Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'News' started by Solution, Dec 17, 2011.
The damn thing
Looks like he was blowing more than whistles ho ho ho
Just another case of the officer caste having no idea what their soldiers are on about.
Wait is that a woman or a man?
In 11 years only 4 of the officers I've worked with I trusted. Theirs is a culture of mistrust and misunderstanding. Understanding and practical application of basic leadership and support concepts, in most cases, get trampled under the feet of a competitive promotion system that punishes initiative and rewards cronyism.
That being said I believe it wasn't the brass that slipped on this one but the NCOs, who should have focus on the soldiers day to day. As an NCO you get told day one "you can delegate authority but never responsibility".
What was your first clue?
I don't know. I'm confused because at first I thought it was a woman but It sounded like a man. For now on, I'm against transsexual surgery because It confuses society.
Okay, it's a woman. Seriously She sounds like a man. She reminds of Frieza from Dragon Ball z.
It's a fucking dude. If you cannot tell by the manvoice, prominent adam's apple and broad shoulders, you should never drink, it would be extremely dangerous for you.
Ok I'm confused again. I mean look it's face and how womanly it looks like but, then again the manly voice and manly shoulders.
I thought fruitcakes could serve openly in the US military with the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" thing.
Someone explain why.
That only happened recently. Even with it now allowed, it still doesn't change prevailing attitudes. America freed its slaves ~150 years ago, and people still hate niggers.
Now not than.
They are trying to find out if it was gay rage from DADT, that caused Mr.Manning to tattle-tell on the USofA.
Go back to the first videos on that channel
I'm quite surprised Americans aren't more supportive of Manning. Especially members of the military and tax payers. The man probably helped fasten America's withdrawal from Iraq, thus saving countless American lives and dollars. Explain this to me.
Yeah, it couldn't possibly have been the tremendous amounts of evidence of war crimes committed by the US in Iraq/Afghanistan which he had access to. There is not a single American in the military who's capable of moral outrage, you see. If a tool steps out of line then he must be a queer.
The information leaked caused shit to get worse on ground, and not just with the Afghans and Iraqis but with our ISAF allies.
Imagine you and your family had a group of friends ( I know its a stretch, but follow me here) with whom you work very well with and share the utmost trust. Then one day you wake up, and all that trust is gone and all the work and plans you made together fall through. All this not because of any thing you did , but due to gross political faux pas by your government and a self righteous crusade by one of your own brothers. Now suppose this scenario is playing out on the battlefield and that German QRF you called for takes 5 mins long to get to Kunduz than usual or the ANA back up out of FOB Blessing, lays down there arms in protest, while your in the Kunar pass getting shot the fuck up.
Yeah, a lot of soldiers i know are glad the politicians got a well deserved black eye, but for those of us there at the time it felt like a more personal betrayal.
Now wouldn't a homosexual under DADT be at risk for blackmail? How did he get security clearance in the first place?
Very real risk for black mail. This is why they do a pain in the ass background check.
His job requires a security clearance, however the Information security and check and balances of his office were grossly lacking.
To be fair, American soldiers aren't known for being sharp so what they think isn't always relevant. Step back and look at the bigger picture. His actions prevented more of your comrade's deaths and squandering of the nation's resources. (If only because the US command would be much more cautious and because any current military endeavours would be impeded or halted.) And for his trouble he's been in solitary confinement twenty three hours a day since his arrest.
Also, perhaps you guys should learn how to fight without air strikes or (heavy) artillery barrages? I mean it's not like the insurgencies in Afghanistan or Iraq ever had either. You're kind of making yourselves look like massive pussies. And that, more than anything, is reducing America's "credibility." (Assuming it had any to begin with.)
That's really cute, look at you being pretentious.
In the matters of conflict the thoughts of those getting shot at are more relevant than those of any politician or pompous basement dweller.
To be fair, I could care less about the squandering of the nation's resources, credibility or anyone but those I've lived, trained and fought with.
Manning knew the consequences of his actions, the pain it would cause the soldiers on the ground and what would happen if he got caught . He was just narrow sighted on just how much it didn't change one single crooked thing in Washington.
Also, you call America stupid and then suggest we not use strategic advantages.
If you could please describe the last time you put your life in real danger for anything. I would like to have an informed opinion on your qualifications to call anyone "massive pussy".
It really doesn't. You're instruments. Tools. Useful idiots. They accepted you into the military because you can't think, not because you can.
And that's why America is in the shitter. Think of it like this. If one of your comrades dies then all they have to do is transport his/her corpse back to the US, give him a funeral and give a pension to whatever he/she leaves behind. If he/she is (seriously) wounded then they'll be spending tremendous amounts of money for the rest of his/her life. That's assuming they get that money in the first place and the Pentagon is graceful enough to not drag them through the courts.
Regardless, perhaps not signing up to be used as fodder is a better way of safeguarding you and your comrades? If it's too late to do that then perhaps you should be thankful to men like Manning who will shorten the war. More on that bellow.
What's better? That a hundred soldiers die in a month (and the far is over) or twenty soldiers die per month for a year? (Not including the wounded, which, as I described above, is much more costly.) It's not like it matters. America has over four million active soldiers in its military. You're all expendable. Except when politicians want to use the lack of deaths (but obviously not the lack of overall casualties) to point out that it's "improving."
Having ground forces which are so shit that they can't even fight a skirmish without calling in a barrage is not a tactical, operational or strategic advantage whatsoever. It's also costly as fuck.
I didn't say you were, I'm saying that's how it looks to anybody who looks at you "fighting." You're basically telling the world you can't fight a bunch of goat herders with old Soviet weapons without bombing the shit out of them. Don't get angry, just think about it for a second. With every battle and skirmish you win that way, you look like pussies.
Like i said, cute.
1) Manning did not shorten the war, nether did wikileaks for that matter. Some politicians got butt hurt, service members had to take a shit load of information security classes, and shit got worse for those on ground.
2) The content of my response to your question was a reflection on living through ^ that and was in no way a defensive stance onthe glory of the good ole' US of A.
3) When I said "I could care less about the squandering of the nation's resources, credibility or anyone but those I've lived, trained and fought with.', I literally mean people I know and have fought with. There was a time when i believed in a grand America, civil responsibility and a brotherhood of man but, now, nope only care about what I can touch.
I have guns, food, land and close friends and family. So fuck it, let this shit fail or not,do not care.
Maybe, maybe not. His actions helped erode the support for the war. And making things difficult tends to end quagmires earlier.
Anyway, by your own admission nothing would've changed if American soldiers were properly trained or if America didn't have to rely on its so-called allies.
Living through what?
Do you honestly think that when America's bubble bursts you and those you care about won't be affected?
We wont see I2I on this. He did what he did and he knew the price. Regardless of his intention, the only effect of his actions, I've physically seen, was people dying next to me.
Properly trained compared to what? Honest question, please give me some sources on your logic train on this.
I've worked with quite a few foreign soldiers on two sides of the house (Combat arms and logistics) our TTPs and combat strategy are always the standard in ISAF. Now our admin sucks but that's more about taking care of soldiers than war fighting.
I agree "So-called allies" are a huge crutch.
I put a --> ^ <--, you see it points up, implying the above statement.
It would affect every thing, got it.
Do you honestly think its wrong to have plans for the worst?
How many of your comrades were KIA/MIA/WIA after that? On a monthly basis, I mean.
Considering that the insurgents you've fought don't have air support or artillery, perhaps you should take tips from them.
Still have no idea what you're referring to.
Where did I write that?
As a troop we lost 4 soldiers the 7 months leading up to Mr Manning's leakage, in the next four months we lost 13 not including injuries.
Come on, I'm genuinely interested on how you came to your conclusion about US training.
That was the implication I took away from your statement.
Also, I'd like to discuss your thinking that it's "strategic" to use weapons which cost in the excess of a hundred thousand dollars in order to save a bunch of expendable grunts. It isn't. Even putting a single aircraft in the air costs thousands of dollars.
The expose was released in November of 2009. The Taliban launched an offensive later that month and the occupiers (mainly America and Britain) launched a counter-offensive that lasted from December to February. I'm going to guess that your contingent was stationed in Helmand at the time.
You implied it, yourself: American soldiers are hapless without air support or artillery. Lots of news coming from Iraq/Afghanistan concerning the inefficiency of American soldiers. In most cases skirmishes between squads take hours and are only ended with excessive use of bombardment by the American side or heavily armed American soldiers storming the homes of civilians. If your actions on the field is an indication of your training then you must be trained to find a ditch and stay in it until the enemy is blown to smithereens. (I kid, of course. I know of America's training routines for all the branches and America's doctrines for each of the branches. Marines and Airborne are at the forefront in terms of doctrine but you all rely heavily on the obsolete blitzkrieg doctrine. I believe you call it shock and awe doctrine Anyway, it was made obsolete by the defence in depth doctrine.)
You know what? Imma do you a favour.
That's William Lind. A retired Marine. He has written articles on modern warfare so simple that even a Marine can understand. Your complete and utter ignorance of military matters is astonishing. The fact that you use the word strategy when you should use the word tactic or doctrine is evidence of this. I won't belittle you any more, however. Just read his work to get your ball rolling. I'll mould you into something presentable.
@Solution Also, this sort of thing lowers morale among the fodder which increases chances of desertions and mutinies which lowers morale further which causes wars to end sooner.
Want to help protect free speech? Donate today!