US general killed in insider attack in Afghanistan

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: expat
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
Originally Posted By: spasm3
Make it a big glass parking lot. That would make a few others think twice too.


Great idea, meddling in the Middle East for the past 60 or so years is what caused our problems in the first place.

I can promise you that it wouldn't make those folks think twice, likely the US and Israel would be prime targets for retaliatory action that would make some of our cities glass parking lots and guess which city is closest for their convenience? Tel Aviv.


Remember there are other WMD other than Nukes, I wonder if hometown USA has the stomach for all out war.

BTW you can go back 100 years and find the US (and Europe) meddling in the Middle East.


You can go back to Thomas Jefferson in the early 1800's, and his fight against the Barbary Pirates. Where do you think the line "to the shores of Tripoli" in the Marine Corps hymn came from?
 
What is the equivalent rank in Navy? Where does a skipper of a US Navel fleet would rank? And does he have to be on a ship when the excrement hits the fan or does he sit in a Pentagon office?
 
Originally Posted By: Vikas
What is the equivalent rank in Navy? Where does a skipper of a US Navel fleet would rank? And does he have to be on a ship when the excrement hits the fan or does he sit in a Pentagon office?


Not all Navy flag officers are on boats at all times.
 
Originally Posted By: Vikas
What is the equivalent rank in Navy? Where does a skipper of a US Navel fleet would rank? And does he have to be on a ship when the excrement hits the fan or does he sit in a Pentagon office?

ADMIRAL, always in charge of a Naval Battle Group, and always based on a ship.
 
Originally Posted By: Malo83
Originally Posted By: Vikas
What is the equivalent rank in Navy? Where does a skipper of a US Navel fleet would rank? And does he have to be on a ship when the excrement hits the fan or does he sit in a Pentagon office?

ADMIRAL, always in charge of a Naval Battle Group, and always based on a ship.


The truth is the services are involved with joint operations. When deployed to Afghanistan we were in the Navy, as an Army asset, conducting training operations in a Marine A.O.R. in Helmand. Marine Brigadier General Joseph V. Medina took command of Expeditionary Strike Group 3 in November 2003. Although I doubt there will be Generals commanding Naval Strike Groups again in the near future.
 
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
Originally Posted By: Vikas
Is killing supposed to be reserved for enlisted men only? Are officers supposed to be protected and kept away from the battle field? At what level does a military personnel become immune from getting killed?

I had really never seen a news item with this type of twist before.


Interesting isn't it? You see many of the top officers are shielded from personal danger (rarely in a dangerous combat area) and that is why they are so willing to send the troops into the slaughter.


Again, a rather simplistic and bogus argument. Most U.S. generals have combat experiences and have had troops die around them. Also, in certain wars, the "generals" are the lieutenants that survived often horrendous death rates...

Yes, generals send good people to death. But I forgot who stated the old adage, Von Clausewitz maybe? or was it Napoleon? "You're not a real general until you've lost a division."

But generals were often killed and captured in major land wars such as WWII where armies were encircled. Yes, they are in secure areas more or less, but it's hard to command otherwise. Isn't it?

Where is Mullah Omar? Is he wearing a suicide vest?

Nope, he sends out the children to do that!

Quote:
The reason why the US continues to interfere in the Middle East is
primarily because of Ashkanaism which occupy a land that they stole from the semitic inhabitants that had lived in that area for a thousand years or more.



Oh, yes. THE JEEEEWWWWWSSSS!!!!

What's next. Holocaust denial?
 
Throw the true color....Americans are off...real #$^@# is going on in the ME. Truely trying to wipe Christianity out of the ME....destroying ancient churches and towns peaceful Islam and mosque included.

I ask you have you been to the real stuff Christian church sacred hundred of years ago not the American made sruff(joke)....I MEAN true Christian stuff sacred in Lebanon. The emotions are true...a holy feeling.

In 1970 the first American protest against Israel question the US Foreign Policy in the Middle East why are we supporting this aggressive state. These Americans were like you or they were you once. These Americans were high profiled respected people not some long haired hippie.

This protest was not on JEWS....this protest was why is the US supporting this state.

PS if you want to experience the holy stuff it's not in Israel as a Christian...it's in Lebanon in those holy Christian church.
 
Originally Posted By: MolaKule

What's unfortunate is we didn't send in at least another 100,000 troops and eradicate the enemy.


One of my former coworker's family came from Northern Pakistan and his family originally came from Afghan. He told me a story about his distance cousin trying out a new rifle on a shepherd from far away, not knowing that the rifle can actually reach the shepherd and end up killing him. The shepherd's family revenge by killing the cousin and the cousin's family revenge on another shepherd's family member. Then the situation got out of hand and both sides started killing each others' male family members, with a total of more than 50 deaths. My coworker said it is their culture trait even before they were Muslim and even the non Muslim there are like that.

Without being political, I have to say that for an ethnic group that sees revenge / honor as more important than their own lives, it is not a matter of how many troops we send it. We cannot kill them all unless we commit a genocide.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Well at least were done with that [censored] hole at the end of the year, cut off all aid and just lob a nuke if they every bother us again. Problem solved.


Had we simply put one out in the desert very early on the dramatic effect may have saved a ton of good American men. I really think a deep glass bowl might have been a real game changer if used very early on...


Yeah, once a major nation like US started using nuke, it is all over for other rouge nations like North Korea and Russia and Israel for whatever conflicts they feel like.

If we would rather lose the Korean and Vietnam war instead of opening the can of nuke worm, despite them general asking for permission to, it is a pretty good sign that it is something not worth the trouble.
 
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
Originally Posted By: Vikas
Is killing supposed to be reserved for enlisted men only? Are officers supposed to be protected and kept away from the battle field? At what level does a military personnel become immune from getting killed?

I had really never seen a news item with this type of twist before.


Interesting isn't it? You see many of the top officers are shielded from personal danger (rarely in a dangerous combat area) and that is why they are so willing to send the troops into the slaughter.


Not really, they send troops in there because of the goal set by their bosses (the US government, whether it is the presidents or the decision by other branches). It is the generals' job to carry out the plan with the right risk / reward ratio. They don't send it people just to get killed, they are aware of the dangers and the necessities. The decision makers are much higher up.

Quote:

The reason why the US continues to interfere in the Middle East is
primarily because of Ashkanaism which occupy a land that they stole from the semitic inhabitants that had lived in that area for a thousand years or more.



The main reason is to have a strong ally that will counter the influence of the soviet. Look at the map, and you'll see that the Soviet was right next to ME, and then look at what Stalin did before Hitler rip their agreements to split Europe apart, and you'll know why we were there.

Of course, if there was no oil in ME we wouldn't be there.
 
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Originally Posted By: MolaKule

What's unfortunate is we didn't send in at least another 100,000 troops and eradicate the enemy.


One of my former coworker's family came from Northern Pakistan and his family originally came from Afghan. He told me a story about his distance cousin trying out a new rifle on a shepherd from far away, not knowing that the rifle can actually reach the shepherd and end up killing him. The shepherd's family revenge by killing the cousin and the cousin's family revenge on another shepherd's family member. Then the situation got out of hand and both sides started killing each others' male family members, with a total of more than 50 deaths. My coworker said it is their culture trait even before they were Muslim and even the non Muslim there are like that.

Without being political, I have to say that for an ethnic group that sees revenge / honor as more important than their own lives, it is not a matter of how many troops we send it. We cannot kill them all unless we commit a genocide.


With a culture like that, it sounds like they can handle their own genocide without any help from us. Perhaps we should disengage from the Middle East, encourage our Allies to do the same, then sit back and watch them all kill each other. Put up some satellites to monitor their armies movements and show the real war games on Pay-Per-View. After hearing about endless plans for peace in the Middle East for as long as I remember, I've come to believe that we need to try something different. There will be peace after they're all dead. The best thing we can do is stand aside so that we don't get hurt while they are in a headlong rush to dive into their mass graves.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: A_Harman

With a culture like that, it sounds like they can handle their own genocide without any help from us. Perhaps we should disengage from the Middle East, encourage our Allies to do the same, then sit back and watch them all kill each other. Put up some satellites to monitor their armies movements and show the real war games on Pay-Per-View. After hearing about endless plans for peace in the Middle East for as long as I remember, I've come to believe that we need to try something different. There will be peace after they're all dead. The best thing we can do is stand aside so that we don't get hurt while they are in a headlong rush to dive into their mass graves.


Great idea, then use the money generated from PPV to fix the roads here in the US, tighten up our borders, and send the illegals packing. We can even bet on the outcomes of various battles.
27.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

slo town
My experience 30 floors up during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake
2
Replies
20
Views
934
wpod
CourierDriver
  • Locked
Single parenting, who knew
Replies
17
Views
2K
M56959
Jackson_Slugger
US Army's "Best Warrior" Competition Winner
Replies
4
Views
2K
FowVay
M
Out with the old, in with the new?🤷‍♂️
2
Replies
25
Views
5K
slug_bug
F
Choose your shipping company wisely
Replies
12
Views
3K
Silver
Back
Top