete and have stated so, does not qualify me as ignorant of the truth. I am unconvinced your presentation of the truth is complete. This gives me no joy at all.
7) I do not put down soldiers. Never have and never will. However, I will remain highly circumspect and inquisitive about the motives and rewards of those who put troops into a theatre of war. Always follow the money.
8) I do not think you are stupid or ignorant. I’m sorry that you see me as stupid and ignorant simply because, on balance, I find your view of the war to be inconsistent with other verifiable facts. However, I do feel stupid that years ago I bought all the government fed media bullshit about the threat of Al-Qaeda, and the Taliban only to learn that both were the creations of (mostly but not exclusively) the CIA, MI6 and the ISI. I feel stupid that years ago when my gut told me that sending our troops to Afghanistan was bullshit that I DID NOT SPEAK OUT and did not do my agitating best to stop them going.
9) Good luck with stemming the narcotics trade. It needs to be stopped.
10) Keep your head down and come home safe.
Last edited:
Similar threads
