Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

• How the coalition is increasingly using deadly Reaper drones to hunt and kill Taliban targets by remote control from a base in Nevada.

I'm not understanding the problem, here. Why wouldn't we use weapons that limit exposure to our own troops?

I believe that being stationed in Nevada qualifies as a cruel and unusual punishment and thus...

heh. Silly Nevada and their legalized prostitution...

Wait, what?

Fair play to the Guardian for shining a light on this nest of vipers, it really is a ******* mess! The whole rotten, wretched war has been a shambles from start to finish. As Clint eastwood once said: "it's a cluster **** of a situation."
People on this site need to wake up and smell the cordite. Thousand of people have perished - be they civilian, be they military, be they the enemy. Life is precious and every death is a tragedy. Billions of dollars have went down the pan and for what - Blairs oil wars, the west saving face?
I once read a letter about a serving soldier in afghanistan. It was the usual grumbles about food,weather etc. It was dated April 1839...
As for the logic, I've never been able to understand the following: Terrorists are from here: Saudi Arabia
But somehow we end up attacking here: Afghanistan???????


I never believed the stereotype of dumb Americans, every american I've met has been a credit to humanity, but they always end up electing people who should be locked away in an Alaskan log cabin with their global dominance plans.
But the above really takes the biscuit. I blame the UK for being daft enough to be caught up in this as well. Our leaders are just as bad.
As for serving soldiers, they deserve to be looked after and supported by their country - they are heroes in the true sense for they are prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice. For that they should be respected, but nobody forced them to be there. They are not conscripts.

Rant over

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Fair play to the Guardian for shining a light on this nest of vipers, it really is a ******* mess! The whole rotten, wretched war has been a shambles from start to finish. As Clint eastwood once said: "it's a cluster **** of a situation."
People on this site need to wake up and smell the cordite. Thousand of people have perished - be they civilian, be they military, be they the enemy. Life is precious and every death is a tragedy. Billions of dollars have went down the pan and for what - Blairs oil wars, the west saving face?
I once read a letter about a serving soldier in afghanistan. It was the usual grumbles about food,weather etc. It was dated April 1839...
As for the logic, I've never been able to understand the following: Terrorists are from here: Saudi Arabia
But somehow we end up attacking here: Afghanistan???????


I never believed the stereotype of dumb Americans, every american I've met has been a credit to humanity, but they always end up electing people who should be locked away in an Alaskan log cabin with their global dominance plans.
But the above really takes the biscuit. I blame the UK for being daft enough to be caught up in this as well. Our leaders are just as bad.
As for serving soldiers, they deserve to be looked after and supported by their country - they are heroes in the true sense for they are prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice. For that they should be respected, but nobody forced them to be there. They are not conscripts.

Rant over

Hey hey hey,idiot,if there in saudi arabai,then why are we killing a crap load of them in afghanistan?

Please don't call people idiots, it is against the rules.

Do_I_Not_Like_That: So, they are all in that one place then?
Loving your eyesight, because you are seeing something noone else is.
Its not as simple as saying "they are all there"
Its terrorism, not a real war. (Notice how in a real war people will wear thier uniform with pride, not try to blend in with civvies?)

Now, there is not a terrorist country, city, or solid location.
That would be fething dumb and just be asking to be bombed.
Its the way they have been split up and spread around the world which causes the problems, its not so simple as to give an exact location.



As for that news gak written by the average fething journo: Gratz dick head, you just risked the lives of men and women who serve for your country, just to make a few more £££ this week.


As for the war: Shouldnt still be there IMO, unless troops are given the correct gear to use.
As it is they are sharing helmets and armour inserts, using basic APC types that have been proven to be death traps.
All so a few desk jockeys can use the budget elsewhere. (generally to make thier lives better)

[/rant]

Thousand of people have perished

People dieing didn't start when the war did terrorists are going to kill people whether we are there or not. Should we just sit down and let terrorists kill our people and their own?

Thousand of people have perished - be they civilian, be they military, be they the enemy. Life is precious and every death is a tragedy.

I am not sure about others here but I am really not bothered about some terrorists getting killed, yes it would be nice if we could resolve this without people dieing but I really don't see that happening.

As for killing al those civilians, it really is a horrible thing but when terrorists hide amomg civilians and use them hide this kind of thing is going to happen. That's their fault not ours, this is going to happen, and their isn't any way to stop it without putting our own soldiers at risk.

So none of this is really news as other reporters have been covering most of it for a while now... but reporting this (already readily available) information puts our soldiers in more danger somehow? Anyone care to explain this?

What is terrorism? It seems to be a very grey area. Is it a bunch of bearded fanatics plotting in Afghan caves against the west? launching the odd high profile attack every couple of years. Or is it embodied by one or two nations, who since 1945 have been responsible for the deaths of a million plus civilians, numerous violations of international law, have harboured known terrorists themselves, and commit a high percentage of their GDP to building and selling weapons to countries who are not as democratic or enlightened as the one or two nations mentioned etc etc
Bloodoforks has a point. It's not as if they are being shot/bomed at anyday anyway!

BloodofOrks wrote:So none of this is really news as other reporters have been covering most of it for a while now... but reporting this (already readily available) information puts our soldiers in more danger somehow? Anyone care to explain this?

Jingoistic toolbags whining about things they don't actually understand?

According to the London Evening Standard it is not so much the nature of the leaked reports, it is the huge volume.

Things like the civilian casualties (which should disturb us all) and number of AA missiles shot, are no longer 'deniable'.

The reported reaction from the US authorities would seem to put the lie to the idea that it is all a mere bagatelle.

Kilkrazy wrote:Please don't call people idiots, it is against the rules.

Sorry master

Those who forget their past,
are doomed to repeat them.

Welcome to afgani-nam


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Those who forget their past mistakes,
are destined to repeat them.

Welcome to afgani - nam

BloodofOrks wrote:So none of this is really news as other reporters have been covering most of it for a while now... but reporting this (already readily available) information puts our soldiers in more danger somehow? Anyone care to explain this?

I believe it had to do with the leaking of some covert operation issues and the likes. The information supposedly came from an intelligence officer who decided to post everything on wikilinks for the world to see.

Of course it also lets our enemy know what we know about them and how we do get our information from them. The issue with posting things on the internet or in the newspaper is that anyone can get and read them.

Troop disposition, possible flaws in strategy, sources of information, tensions between two nations which can be exploited, possible war crimes issues which can be exploited... think about it, this is helping Al-Qaeda and any other fanatical nut job overseas win their fight by making us lose our momentum and faith that we can still beat our enemy.

So, our troops are put in danger because those sources of information can be killed and if those sources are killed because a US intelligence officer betrayed their names for the world to see then new sources will most likely not pop up to help.

usatoday wrote:A 22-year-old Army intelligence analyst, Spc. Bradley Manning, was charged in the case with multiple counts of mishandling and leaking classified data and putting national security at risk.

This guy just gave power to those killing his brothers in arms, I sure hope its worth it for him.

Aside from that little rant;

Dogma, I do say that we need more personnel, but not necessarily for offensive purposes. We need more engineers and more people to protect infrastructure that is created, so that if a power plant is created that gives power to a region, that power plant needs to be protected do the work is not undone and their quality of life surpasses that of taliban-era life.

halonachos wrote:
Dogma, I do say that we need more personnel, but not necessarily for offensive purposes. We need more engineers and more people to protect infrastructure that is created, so that if a power plant is created that gives power to a region, that power plant needs to be protected do the work is not undone and their quality of life surpasses that of taliban-era life.

To my mind that approach is backwards. I think we need to engage the Afghan people in the development of their own economy, and thereby avoid the problems inherent in imposing order from the top.

So.. I haven't waded through all the documents, this is "second hand" info...

in 2009 alone the US army spent $4.7 billion on PR and the Pentagon is employing 27,000 PR people.

..whilst an aircraft carrier will set you back around $4 billion ( more for the ..err.. "ford" class ..I think) , and 24,000 men landed at Utah beach on D day.

..is this right ? Really ?

Not sure on the figures (and I don't suppose anyone does short of an 'official' statement) but although it sounds incredulous, one has to bear in mind that a war is fought just as much in the media as it is on the ground.

You have the whole 'hearts and minds' approach that requires positive spin in the target country. On the flipside, there is a degree of spin needed to applied back home; massaging casualty figures, cheerleading every little civil improvement at the front ('a new hospital for sick children has just been built in Baghdad') , that sort of thing.

I can quite imagine the US government spend vast sums on PR just to try and smooth their path through Afghan, Iraq and to quell the dissension at home

I know a guy who was out there-- doing some filming oddly enough -- he relates the following

The excellence of the USMC's air cover has led to a rather good local joke in Afghanistan.

Q: "What do you call a platoon of American Marines?"
A: "Anything you like, until the airstrike arrives."

The USAF saved my life.

Thats how good they are, if you get a French plane turn up your fethed.

I think they were guardsmen as well oddly. Flew the A10s when i was in Kajaki, and those fethers seriously dragged our asses out the fire on at least..i dunno.. Twenty occasions?

When you have three wounded men and your getting engaged from 8 positions, your ass starts to twitch, then you get an A10 turn up, hose down 3 of the positions inside about a minute, and everything goes quiet for the next 5 minutes.

Its a great sight to behold, and the troops appreciate it. I was there when the USAF accidentally killed some guys from the Royal Anglican Regiment, and not a single one of them blamed the pilots. They flew an American flag alongside his repatriation at Camp Bastion to show this, and the American pilots apprecited it alot.

We really had a great relationship with the American lads when i was there, and the only dick heads who insult the American air force are civvies and hippies who know feth all.

If i am in the pub and i hear some clown gobbing off about the war saying "Oh all the Yanks do is kill our lads" i take personal offense and i am sure to put the mother fether right.

mattyrm wrote:The USAF saved my life.

Thats how good they are, if you get a French plane turn up your fethed.

I think they were guardsmen as well oddly. Flew the A10s when i was in Kajaki, and those fethers seriously dragged our asses out the fire on at least..i dunno.. Twenty occasions?

When you have three wounded men and your getting engaged from 8 positions, your ass starts to twitch, then you get an A10 turn up, hose down 3 of the positions inside about a minute, and everything goes quiet for the next 5 minutes.

Its a great sight to behold, and the troops appreciate it. I was there when the USAF accidentally killed some guys from the Royal Anglican Regiment, and not a single one of them blamed the pilots. They flew an American flag alongside his repatriation at Camp Bastion to show this, and the American pilots apprecited it alot.

We really had a great relationship with the American lads when i was there, and the only dick heads who insult the American air force are civvies and hippies who know feth all.

If i am in the pub and i hear some clown gobbing off about the war saying "Oh all the Yanks do is kill our lads" i take personal offense and i am sure to put the mother fether right.

The Air Guard has always been right up there with the regulars, skill wise. ANG units traditionally did well during the William Tell competitions.

Back in GW1, New York and South Carolina ANG units were right in the thick of it.

My son is off to USAF basic next month. He's going into Security Forces. He's not cursed with the color blindness which fethed up his dad's USAF ambitions.

ZF-

Oh-rah find that whistle blower and string up by his thumbs. There can be no dissent. Your either with us or against us! I don't wanna kill a civvi bit sometimes you gotta call a tactical strike on a few innocent heads when the stuff hits the fan. Besides its really their own fault for being in the way! So what if I destroyed their livelihood, they understand its war. Besides I'm sure they'll thank us in time, I would if I was in their position...........they were probably terrorists anyway.........its war

Oh-rah find that whistle blower and string up by his thumbs.

Whistle Blower? I guess your definition of that term is way different from what it is suppsed to mean.

A Whistle Blower tries to right a real wrong. In the Army, there are ways to do that within the system. Whistle Blowers do not just act because the disagree with some political position or because they were made to deploy to a combat zone.

Poor little Brad Manning was not attempting to right a wrong and did not attempt to use the many systems he could have if that was his intent. He could have gone to the IG, worked with his congress critter, or used another LEGAL means to address his perceived issue. Instead, he realeased as many documents as he could steal most likely without even reading it all to see what he was giving away, to an organization which would publish them, knowing this info would get to the bad guys (and yes, there ARE bad guys).

He (if found guilty) aided the enemy by:

"(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to, or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly;

shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct. This section does not apply to a military commission established under chapter 47A of this title." from: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/usc_sec_10_00000904----000-.html


Stringing him up by his thumbs is not what he deserves. The neck would do much better.