Well im under the impression that in Iraq when the Americans are on patrol in bagdag that they didnt allow any vehicles to come close to them. The Americans give warning shots and then shoot to kill any vehicle that comes close to them. They dont get held up in traffic or blown up as much because of this. Are our guys doing the same? If not, then why?
Babblings of an Idiot- 'Skid' RoperAB's Demise
- Thread starter RoperAB
- Start date
- Status
- Reaction score
- 63
- Points
- 530
Roper what you are asking falls under OPSEC, although I think we had a discussion about this here earlier this year. Someone can correct me but convoys operate under rules of engagement. The ROE dictate what you can and cannot do to defend the convoy. I dont have any operational experience in theater but having read many AAR's it is difficult to determine the difference between a stupid driver and a threat. In Baghdad US troops may fire on a vehicle that gets within a certain distance of the convoy but these attacks can come from any direction and unless you are prepared to fire at anything near you there isnt a whole lot you can do. The best defense is getting the locals to tell you if there is a bomb factory or some other useful tip that might lead to the arrest of a terrorist cell in town.
- Reaction score
- 16,906
- Points
- 1,260
Many patrols operate with a a bubble -- anything entering the bubble is warned off, failing that it is neutralized.
However while you have some standoff from the rear -- the front and side is tougher to enforce a bubble to a distance that will provide protection.
However while you have some standoff from the rear -- the front and side is tougher to enforce a bubble to a distance that will provide protection.
Infidel-6 said:
So its not wishy washy rules of engagement thats getting our boys killed?
Why not have a 50 caliber machine gun mounted on a turret. Any civilian vehicle that gets close enough to be a threat should be considered Alqaudi and shot repeatedly. Wouldnt a 50 cal provide enough of a safety bubble?
Maybe if we started looking at this as a war Against Afghanistan instead of a war against the Taliban/Alqada we would have less casualties on our side?
Here is my civilian take on the war
How can a Marshall plan work when we dont even have the borders secure over there?
Our military is there or should be there for one porpose. Eliminate the terrorest activity in that region. I dont care about the locals. Plus I dont think you can buy love from a prostitute and im getting the impression thats what we have been trying to do over there.
Afghanistan is important to the Taliban/AlQuadi because of the money that can be raised with the opium trade.
My point of view is that instead of this nation building we should simple destroy the opium/farming capibilities of the region. My understanding is that its only a small percentage of the land thats good enough to grow crops. We should be useing pesticides that will leave the land infertile long term!
Make this part of the country glow in the dark if you have to. Then our soldiers can come home. Then it doesnt matter who or what war lord occupies Afghanistan. Its not worth fighting for. The wont be able to use it to raise money for their armys.
We have to take away their oil and dope money and make em poor. Regular farming will never be done over there plus why would you want to see that. The last thing we need is more grains on the world market!
BTW it was said or implied on here about Canadian Farmers getting subsidized. Well that might be true in Ontario and Quebec but it sure isnt the case for beef producers or farmers in western Canada . As far as the wheat board goes its just an over grown beaucracy that puts westerners in jail for trying to do the same thing that eastern farmers can legally do. Market their own product!
Also we <Alberta> just elected a friendly provincial leader out here. This is only because of the Federal Harper government. If you elect Dion federaly, well everything will change out here but thats a whole other topic.
How can a Marshall plan work when we dont even have the borders secure over there?
Our military is there or should be there for one porpose. Eliminate the terrorest activity in that region. I dont care about the locals. Plus I dont think you can buy love from a prostitute and im getting the impression thats what we have been trying to do over there.
Afghanistan is important to the Taliban/AlQuadi because of the money that can be raised with the opium trade.
My point of view is that instead of this nation building we should simple destroy the opium/farming capibilities of the region. My understanding is that its only a small percentage of the land thats good enough to grow crops. We should be useing pesticides that will leave the land infertile long term!
Make this part of the country glow in the dark if you have to. Then our soldiers can come home. Then it doesnt matter who or what war lord occupies Afghanistan. Its not worth fighting for. The wont be able to use it to raise money for their armys.
We have to take away their oil and dope money and make em poor. Regular farming will never be done over there plus why would you want to see that. The last thing we need is more grains on the world market!
BTW it was said or implied on here about Canadian Farmers getting subsidized. Well that might be true in Ontario and Quebec but it sure isnt the case for beef producers or farmers in western Canada . As far as the wheat board goes its just an over grown beaucracy that puts westerners in jail for trying to do the same thing that eastern farmers can legally do. Market their own product!
Also we <Alberta> just elected a friendly provincial leader out here. This is only because of the Federal Harper government. If you elect Dion federaly, well everything will change out here but thats a whole other topic.
- Reaction score
- 5,522
- Points
- 1,360
just locking this for a few minutes so I can find a thread to refer him to before the pile-on....bear with me.
http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/24-The-Afghanistan-Debate.html
EDIT
Roper AB, Ok....this may be the best place to start. I ask you to refrain from posting in this thread again until you have done so.
Bruce
http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/24-The-Afghanistan-Debate.html
EDIT
Roper AB, Ok....this may be the best place to start. I ask you to refrain from posting in this thread again until you have done so.
Bruce
- Reaction score
- 16,906
- Points
- 1,260
RoperAB,
I would suggest your comments are WAY out of line. Supporting Afghanistan is the reason the CF is deployed.
Secondly even in Iraq you cannot simply shoot any vehicle that is close.
Comments like yours are illinformed and out to lunch and quite frankly counter productive and IF implemented the way you wish woudl result in more Canadian deaths for no-reason at all.
I would suggest your comments are WAY out of line. Supporting Afghanistan is the reason the CF is deployed.
Secondly even in Iraq you cannot simply shoot any vehicle that is close.
Comments like yours are illinformed and out to lunch and quite frankly counter productive and IF implemented the way you wish woudl result in more Canadian deaths for no-reason at all.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Roper,
We are not Nazis or Soviets. We don't raze and conquer. Leaving Afghanistan as it was led to the export of Terror to North American shores. Follow that logic to its' inevitable conclusion, and you will readily pick out the fallacies of your "foreign policy a la Attila the Hun".
That is just about the dumbest thing anyone has posted on here. Don't do it again.
Staff.
We are not Nazis or Soviets. We don't raze and conquer. Leaving Afghanistan as it was led to the export of Terror to North American shores. Follow that logic to its' inevitable conclusion, and you will readily pick out the fallacies of your "foreign policy a la Attila the Hun".
That is just about the dumbest thing anyone has posted on here. Don't do it again.
Staff.
Bruce Monkhouse said:
Thanks for the link. I read it all.
Honestly I dont believe it. To me thats just spin and I think its a mistake because it limits what we can do.
My biggest concern is for our side. They attacked our friends<Americans 9/11> and thats the same as an attack on us. As far as im concerned the best way is whatever way causes us the least amount of casualties and gets the job done.
- Reaction score
- 5,522
- Points
- 1,360
Well we have hundreds of soldiers on here, WHO HAVE BEEN OR ARE IN AFGHANISTAN, that say thats the way it is..........and you have been where?
- Reaction score
- 4,310
- Points
- 1,160
RoperAB said:
That must be just about the dumbest thing I've read in the past 60 years - since I learned to read.
You might find a more congenial home at neandertal.ca or, maybe, sillybloodytwit.ca. I recommend you grow up or move along.
- Reaction score
- 5,522
- Points
- 1,360
RoperAB said:
As you wish, Buttercup.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
no need for anyone to add to it. Just read and heed, folks. It'll go away soon, but some of you can use the reading to get an idea of what your Mods deal with on a DAILY BASIS.
- Status
Similar threads
