Originally posted by: palehorse74
I just can't answer that.Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: palehorse74
I would support the same -- in every way!Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
What would I support?
I don't know what the current rules of engagement are, but I'd allow incursions into Pakistan ONLY for the pursuit of attackers. I would NOT allow establishment of camps or bases. That would be too provocative right now.
I would support SOF activities in select cases with well defined goals. Mission creep strongly discouraged.
Identification and utilization of friendlies in sensitive situations, with material support and intel.
In the meantime I would also encourage establishing a strong intelligence gathering program country wide, including friendlies and potential problem groups. We need eyes and ears. I hope this a thing already done, but with you-know-who, it's hard to say.
No massive operations. No.
It's a volatile siutation in Pakistan, for sure; but, so is the situation in Afghanistan. If the Karai government - and, by extension, the NATO mission - is to succeed, then the Taliban and AQ must be completely routed from the entire border region.
Allowing them a real safe haven is borderlin criminal...
So yes, I would personally support very limited SMU activity in Pakistan. Small teams to collect intelligence and paint targets. Sounds great to me!
I'm out of the loop. What's the current rules of engagement as far as pursuit of attacking forces?
No, in Afghanistan it's primarily an access problem, and force is one part of the answer.Originally posted by: Lemon law
Its a people problem and force is not the answer.
Originally posted by: palehorse74
"History" is the operative word in your sentence.Originally posted by: teclis1023
Originally posted by: bugsysiegel
Ahhh, Islam, the religion of peace.
Because Christianity doesn't have a history of torturing and killing non believers!
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Palehorse74, if you want to blow the minds of the taliban escaping back into Pakistan, why don't you try ambushing them a little further away from the border so you can make good your boast of wiping them out without needing to go into Pakistan. If you can't control a smaller area, what gives you the idea that you can control a bigger area?????????
fair enough.Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: palehorse74
"History" is the operative word in your sentence.Originally posted by: teclis1023
Originally posted by: bugsysiegel
Ahhh, Islam, the religion of peace.
Because Christianity doesn't have a history of torturing and killing non believers!
"History" is completely moot to the point. Obviously Christianity had a period similar, yet only Islam gets the "Religion of Peace?" mantra.
Is that your chess-inspired solution?!Originally posted by: Lemon law
Palehorse74, if you want to blow the minds of the taliban escaping back into Pakistan, why don't you try ambushing them a little further away from the border so you can make good your boast of wiping them out without needing to go into Pakistan. If you can't control a smaller area, what gives you the idea that you can control a bigger area?????????
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Is that your chess-inspired solution?!Originally posted by: Lemon law
Palehorse74, if you want to blow the minds of the taliban escaping back into Pakistan, why don't you try ambushing them a little further away from the border so you can make good your boast of wiping them out without needing to go into Pakistan. If you can't control a smaller area, what gives you the idea that you can control a bigger area?????????
Given the terrain, most engagements are not "ambushes" in the traditional sense -- and most of the time, we simply react to reported sightings and incidents.
Most often, our patrols are in vehicles, while the enemies operate on foot, or with motorcycles. This allows them to be much more mobile and flexible throughout the mountains.
Once we spot them, it often becomes a race to the border -- their goal being to outrun our incoming air support, hide, etc. Given the size of the region, sometimes these chases take days!
That is why, on many occasions, we are forced to literally watch them walk away -- since, once they cross the the border, all of our assets must halt pursuit.
"Ambush them sooner"?! lol.. ya... right. You need to stick to chess Lemon.
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Is that your chess-inspired solution?!Originally posted by: Lemon law
Palehorse74, if you want to blow the minds of the taliban escaping back into Pakistan, why don't you try ambushing them a little further away from the border so you can make good your boast of wiping them out without needing to go into Pakistan. If you can't control a smaller area, what gives you the idea that you can control a bigger area?????????
Given the terrain, most engagements are not "ambushes" in the traditional sense -- and most of the time, we simply react to reported sightings and incidents.
Most often, our patrols are in vehicles, while the enemies operate on foot, or with motorcycles. This allows them to be much more mobile and flexible throughout the mountains.
Once we spot them, it often becomes a race to the border -- their goal being to outrun our incoming air support, hide, etc. Given the size of the region, sometimes these chases take days!
That is why, on many occasions, we are forced to literally watch them walk away -- since, once they cross the the border, all of our assets must halt pursuit.
"Ambush them sooner"?! lol.. ya... right. You need to stick to chess Lemon.
Nobodies laughing except NeoCon types who seem to think it's all a big joke. (Does "Where's Osama, is he under here? No he's not there." ring a bell?)
You expect the American people to believe that with the military equipment/budget we have these people on foot can get away from us? What a fine example of well honed intelligence from our military/industrial complex.
Can it with your excuses. If your always late to work, the solution is to get up earlier.
WTF does this discussion about ROE limitations have to do with "teh evul neocons"?! To me, nothing about this issue is funny, and the only politicians we should be talking about are those who are preventing us from properly closing with, and destroying, our enemies.Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Is that your chess-inspired solution?!Originally posted by: Lemon law
Palehorse74, if you want to blow the minds of the taliban escaping back into Pakistan, why don't you try ambushing them a little further away from the border so you can make good your boast of wiping them out without needing to go into Pakistan. If you can't control a smaller area, what gives you the idea that you can control a bigger area?????????
Given the terrain, most engagements are not "ambushes" in the traditional sense -- and most of the time, we simply react to reported sightings and incidents.
Most often, our patrols are in vehicles, while the enemies operate on foot, or with motorcycles. This allows them to be much more mobile and flexible throughout the mountains.
Once we spot them, it often becomes a race to the border -- their goal being to outrun our incoming air support, hide, etc. Given the size of the region, sometimes these chases take days!
That is why, on many occasions, we are forced to literally watch them walk away -- since, once they cross the the border, all of our assets must halt pursuit.
"Ambush them sooner"?! lol.. ya... right. You need to stick to chess Lemon.
Nobodies laughing except NeoCon types who seem to think it's all a big joke. (Does "Where's Osama, is he under here? No he's not there." ring a bell?)
You and Lemon seem to be under the impression that NATO should be able to cover 100% of the border, with both soldiers and air support, all day every day.You expect the American people to believe that with the military equipment/budget we have these people on foot can get away from us? What a fine example of well honed intelligence from our military/industrial complex.
Can it with your excuses. If your always late to work, the solution is to get up earlier.
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
The Soviets in Afghanistan were continually thwarted by troops on foot, and they weren't constrained by restrictive rules of engagement.
If it were so easy we wouldn't even be discussing this.
Originally posted by: palehorse74
WTF does this discussion about ROE limitations have to do with "teh evul neocons"?! To me, nothing about this issue is funny, and the only politicians we should be talking about are those who are preventing us from properly closing with, and destroying, our enemies.Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Is that your chess-inspired solution?!Originally posted by: Lemon law
Palehorse74, if you want to blow the minds of the taliban escaping back into Pakistan, why don't you try ambushing them a little further away from the border so you can make good your boast of wiping them out without needing to go into Pakistan. If you can't control a smaller area, what gives you the idea that you can control a bigger area?????????
Given the terrain, most engagements are not "ambushes" in the traditional sense -- and most of the time, we simply react to reported sightings and incidents.
Most often, our patrols are in vehicles, while the enemies operate on foot, or with motorcycles. This allows them to be much more mobile and flexible throughout the mountains.
Once we spot them, it often becomes a race to the border -- their goal being to outrun our incoming air support, hide, etc. Given the size of the region, sometimes these chases take days!
That is why, on many occasions, we are forced to literally watch them walk away -- since, once they cross the the border, all of our assets must halt pursuit.
"Ambush them sooner"?! lol.. ya... right. You need to stick to chess Lemon.
Nobodies laughing except NeoCon types who seem to think it's all a big joke. (Does "Where's Osama, is he under here? No he's not there." ring a bell?)
You and Lemon seem to be under the impression that NATO should be able to cover 100% of the border, with both soldiers and air support, all day every day.You expect the American people to believe that with the military equipment/budget we have these people on foot can get away from us? What a fine example of well honed intelligence from our military/industrial complex.
Can it with your excuses. If your always late to work, the solution is to get up earlier.
All of your cute cliches aside, the border ROE's are the problem, not our arrival times, or our equipment. Trust me, when we do "get up on time," and we are actually allowed to hit them when we see them, we promptly end their fvckin lives every damn time.
However, getting them in our sights, and NOT being allowed to pull the trigger, is a fvcking crime. Period.
Once we spot them, it often becomes a race to the border -- their goal being to outrun our incoming air support, hide, etc. Given the size of the region, sometimes these chases take days!
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
The Soviets in Afghanistan were continually thwarted by troops on foot, and they weren't constrained by restrictive rules of engagement.
If it were so easy we wouldn't even be discussing this.
The Soviets also lost in Afghanistan, we didn't. If we would have stayed with the plan instead of caving in to the fear mongering conducted by the NeoCons and invading Iraq we wouldn't be discussing this either. There would be no need to cross into Pakistan. I remain convinced that forrays into Pakistan will do us more harm then good in the long run.
And, the Soviets didn't have the equipment, budget, or resources we do so that's more of an apples to oranges comparison IMO.
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
What's your plan of action?
There has always been a need to pursue them into Pakistan -- that is where we chased them back in 2002!Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
The Soviets also lost in Afghanistan, we didn't. If we would have stayed with the plan instead of caving in to the fear mongering conducted by the NeoCons and invading Iraq we wouldn't be discussing this either. There would be no need to cross into Pakistan.
I'll give it one last shot...Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Oh suprise, surprise, more song and dance. You claimed that by the time you got there they were just across the boarder. I said to get there sooner, eleimnating the need to cross into Pakistan and further expand the conflict.
I also never said we could cover 100% of the border 100% of the time. that's you trying to put words in my mouth in order to ATTEMPT to argue with me without really addressing what I said.
Allow me to quote you:
Once we spot them, it often becomes a race to the border -- their goal being to outrun our incoming air support, hide, etc. Given the size of the region, sometimes these chases take days!
How in the hell can they win a "race to the border", especially one that "takes days"?
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
What's your plan of action?
My thinking is to cross that bridge when we come to it. You can't live your life worried about everything that can go wrong. Without a clear and well laid out plans/goals your as liable to do harm as you are to do good. Just look at Iraq.
Remember, we had a goal/plan in Afghanistan and it was working until our leaders led us astray. At this point, I don't trust the current administration to come up with a plan that can work.
Originally posted by: palehorse74
There has always been a need to pursue them into Pakistan -- that is where we chased them back in 2002!Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
The Soviets also lost in Afghanistan, we didn't. If we would have stayed with the plan instead of caving in to the fear mongering conducted by the NeoCons and invading Iraq we wouldn't be discussing this either. There would be no need to cross into Pakistan.
Iraq was certainly an unnecessary distraction -- one that almost everyone has come to regret -- but that does not change the fact that the remnants of the Taliban and AQ took up residence in NW Pakistan back in 2002. Since then, they have used their safe haven to heal, arm, train, plot, and stage brutal attacks against Afghanistan, and elsewhere.
I'll give it one last shot...Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Oh suprise, surprise, more song and dance. You claimed that by the time you got there they were just across the boarder. I said to get there sooner, eleimnating the need to cross into Pakistan and further expand the conflict.
I also never said we could cover 100% of the border 100% of the time. that's you trying to put words in my mouth in order to ATTEMPT to argue with me without really addressing what I said.
Allow me to quote you:
Once we spot them, it often becomes a race to the border -- their goal being to outrun our incoming air support, hide, etc. Given the size of the region, sometimes these chases take days!
How in the hell can they win a "race to the border", especially one that "takes days"?
There are many occasions when we are able to catch the Taliban on the Afghan side of the border; and, when we do, we proceed to utterly destroy them.
Then, there are many other times when we see them just before, or just after, they cross the border. It's during THESE times that it's a fvcking crime that we are forced to watch them walk away, entirely unhindered, and apparently untouchable.
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
That's why a leader needs wisdom, which is apart from intelligence or schooling. Wisdom is the correct application of knowledge. We lack that right now, but suppose you got tapped? What would you do? Not easy is it?
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
History being the key word there.Originally posted by: teclis1023
Because Christianity doesn't have a history of torturing and killing non believers!Originally posted by: bugsysiegel
Ahhh, Islam, the religion of peace.
When is the last time a major Christian leader called for the deaths of all non-believers?
When is the last time the Pope proclaimed that all lands once ruled by Christians needs to be ruled by Christians again?
When is the last time a mob of Christians called for the death of someone because they named their teddy bear Jesus?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Originally posted by: Alistar7
Lemon, here is what the US is doing in Afghanistan:
http://afghanistan.usaid.gov/en/Program.23.aspx
This is only th educational aspect, if you actually care to be legitimately informed the rest is contained in the link above. I doubt you will even look though, the truth doesn't fit your agenda.
FY02-FY06 ED Spending: $281 M
FY07 ED Budget: $62 M
(incl. supplemental request)
Accomplishments
Basic Education
5+ million students enrolled in school according to 2006 Ministry of Education data, vs. 900,000 under Taliban
Accelerated Learning (APEP/AL)
Over 150,000 students completed the accelerated learning program, a nearly 90% completion rate; girls constitute 55% of students who completed the program
10,400+ teachers were trained to conduct accelerated learning program
Capacity Building
65,000+ teachers trained via radio
A cadre of education advisors working with counterparts at Ministry of Education and Ministry of Higher Education to strengthen planning, management and evaluation of teacher education
Established International School of Kabul, K ? 12 American style grade school
Established a 4 year liberal arts university, American University of Afghanistan
School Construction
Over 670 schools constructed and/or refurbished as of August 2007
Teaching Materials
60+ million grade school textbooks printed (08/07)
Non-Formal Education
Established Women?s Teacher Training Institute (WTTI)
Established a cadre of literacy trainers
Developed literacy-related materials that can be used nation-wide
9,200+ literacy learners trained in 190 villages in five provinces
850+ self-help savings groups initiated, of which 420+ were women's groups
200+ community banks formed and lending within their own communities
Should Turkey be prevented from crossing the northern Iraqi border to hit the PKK rebels and stop their attacks?Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Then just catch them when you can, where you can. Violating a country's soverignty isn't something I want to do just to catch a few terrorists. I remain convinced that doing so will create more terrorist then it kills.
Well gee, that's nice. The problem with your plan, Ace, is that it's not just Pakistanis who are suffering AQ's attacks, and you know as well as I do that they'll never admit to being unable to handle AQ themselves. Mushie still believes that his country is the undisputed champion of anti-terrorism!Now if we could get to a point where Pakistan asks/wants us to help them, then that's a different story.
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
History being the key word there.Originally posted by: teclis1023
Because Christianity doesn't have a history of torturing and killing non believers!Originally posted by: bugsysiegel
Ahhh, Islam, the religion of peace.
When is the last time a major Christian leader called for the deaths of all non-believers?
When is the last time the Pope proclaimed that all lands once ruled by Christians needs to be ruled by Christians again?
When is the last time a mob of Christians called for the death of someone because they named their teddy bear Jesus?
Ann Coulter?
What is your source for that bullshit? Seriously, where do you get that nonsense from?Originally posted by: Lemon law
In Afghanistan the very Northern Alliance thugs we now supported run 90% of the country and the people are way worse off.