gpatmac

iTrader: (3)

You can tell me how deluded I am. My fingers are in my ears and I'm saying 'la, la, la, la, la'. He's there and in western hills of Pakistan. I am right. It just depends on the efficacy of my boys over there right now (the 25th Infantry Division, et al. whom I left about 4 months ago.)

Bin Laden could be in Afghanistan - AP
Bin Laden could be in Afghanistan - ABC
Bin Laden could be in Afghanistan - Miami Herald
Bin Laden could be in Afghanistan - The Age
Bin Laden could be in Afghanistan - Yahoo Aus/NZ

Official in Afghanistan says bin Laden nearby

US commander says Bin Laden could be in Afghanistan

gpatmac

iTrader: (3)

Boy, I can't imagine the scenario surrounding the capture of this STORY. Did all of these reporters steal from the original 'scoop' or did the 'unnamed source' have a press conference?

Salty

iTrader: (14)

I'd really love to see the tropical lightning, TF141 or G.I. Jane snag UBL but I’ll believe it when I see it actually happen.

It's just another cry of wolf from our intelligence as far as I’m concerned.

gpatmac

iTrader: (3)

Nah man. I feel strongly about this. So strongly that I'd wager a Coca Cola.

...and don't forget, Mr LRSD. Where does the G2 get their raw data from?

Ah, yeah. You're right to a certain extent. The wacky SF dudes, the way out CI guys, and a bunch of little transmitter boxes.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

It's actually gotten to the point where I'd wager a case of beer in hopes I lost. It's almost like I want to jinx myself just to catch him because I have crappy luck.

IS2Scooby

iTrader: (3)

I will twiddle your dumplings if you're right and he gets dead, Pat.
__________________
Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote

gpatmac

iTrader: (3)

There's no luck to it. You know he's not hiding out in Moscow in disguise. Nor Butte, MT. He's there.

I'm telling you, they're not exactly funking us up, but there cross-border tactics has taken a bit of a toll on us. He's directing those that he influences from some cave in Pakistan and they know that they can play 'tag' similar to 1970. Pakistan=Laos.

You should have seen my General get fired up when we shot at some insurgents we'd been chasing. The ground unit enlisted an AH64, and so was shooting at the bad guys 2 dimensionally. We had engaged them initially from our side of the border, but they ran and we ended up shooting from AFG into PAK. Some folks got in trouble that day. We, as the plans and operations group, had to hustle to put together a whole bunch of 'rules of engagement' for that purpose. It was such a hassle because a JAG CPT kept kicking them back to my LTC telling him it wasn't legally sufficient.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

Let me get this straight... Soldiers have to abide by strict ROE? I thought they were careless, blood thirsty war mongers? :sarcasm:


We haven't caught UBL because they refuse to take off their Oakleys.

dub2w

Wow... Ive landed in the Teh Acronyms Forum

mmboost

iTrader: (2)

Honeslty, I've never figured out how killing with rules and killing without rules makes a difference, well, beyond how someone allows themself to feel about [exit]it[/edit].

jason

Salty

iTrader: (14)

It doesn't make any difference.

I was just making a point regarding the legal structure (UCMJ, Geneva Conventions) and strict ROE for our military compared to most other militaries and the opposition we're currently fighting.

Subaruguru started a thread awhile back that asks the question of which Military force you'd want to invade our own country. The most popular answer was the United States because of this very reason. He was trying to make a point about why people and the media are so quick to attack our forces for farting in the wind as opposed to an terrorist -or- insurgent that’s considered revolutionary for their action(s).

mmboost

iTrader: (2)

But you said it doesn't make any difference.

???

jason

Salty

iTrader: (14)

The fact that person A & B are both dead in the end doesn’t make a difference.

mmboost

iTrader: (2)

So then, what's the difference then, if any?


As a Jew, I wouldn't want Hitler to occupy my country for obvious reasons and I'd rather have the US. I wouldn't want anyone to invade my country at all. Does ROE cover military fighting? Or does ROE cover how to run the politics and policies of an occupied country?

I thought ROE just told you how to kill people and avoid blame as much as possible. Like you said, in the end, everyone who's dead is still dead. What's the confusion here?

jason

Salty

iTrader: (14)

You drifted off topic from the very start.

There is no comparison regarding death! You both end up in the cooker or 6 feet under, right?

All I am say is that people are ignorant to how the U.S. Military conducts themselves in combat and sometimes attack them because of this ignorance. Some people think that they're loose cannons out to destroy the countryside and everything in it. Fact is, they're civilized men and women that abide by strict ROE (Rules of Engagement) and strict legal checks and balances for every situation. This is exactly why you'd rather have the United States occupy this very country if an occupation was inevitable (of course you wouldn't want it in the first place). The United States Armed Forces would try to restore peace and hope without firing one single shot first.

What's the confusion here?