Thanks for the heads up... Didn't hear it. (was multitasking)... But I thought there were 2 Apaches... oh well. Still good work. I don't like trying to 2nd guess or arm chair quarter back anyone. Just not me. My main comment was the commending of the good work and an expensive rocket on some wobbly twits on a hill....

 

If you listen, you can hear the gunner say they are "Winchester" on the .30. That means it's empty.

While watching the video, I found myself moving the mouse trying to target the next in line!

(I guess I'm video-game-deprived after years of not playing)

^{At some point I think these types of operations begin to do more harm than good. We have been in this "war" for over ten years now. At some point our presence will become the motivation these people will have to attack us, that is if that is not already the case. For the most part none of these people have any remote chance of being able to attack our homeland. When our troops are using $70k missiles to kill individual combatants holding a $100 AK something is wrong. If we were focusing on the real problems in the middle east like Iran's nuclear program instead of attacking groups of meaningless fighters roaming around in remote mountain regions of an indigent country I would have a different opinion. Videos like this demonstrate some very cool technology but also showcase how it is being wasted on people that could never possibly pose a threat to anyone in the United States. Are they a threat to our troops in their country? Certainly but at some point we should be reevaluating what the hell we are doing in their country in the first place. Just sayin'}

 

I am sure that you wouldn't mind using that missile if that asshat with the AK was shooting at you. Just saying.

^{At some point I think these types of operations begin to do more harm than good. We have been in this "war" for over ten years now. At some point our presence will become the motivation these people will have to attack us, that is if that is not already the case. For the most part none of these people have any remote chance of being able to attack our homeland. When our troops are using $70k missiles to kill individual combatants holding a $100 AK something is wrong. If we were focusing on the real problems in the middle east like Iran's nuclear program instead of attacking groups of meaningless fighters roaming around in remote mountain regions of an indigent country I would have a different opinion. Videos like this demonstrate some very cool technology but also showcase how it is being wasted on people that could never possibly pose a threat to anyone in the United States. Are they a threat to our troops in their country? Certainly but at some point we should be reevaluating what the hell we are doing in their country in the first place. Just sayin'}

 

 

Wow how liberal and idealistic of you. We are there because they attacked us. They wanted the fight and got it. They are trying to kill out soldiers so we get them first. Our presence will be motivation for them. That's a laugh. They had motivation long before we went in. These people do pose a threat to those that represent the United States...our troops. So therefore they are disposable. If they were civilized they might act differently. Unfortunately our rules of engagement do allow us to treat these people like they should be treated and really teach them a lesson.

they are disposable. If they were civilized they might act differently. Unfortunately our rules of engagement do allow us to treat these people like they should be treated and really teach them a lesson.

 

Generalizing a country you have never been to and a culture you know nothing about. Good on ya.

Yeah...lets start that discussion now. I will pass on discussing anything with you any longer and am sure we will agree to disagree. Benefits me twice. I don't have to converse with you and I don't waste time arguing

Here's a link a friend of mine shared recently on a local web-board. He makes some good points and the accompanying story (follow the link) really makes one wonder just what the hell we are still doing in Afghanistan:

 

<a name="#8500">Success in Afghanistan Means Not Firing Your Gun (1 of 1), Read 15 times

Thursday, November 08, 2012 05:01 PM

U.S. Troops Told Success in Afghanistan Means Not Firing Your Gun

 

In Jaghatu, Afghanistan, U.S. soldiers are counting the months till their deployment ends. Between now and when they leave, they are "not doing a thing" and "not firing [their] weapons."

 

They sit with their chins on the butts of their rifles and are told this constitutes "success on a mission."

 

All U.S. troops are scheduled to be out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014, and in the interim the experience of the soldiers in Jaghatu is being repeated throughout the country.

 

In many cases, it appears soldiers are simply there because they're not here. And as those in Jaghatu demonstrate, they are in-country sitting down, looking at each other, and talking about their wives and girlfriends back home. From time to time they walk to the homes of Afghans they've come to trust just to shake hands or small-talk or take pictures.

 

To date, the Afghanistan War has cost nearly $500 billion and over 2,000 American lives. And now, many U.S. outposts are full of soldiers seeking successful missions by "not doing a thing" and "not firing [their] weapons."

 

It's like M.A.S.H. without Alan Alda.

 

If this is how Obama's going to fight it, it doesn't make any sense to keep our troops there.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/11/07/Soldiers-In-Afghanistan-Told-A-Successful-Mission-Means-Not-Firing-Your-Gun

 

Regards, Codie

We should kill them because they killed us for killing them because a guy they that was one of our friends was hanging out with them and killed us.

 

Anyways, good on ya TK421. What most fail to realise is that we have been in Afghanistan for 11 years now. If a 20 year old Taliban fighter is fighting the USA, he was 9 years old at the time of 9/11. He is likely a Taliban fighter because US forces killed his family, not because he wanted to join Bin Laden's jihad.

 

Just remember, it was Saudi money that did 9/11, not Afghan goat herders. You can have all the ideology in the world, you need cash to make it happen. Basically, we're taking out our anger on a bunch of douche bags, because we're not man enough to deal with the people who really did it.

 

"We fought so long we can't remember what the hell we were fighting over"

I agree that the the ruling family in Saudi Arabia is more problematic for the future and more complicit in past aggressions against this country than any other country/entity.

 

While everyone was making great hay over Obama's "bow" to some rag-assed Arab dignitary or other a few years ago, I couldn't get the picture out of my head of George W. holding the hand of Saudi Prince Abdullah, when he was in office.

Rumsfeld shaking hands with our ally and financial recipient, Saddam Hussein, is pretty funny too. But my all time favorite is Ronald Reagan commending, and sympathizing with, the Taliban "Freedom Fighters" as we used to call them, in a personal audience at the white house.

 

 

 

 

 

Wow how liberal and idealistic of you. We are there because they attacked us. They wanted the fight and got it. They are trying to kill out soldiers so we get them first. Our presence will be motivation for them. That's a laugh. They had motivation long before we went in. These people do pose a threat to those that represent the United States...our troops. So therefore they are disposable. If they were civilized they might act differently. Unfortunately our rules of engagement do allow us to treat these people like they should be treated and really teach them a lesson.

 

I'm about as liberal as Obama is a Jeffersonian.  To quote that great 18th century liberal Thomas Jefferson "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none".  First of all AlQaeda attacked us not the Taliban.  The Taliban were chased out of Afghanistan in less than six months for harboring AlQaeda but for political reasons we didn't follow them into Pakistan to finish the job, we allowed them to catch their breath and regroup.  After 10+ years if the people of Afghanistan allow the Taliban to return to power they get the government they deserve.  Hell if "our troops" were performing combat operations on our streets for the last 10 years I'd probably be fighting them too.  Enough BS about supporting the troops, they have been there long enough, the Taliban are less of a threat to us today than our own damned government.  What is the goal?  Why are we still pounding the crap out of a bunch of tent dwellers running around the mountains of some shitbag country that aspires to become a third world nation some day?  Either do something constructive over there like eliminate Iran's nuclear capability or bring the troops home.

 

 

I am sure that you wouldn't mind using that missile if that asshat with the AK was shooting at you. Just saying.

 

You are missing my point.  Who would care what they were shooting at if our troops weren't there?  They called Vietnam a "quagmire" I don't see this situation as being any different.  We routed the Taliban and attempted to provide the country with the tools needed to sustain itself.  Ultimately if the people that live there allow the Taliban to return to power they get the government they deserve.  I fail to see how this is our concern beyond any future attempt to harbor or support another terrorist organization with harmful intentions toward the US.

Rumsfeld shaking hands with our ally and financial recipient, Saddam Hussein, is pretty funny too. But my all time favorite is Ronald Reagan commending, and sympathizing with, the Taliban "Freedom Fighters" as we used to call them, in a personal audience at the white house.

 

 

 

 

This is nothing more than the flawed logic behind "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" mentality. In both cases we supported these people because they were fighting a proxy war for us. In neither instance would we have supported them if not for the fact tat they were engaged in conflicts with groups that we could not have mustered the political will to go to war with directly.

In the years between 2002 and 2009 there was no centralized military strategy for Afghanistan-none. A strategy refers to a plan of action designed to achive a particular goal.[...] In the absence of a strategy , military organizations, especially ones composed of diverse multidimensional and multinational forces such as those in Afghanistan, operate in an asychronous fashion, never accomplishing or achieving their goals.

- Major Rusty Bradley

 

Lions of Kandahar: The Story of a Fight Against All Odds

You are missing my point. Who would care what they were shooting at if our troops weren't there? They called Vietnam a "quagmire" I don't see this situation as being any different. We routed the Taliban and attempted to provide the country with the tools needed to sustain itself. Ultimately if the people that live there allow the Taliban to return to power they get the government they deserve. I fail to see how this is our concern beyond any future attempt to harbor or support another terrorist organization with harmful intentions toward the US.

 

No I think you are missing my point. When you are getting shot at you don't really care how the bad guys are taken out. You want to keep your buddy and yourself alive. That is what matters to the boots on the ground. I am not getting into the political side of this, just that if firing that 70K missile saved a US soldier then it was well worth it.

No I think you are missing my point. When you are getting shot at you don't really care how the bad guys are taken out. You want to keep your buddy and yourself alive. That is what matters to the boots on the ground. I am not getting into the political side of this, just that if firing that 70K missile saved a US soldier then it was well worth it.

 

Couldn't one argue that not engaging in a pointless war would keep a whole lot of guys and their buddies alive, plus save some money too?

Couldn't one argue that not engaging in a pointless war would keep a whole lot of guys and their buddies alive, plus save some money too?

 

"pointless" is the sticking point there.

 

I'm sure arguments can be made that, thru US efforts, the terrorist networks have been weakened (at least insofar as attacking the US), therefore, it's quite possible civilian lives HAVE indeed been saved. Personally, I say bring the troops home, and probably a long time ago. However, I would also act autonomously and destroy Iran's nuclear capability myself (or help Israel do it), as well as continue the drone attacks- terrorist enemies of the US dead, no US lives lost.

Couldn't one argue that not engaging in a pointless war would keep a whole lot of guys and their buddies alive, plus save some money too?

 

The people on the ground don't have the option of not engaging. They follow orders. You are trying to rationalize from the arm chair, not in the first person.

At some point I think these types of operations begin to do more harm than good. We have been in this "war" for over ten years now. At some point our presence will become the motivation these people will have to attack us, that is if that is not already the case. For the most part none of these people have any remote chance of being able to attack our homeland. When our troops are using $70k missiles to kill individual combatants holding a $100 AK something is wrong. If we were focusing on the real problems in the middle east like Iran's nuclear program instead of attacking groups of meaningless fighters roaming around in remote mountain regions of an indigent country I would have a different opinion. Videos like this demonstrate some very cool technology but also showcase how it is being wasted on people that could never possibly pose a threat to anyone in the United States. Are they a threat to our troops in their country? Certainly but at some point we should be reevaluating what the hell we are doing in their country in the first place. Just sayin'

 

I am sure that you wouldn't mind using that missile if that asshat with the AK was shooting at you. Just saying.

 

You are missing my point. Who would care what they were shooting at if our troops weren't there? They called Vietnam a "quagmire" I don't see this situation as being any different. We routed the Taliban and attempted to provide the country with the tools needed to sustain itself. Ultimately if the people that live there allow the Taliban to return to power they get the government they deserve. I fail to see how this is our concern beyond any future attempt to harbor or support another terrorist organization with harmful intentions toward the US.

 

No I think you are missing my point. When you are getting shot at you don't really care how the bad guys are taken out. You want to keep your buddy and yourself alive. That is what matters to the boots on the ground. I am not getting into the political side of this, just that if firing that 70K missile saved a US soldier then it was well worth it.

 

So I post a comment about why we don't belong there, you comment on a specific situation given the fact we are there, I try to correct you about the fact I was talking about why we don't belong there then you reinforce the fact that you are not talking about what I'm talking about. OK

So I post a comment about why we don't belong there, you comment on a specific situation given the fact we are there, I try to correct you about the fact I was talking about why we don't belong there then you reinforce the fact that you are not talking about what I'm talking about. OK

 

When our troops are using $70k missiles to kill individual combatants holding a $100 AK something is wrong

 

Is this not a specific situation? You did post this correct?

Wow how liberal and idealistic of you. We are there because they attacked us. They wanted the fight and got it. They are trying to kill out soldiers so we get them first. Our presence will be motivation for them. That's a laugh. They had motivation long before we went in. These people do pose a threat to those that represent the United States...our troops. So therefore they are disposable. If they were civilized they might act differently. Unfortunately our rules of engagement do allow us to treat these people like they should be treated and really teach them a lesson.

 

Using 9/11 [i assume this is what you meant by "they attacked us"] as justification for the continued waste of time, money, and lives that is "the war on terror" is ridiculous considering we've been using bombs to enforce U.S. policy in the middle east for decades prior to 9/11. Many times in the past month I've heard this justification for Israel attacking Hamas, "If Mexico was firing missiles into Arizona we would consider that war and retaliate". I often wonder why so few Americans ever put the shoe on the other foot regarding our role in the middle east. If any country tried to treat America like the way we treat most of the middle east we'd be up in arms, literally. You can only bully people for so long before they do whatever they can to fight back. We reap what we sow, it's called blowback. I'm not sure why politicians and citizens are so scared to discuss this in public.

 

Not sure where you see liberalism playing a role here. It's just common sense. You can't be at war forever without bankrupting the nation. Do you really believe that the U.S. is a favorite target of terrorists because we are a "Free" nation of Christians? There are plenty of free Christian nations that are never attacked. Our policies in the middle east do more damage to our national security than any terrorist could. Something has to change.

 

Disclaimer: I'm not advocating on the part of Israel, Hamas, etc. I personally couldn't give a sh*t what happens between them. I just prefer they duke it out themselves and the U.S. stays out of it. I'm also not giving a pass to U.S. hating terrorists, simply stating obvious facts.

I definitely give a s*it what happens between Israel and the rest of the middle-east nations. There is no equivocation in my mind between a democratic nation who has been staunchly allied with the U.S. and a "nation" now governed by a terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel, and supported by militant factions of other Islamic republics who abhor the Western way of life.

 

Isolationism isn't a viable answer in this day and age.

I definitely give a s*it what happens between Israel and the rest of the middle-east nations. There is no equivocation in my mind between a democratic nation who has been staunchly allied with the U.S. and a "nation" now governed by a terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel, and supported by militant factions of other Islamic republics who abhor the Western way of life.

 

Isolationism isn't a viable answer in this day and age.

 

Exactly how have we benefited from our alliance with Israel? I'd love to see an accurate cost/benefit analysis on that one!

 

Agreed, Isolationism isn't a viable answer but Non-interventionism is perfectly viable.

When our troops are using $70k missiles to kill individual combatants holding a $100 AK something is wrong Is this not a specific situation? You did post this correct?

Wow, OK, let's try this again. Using this particular situation as an example of how wasteful our presence is, to make the case that we should not be there, is not the same as questioning why it was done at that exact moment in time. I understand the immediate need the bigger question, and the point that I was making, that you seem to keep missing, is whether or not this type of operation has a benefit that warrants the resources and expense. The short answer is there is no excuse for us to have a bunch of our soldiers running around a foreign country, killing a bunch of indigent ideologues in an effort to keep the people that live in that country (many of whom don't like us to begin with) from forming a system of government that we don't approve of because it is our opinion they would hurt themselves. It is none of our business, short of any organized terrorist groups massing and training on their soil to imminently attack us or our interests we need to GTFO and leave those people to their own devices.

i HAD NO PROBLEM WATCHING AND i THOUGH it was cool.

 

Fugg the Taliban, even the wounded ones who we kept shooting at.

Don't worry guys, we'll win the war on terror one day. We just gotta keep at it.

 

Look at the success we've had with the war on drugs!

Exactly how have we benefited from our alliance with Israel? I'd love to see an accurate cost/benefit analysis on that one!

 

Seriously. The numbers on this one are so friggin skewed it'd make most people's heads spin.

Seriously. The numbers on this one are so friggin skewed it'd make most people's heads spin.

 

Which numbers?

 

The US-Israel relationship is quite interesting if you look into it. There is a lot more to it than you will ever hear about. The benefit is actually huge.....for certain people. You are correct though, it will make your head spin!

Which numbers?The benefit is actually huge.....for certain people.

 

Exactly

Which numbers?

 

The US-Israel relationship is quite interesting if you look into it. There is a lot more to it than you will ever hear about. The benefit is actually huge.....for certain people. You are correct though, it will make your head spin!

 

Yes it is interesting and beneficial for some. If you look into our aid to Israel and how we dictate they spend it - much of it comes back to the U.S. Plus, the fact that they exist creates a huge need for arms in the middle east, which pours money into our military-industrial complex. They also provide some great military [as well as other] technologies to our govt and private industry in the U.S. They allow the 6th Fleet unfettered access to the port of Haifa which saves us from having to dot the area with aircraft carriers. This all seems very beneficial [at least to anyone who dismisses Eisenhower's warning against the unwarranted influence of the military-industrial complex].

 

However, my issue is that from the 10,000 ft view it looks like all of those things are just part and parcel in keeping our foreign policies in that region intact. I would further argue those policies leave a lot to be desired. What is our end game in the middle east? One would assume it is oil but we can survive without middle east oil. Perhaps we want to keep control over the middle east to block China or Russia from doing the same. Are we positioning ourselves for WWIII, which could be fought for oil? Even if one doesn't necessarily believe in Peak Oil it is clear that oil is getting more expensive to get out of the ground [EROI/NEG] and that we are using far more than we are finding. At some point in the near future there will be a crunch.

 

We cannot over state the importance of oil to our economy and way of life. Is it worth fighting WWIII? Probably. Would it be worthwhile to heavily invest the government in finding an alternative fuel source in order to avoid war? Definitely. I wouldn't want to see what life is like post WWIII considering there are close to a dozen countries with Nukes.