Big John wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 06:25:03 GMT, wrote:


Quoting you.

"While waiting for pickup, the troops formed a perimeter and a fighter
flew air cover as would be expected for such a situation".

Unquote.

Since you seemed to know it all (quote) "as would be expected for
such a situation" (unquote) I simply asked some technical questions
which I guess you don't have the answers to???? so you now want to
pass the buck.

The first part was directly paraphrased from the AP article.

The second part was based on 30 years in the Army.

What would you expect the troops to do stranded in hostile territory
with a bunch of civilians and VIP's, curl up in The fetal position and sob?

If you are going to put your name to patently erroneous data, you
should be prepared to qualify the data or say this is what was
reported and by whom. We would then know you were not setting yourself
up as a expert on what happened thousands of miles away.

You could always read the AP article yourself, then get back to me
on that snide "patently erroneous data" remark.

More questions, since you believe everything in the media or from the
mouths of politicians. What kind of a Chopper was it and how many
'troops' were aboard to form a perimeter?

The article didn't say.

And you can stuff that "since you believe everything in the media or from
the mouths of politicians" remark up your ass.

Were there two choppers, one with the VIP's and one with a squad or so
of troops for security.

According to the article, which you obviously have still failed to read,
there were at least two; one with the VIP's and one with the VIP
staff.


This is how I would have scheduled the mission. It would have given
100% back up of equipment and safety.

It is a good thing you weren't in charge.

Command requires thinking, not emotional outbursts based on wild ass
supposition, such as I didn't read the AP report.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.