An impossible ask . . . .

[MIDNJAC]

Which is why I'm staying out of this thread.... to many fucktards with idiotic points of view for me to control myself.

A man has to know his limitations.

To be fair, some people are just idiots. I figure rob's purpose was to start a discussion where we debate issues like you would over some beers. I mean I know I'm having a beer right now....

Doesn't mean that we don't get to still draw a dick on an FNG's forehead and put him on another 6 months of double secret probation for running his ignorant mouth

 

[nodropinufaka]

Which is why I'm staying out of this thread.... to many fucktards with idiotic points of view for me to control myself.

A man has to know his limitations.

Because they are different then yours they are idiotic?

 

[HAL Pilot]

Which is why I'm staying out of this thread.... to many fucktards with idiotic points of view for me to control myself.

A man has to know his limitations.

Because they are different then yours they are idiotic?

Which is why I'm staying out of this thread....

 

[nodropinufaka]

 

[nittany03]

well id disagree. I am stating theyre going to personal attacks rather then debating points because they think my points are dumb without even given it a chance.

Well, you're not entitled to their agreement. And this is an aviation site, so yes, some of the criticism you're going to get is going to be blunt. But it's a copout to say that that criticism is only because it's "easier," like adopting your own opinions is some magical right answer that automatically happens whenever people choose to take the "hard path." Horseshit. You could be right, or you could be wrong. Pickle could be right or he could be wrong.

Let's talk, reinforce, and rebut ideas, folks, and let's stop using so-called "Naval Aviation culture" as a bullshit excuse to call people "fucktards" when they disagree with you. Or people who take the "easy path." That's not being an aviator or an officer; that's just being an asshole.

 

[nittany03]

meme

Oh, for God's sake . . .

 

[nodropinufaka]

Well, you're not entitled to their agreement. And this is an aviation site, so yes, some of the criticism you're going to get is going to be blunt. But it's a copout to say that that criticism is only because it's "easier," like adopting your own opinions is some magical right answer that automatically happens whenever people choose to take the "hard path." Horseshit. You could be right, or you could be wrong. Pickle could be right or he could be wrong.

Let's talk, reinforce, and rebut ideas, folks, and let's stop using so-called "Naval Aviation culture" as a bullshit excuse to call people "fucktards" when they disagree with you. Or people who take the "easy path." That's not being an aviator or an officer; that's just being an asshole.

You right.

I was wrong and will make an effort as was the intent of this thread to begin with

 

[Griz882]

I wouldn’t equate firearm ownership as being capable or individual action or violence or equate that to disparity in arms.

If we have learned anything from the past wars- that means almost nothing

We lost Afghanistan to a bunch of farmers with soviet era AKs and no C2 or C4ISR.

Quite a backflip there.

Quote 1 "I wouldn't equate firearm ownership as being capable of infividual action or violence..."

Quote 2: "We lost to a bunch of farmers with soviet era AKs..."

Trust me on this one intel guy...the Taliban does not and did not maintain an arms inventory to issue rifles to their "farmers."

 

[Griz882]

Thinking in Time...

One of the problems we face in all of our debates here is often a failing of thinking in time. @nodropinufaka ardently repsonds to these pages with a most youthful outlook - like a conflict is measured in quaters and some final clock determines victory - far from the only person who thinks like this. The US did not lose a twenty year war in the Middle East since we are still fighting a 41 year war in the Middle East that some could argue is even longer going back to the U.S. Marines involvement in the Suez crisis (1956) and first trip to Lebanon (1958). I tend to set it at our first genuine offensive operation in 1980 since we haven't stopped since (and we won't stop). The most important point...infantry boots on the ground is neither a signal of victory or defeat - Iraq is not under the control of ISIS by any measure and the war in Afghanistan isn't over - just our ground presence there.

Here is a sample of my continuing timeline...

1980 - Iranian Embassy and Eagle Claw
1981 - Gulf of Sydria
1982 - US Army to Sinai
1983 - Lebanon
1984 - Iranian fighter shootdown
1985 - Navy grabs Achille Lauro terrorists
1986 - Action in the Gulf of Sydria and El Dorado Canyon
1987 - USS Stark, Nimble Archer, Earnest Will
1988 - Praying Mantis, Prime Chance, USS Vincennes
1989 - 2nd Gulf of Sydria shoot down
1990 - Libera, Desert Shield
1991 - Desert Storm
1992 - Provide Comfort, Silvert Anvil
1992 - Iraq No Fly Zone
1993 - Somalia
1994 - Vigilant Warrior
1995 - No Fly Zome operations continue
1996 - Quick Response, Desert Strike
1998 - Desert Fox (Iraq), Infinite Reach (Afghanistan)
1999 - No Fly Zone operations continue
2000 - USS Cole
2001 - You all know the rest of the story.

 

[Jim123]

Here is a sample of my continuing timeline...

Thanks. It drives me nuts every time I see the 1991 war called the "First" Gulf War. I also take cynical amusement in those "find the [current events hot political issue] country on an unlabeled world map" social media motifs while. At the same time both of these things reflect how we as a society have settled for intellectual mediocrity and ignorance of what's out there in the world. That makes me sad.

 

[nodropinufaka]

Thinking in Time...

One of the problems we face in all of our debates here is often a failing of thinking in time. @nodropinufaka ardently repsonds to these pages with a most youthful outlook - like a conflict is measured in quaters and some final clock determines victory - far from the only person who thinks like this. The US did not lose a twenty year war in the Middle East since we are still fighting a 41 year war in the Middle East that some could argue is even longer going back to the U.S. Marines involvement in the Suez crisis (1956) and first trip to Lebanon (1958). I tend to set it at our first genuine offensive operation in 1980 since we haven't stopped since (and we won't stop). The most important point...infantry boots on the ground is neither a signal of victory or defeat - Iraq is not under the control of ISIS by any measure and the war in Afghanistan isn't over - just our ground presence there.

Here is a sample of my continuing timeline...

1980 - Iranian Embassy and Eagle Claw
1981 - Gulf of Sydria
1982 - US Army to Sinai
1983 - Lebanon
1984 - Iranian fighter shootdown
1985 - Navy grabs Achille Lauro terrorists
1986 - Action in the Gulf of Sydria and El Dorado Canyon
1987 - USS Stark, Nimble Archer, Earnest Will
1988 - Praying Mantis, Prime Chance, USS Vincennes
1989 - 2nd Gulf of Sydria shoot down
1990 - Libera, Desert Shield
1991 - Desert Storm
1992 - Provide Comfort, Silvert Anvil
1992 - Iraq No Fly Zone
1993 - Somalia
1994 - Vigilant Warrior
1995 - No Fly Zome operations continue
1996 - Quick Response, Desert Strike
1998 - Desert Fox (Iraq), Infinite Reach (Afghanistan)
1999 - No Fly Zone operations continue
2000 - USS Cole
2001 - You all know the rest of the story.

Comparing a 40 year history or skirmishes, limited conflicts, etc to confessional auth to the use of military force?

Sanctions and No Fly Zones aren’t wars.

If we are still fighting the War in the Middle East then who is the Enemy?

 

[Jim123]

If we are still fighting the War in the Middle East then who is the Enemy?

 

[Griz882]

Comparing a 40 year history or skirmishes, limited conflicts, etc to confessional auth to the use of military force?

Sanctions and No Fly Zones aren’t wars.

If we are still fighting the War in the Middle East then who is the Enemy?

Absolutely. In every way.

FYI…and maybe they didn’t teach this in intel school….we dropped over 1800 bombs during the “no fly” period. Last time I checked there is a difference between a bombing raid an a “sanction.”

Our enemy…are you being serious? Radical Islam - the latest “faces” have been around for years.

 

[nodropinufaka]

Absolutely. In every way. When you grow up you’ll understand.

Our enemy…are you being serious? Radical Islam - the latest “faces” have been around for years.

Anti Terrorism and Counter Terrorism is a domestic security issue and policy.

What exactly is our end state if we are at war with Radical Islam?

I’m still not sure how to equate losing Afghanistan and Iraq as a measure of the war against radical Islam.

The primary reasons in the AUMF were to find WMDs which weren’t there. And then we spent how long wasting our time occupying it to leave and have ISIS take over.

Same with Afghanistan. We spent 20 years there to walk out and leave them worst then before still under Taliban rule.

 

[Griz882]

Anti Terrorism and Counter Terrorism is a domestic security issue and policy.

What exactly is our end state if we are at war with Radical Islam?

I’m still not sure how to equate losing Afghanistan and Iraq as a measure of the war against radical Islam.

The primary reasons in the AUMF were to find WMDs which weren’t there. And then we spent how long wasting our time occupying it to leave and have ISIS take over.

Same with Afghanistan. We spent 20 years there to walk out and leave them worst then before still under Taliban rule.

1. Anti-Terrorism is a global security issue. We have entire commands and military elements dedicated to fighting it.

2. We did not lose Afghanistan…the war there isn’t over. While I can understand the sophomoric (not intended as an insult, just a reflection of your education level) stance, I can’t even figure how you think Iraq was “lost” when we still have 2500 people there, their government is still in place, and the nation is actively pursuing ISIS (for example some recent news…https://news.yahoo.com/us-shoots-down-pair-iranian-172700737.html) BLUF…you are entirely WRONG about an ISIS takeover in Iraq and have no measure to support your argument.

3. Put your little political claws away…some of us were actually there, on the ground, in Iraq, in 2003, and we discovered over 5000 violations of the treaty. The press wanted us to find “Fat Man” and “Little Boy” atomic bombs in a room with stacks of yellow cake uranium but in truth the teams looked for and found 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs. Oh, we also found the components of Iraq’s “Super Gun” that was supposed to have been destroyed. I can’t help what you think might be a WMD, but they were discovered.

4. I will argue that Afghanistan is, actually, better off. The Taliban is already feeling the sting of a people who know and love some measure of freedom. Afghan women aren’t going back and resistance will rise. Moreover, the war there is not over and internal fighting will continue. It took 20 years, but the young know freedom and education and they will fight for it even if only in small ways.