1 posted on
03/06/2002 10:13:39 PM PST by
kattracks
To: kattracks
Back-seat drivers. Always know better once the outcome is known.
2 posted on
03/06/2002 10:15:56 PM PST by
Naspino
To: *Taliban_list;*War_list
Check the
Bump List folders for articles related to the above topic(s) or for other topics of interest.
To: kattracks
ugh! These guys are deluding themselves if they think we can win without dying. I can't believe they don't get it. It should be illegal for these guys to comment like this during the battle.
Let them file formal objections after the battle is over. But to do it during battle is repugnant and undermines the very fabric of military command. I am sick...
To: kattracks
The Air Force officer (who was promoted by Clinton) said some Pentagon civilians (hold-overs from the Clinton administration) also are upset with the tactics used in the assault near Gardez in Paktia province. Some informally have discussed firing commanders, but others say any dismissals would send the wrong message to U.S. allies as well as to supporters of terrorist Osama bin Laden.This "Air Force officer" should be demoted to toilet bowl cleaner.
To: kattracks
Does this idiot really think we can afford to fight a perpetual war in Anarchystan with long range bombers and million dollar a kill airstrikes? Has he ever heard the term conservation of forces?
The rules of war haven't changed. Troops must occupy the ground that you capture.
To: kattracks
This article says that in the 1993 Mogadishu incident that it was the Pentagon that denied the extra strength and tanks to the soldiers in Somalia. But the Wall Street Journal reported at the time that this was a White House decision made by Les Aspin. According to the WSJ account there were several screaming matches between pentagon people & white house people about it with the white house turning down the request for more strength.
To: kattracks
The officer added: "The question is why did Franks and the military abandon what had been spectacularly successful since day one. Bomb them until they're dead or on the run.
I can't believe the Wash. Times published this crap. If it was so "spectacularly successful", why in the freak are we still having to fight these battles? There is one big difference between what is happening now, and what happened before. No negotiations for "surrender." My guess would be that the current enemy has "surrendered" 3 or 4 times now.
To: kattracks
Dollars to donuts that this guy is an armchair quaterback in the Pentagon who is charged with pushing USAF appropriations.
14 posted on
03/07/2002 5:53:00 AM PST by
TADSLOS
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson