You mis-understand the purpose of the US military.
The purpose of the US military is to protect US interests, not to save people from brutality and tyrrany.
Both of my Marine sons understand that. Your Bronze star boy likely does too.
FReegards!
Posted on 08/10/2011 7:57:45 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The heavy usage of the term started LONG before Obama; I believe it's actually a Rumsfeldism.
Man, I hope you’re wrong.
Ditto that for me. I am having a hard time swallowing any of it
“I say we take off and nuke the whole place from space, it’s the only way to be sure” Aliens.
Charles, the Hammer” Martel turned back the Muslims at the Battle of Tours in 732, early in the eighth century.
” Charles’ victory at the Battle of Tours saved Western Europe from the Muslim invasions and was a turning point in European history.” http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/army/p/martel.htm
His grandson was Charlemagne.
They have no clue who specifically shot down that chopper. This is a PR stunt.
Thanks for the link.
Hearing.
Shouldn’t be a problem, since they blab every damned thing anyway.
Thanks for the posts.
The same person they found their flight out from, is the same person that flipped our guys.
Bank on it.
Okay - been reading differing stories on it. I usually wait several days for a story to settle out but thought I’d just mention it.
Who is the Idiot who put those lousy Afghans with Our special forces? They need to resign.
I hope I am very very wrong. I just hate how the puzzle pieces fit so darn well.
Nope. The story changed. They were not there to rescue Rangers.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/10/fatal-seal-mission-was-not-a-rescue/
All I need to see is the wreckage. Has anyone seen stills/scenes of the wreckage?
“Nope. The story changed. They were not there to rescue Rangers.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/10/fatal-seal-mission-was-not-a-rescue/
Thanks. That new story makes more sense than the “rescue” mission first reported.
I, like you, would like to see photos of the undisturbed wreckage. I don’t think a single RPG could bring down a Chinhook in such a rapid manner. It sounds more like a surface to air missile. We will probably not know the whole truth until many years after the fact.
I would feel more comfortable if it turned out that the mission was a rushed job that went sour (a lucky shot by a bad guy), than a planned one that resulted in an ambush because of intel leaks.
Either way the poor souls are dead, but a “screw-up” verses a betrayal is easier to deal with to me. In the haste of war...screw-ups are to be expected....although always tragic.
A not related gripe from me. In the Washington Times article you referenced I got this quote:
“We tracked them, as we would in the aftermath of any operation, and we dealt with them with a kinetic strike,” he said. “And in the aftermath of that, we have achieved certainty that they in fact were killed in that strike.”
I’m still an Army Reservist and the term “kinetic strike” is very irritating to me. Typically these days the Ops types seem to want have to have neat sounding terminology. Every time a new manual comes out (getting very frequent) someone has changed the acronymns or created new terms for previous ones that were just fine. I think someone at the Pentagon is hired just to come up with new terms on a regular basis. That is one job they can cut out of DoD at no harm to the force....the terminology developers.
Secondly....just how did they “verify” they were killed by the “kinetic” strike. Did someone count the grease stains?
I have no doubt you were amused. It’s easy to be amused when other, better people are under orders to do a job that you yourself lack the courage to do yourself.
Having served in the military myself I can assure you that I too believe inn them. What I don’t believe in is the mission. That is possible, you know. If our Government truly wanted to protect us from those psycopathic followers of Satan we’d be killing them in job lots from the air until not a single one was left. But that’s not the goal of our Government here. The goal is ‘nation building’, something that Bush promised he wouldnt do. Remember that?
We aren’t fighting to save them from tyranny. If we were we’d have made that clear already. Instead we allow their government to prosecute people for converting to Christianity. That doesn’t sound like saving them from tyranny to me. Does it to you?
And let me give you a free clue. The military believes in following orders no matter how stupid or impossible those orders are.
If you want to save souls by all means get out your checkbook and buy a sack of bibles and a plane ticket. Let us know how that works out for you. But don’t tell me our guys are bleeding and dying to save souls. If you said that to their faces they’d laugh you off the fire base.
They’re there because that’s where they were sent and they’re fighting to save their lives and the life of their brothers and sisters in arms. Period. If you took a vote of the guys actually getting shot at they’d vote for round the clock B-52 strikes until nothing was left twitching.
So spare us the sanctimonious we are fighting for their souls BS. The last time I read the Constitution there wasn’t a single word in it about nding our guys half way around the world to fight and die for someones soul.
You mis-understand the purpose of the US military.
The purpose of the US military is to protect US interests, not to save people from brutality and tyrrany.
Both of my Marine sons understand that. Your Bronze star boy likely does too.
FReegards!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.