View Single Post
  #57  
Old April 24th 04, 05:00 AM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John Cook" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 09:46:48 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"John Cook" wrote in message
.. .

The same UN whose units from Pakistan and Malaysia rescued the

US
Marines in Somalia after the US decided on some 'unilateral

decisive
force' was in order, see 'Blackhawk down' for the most US

friendly
'version' of events.

LOL! You are truly clueless. Can you tell me which USMC unit they
"rescued"?
Ah I think I see what your getting at the 'Marines' I Mentioned from
Memory were 'Rangers' and 'Delta force' that were rescued - at least I
think that's what you are on about?.


Are the Rangers and Delta guys Marines? You can't even get your basic

facts
right, amigo.


Ah I can now see where your coming from,just because I got the units
name wrong, then whole basic premise of the UN rescuing the (insert
actual units in trouble and desperate for help) is false!,
fascinating!.

Kevin world is a scary place isn't it.


You still are having difficulty with facts. Go back and reread Bowden. Or
you could peruse UN documents:
"After the June 1993 events, UNOSOM II pursued a coercive disarmament
programme in south Mogadishu. Active patrolling, weapons confiscations, and
operations were directed at the militia and depots of General Aidid's
faction (USC/SNA). A public information campaign was instituted to explain
these activities to the population. In support of the UNOSOM II mandate,
United States forces -- the United States Rangers and the Quick Reaction
Force -- were deployed in Mogadishu. These forces were not under United
Nations command and control. As part of the coercive programme, the Rangers
launched an operation in south Mogadishu on 3 October 1993, aimed at
capturing a number of key aides of General Aidid who were suspected of
complicity in the 5 June attack and subsequent attacks on United Nations
personnel and facilities. The operation succeeded in apprehending 24
suspects, including two key aides to General Aidid."

http://www.un.org/Depts/DPKO/Missions/unosom2b.htm

That kind of disagrees with your posit that the US was not acting in
accordance with the UN wishes and established policies (or was conducting
what you referred to as "unilateral decisive force" operations). And I
believe if you go back and read the appropriate sections of "Blackhawk
Down", you will find that those Paki and Malaysian units would not budge
without being accompanied by US personnel (in the tracks, IIRC).




You use them sparingly, in conjunction with foreign peacekeepers and
local police, remember were trying to diffuse a difficult situation
created by a gung ho attitude, that's not easy to dispel, if at all
possible.


What "gung ho" attitude? Any specific cites to support that? And it is

nice
to know that you have now backed away from your original plan to discard

the
US forces on "Day One"...


OK here goes, can you name one instance in the USA where 4 homicides
were committed where the US military bombed the local area from
helicopters, tanks, heavy machine guns etc etc etc. in the hope of
citizens handing over the murderers? hell half of New York would be
flat...




Idiot. That construct is so preposterous, not to mention being inappropriate
to the extreme, as to be ludicrous. You are trying to equate stability and
support operations in Iraq with criminal prosecution here in the US? You
been smoking eucalyptus leaves, or what?



Your assertions re Day one are absurd, perhaps in future discussion
you should define what everything means in 'Kevin world' to avoid you
looking like a red necked 'kill them all and let god sort them out'
fellow.




That was YOUR posit. Remember? You said on "day one" the US forces should be
returned to their bases and let this strange, and undefined,
instantaneously-formed uber-force of "others" assume the security role. Only
later did you backpeddle and claim that (to paraphrase), "Well, what I
*really* meant was that the US forces would just have to stay out of sight,
but they would have to provide support (such as getting these "others" into
the theater in the first place, and of course, any *real* fighting would
still be done by US forces..."



Day one means the first day of operations, this doesn't mean you can't
have all the necessary forces and supplies in place for this event,




Your words: "...the UN _with_the Arab league should pull all US troops back
into their bases on day
one, The local police force should do patrols and only be backed up by
military forces with the police having the say on when force is to be
employed and when to back off.(the sooner the Iraqi's see an Eastern
soldier instead of US/UK forces the better)." Note no mention of a continued
role for US forces, your having established a preference for those "eastern"
troops, and note that on "day one" you are shuffling the US (and UK
apparently) forces out of the picture.

First day of the Iraq war didn't mean the US rushing around packing
their bags ready to go to Iraq, they were there, in force, supplied
and ready to go...
What's the definition in Kevin's world?


We are dealing with YOUR claims, amigo. Which have been shown to be
uproarously unrealistic--so much so that you subsequently have hemmed and
hawed that we 8really* would still have a military role when the real
fightin' has to be done... Sorry, but your view of ceding control to a token
UN force, while now you want to retain the US forces to do the actual
fighting when required, is just plain laughable.



OK I'm fed up with this thread - Check out someone who you can
identify with he-


Heck, I was fed up by the time I got to the last post, but it was so

darned
fun pointing out that your personal critique of the "strategy and

tactics"
(and where do you lump in operational art, oh-annointed-one?) was based

upon
zilch/zero/nada experience or knowledge of things military, not to

mention
reminding you of your continual and rabid anti-US bias in all things,
commercial and governmental, that I figured it would be worth staying
engaged.



Rabid anti US bias ;l-), What's the description you reserve for Al Qa
ida members or Osama Kevin? please tell me as your description of me
doesn't leave you much room to improve (you have to laugh don't you!!
such a patently red faced, vein popping description for someone who
only criticizes the US, )
I have cited a pro US post re the JSF, where's your pro UN one Kevin?.


Where have you cited it? You made a claim, but did not provide a cite to
back it up. I went through three years of your posts and found nothing that
could be taken as anything but anti-US whenever the subject arose. Where is
that cite?


I'm fine with you having your opinion, but I would like to know if
there are a lot more like you where you live?, (I'm thinking of
booking a holiday and want to avoid areas full of raving extremists)


In your case, you should probably avoid the US as a whole, given your
demonstrated proclivities.

Enough of this. You can have the last (undoubtedly anti-US again) word. You
have proven that you are really quite clueless when it comes to military
tactics, strategy, and for that matter common sense, so it is hopeless to
try and make you understand reality. Have a nice day.

Brooks




So you equate being a member of the Baath Party as being de facto proof

that
they are known hostiles? Quite a leap you are making there.


Its all about definitions Kevin these people were defined by _your_
Government as hostile before the war, after the war, during the
first year of occupation (remember the 'debaathisation' comments
from your Government), now there's a change of policy and there OK to
join the new improved Iraq.


"There has been some criticism of US tactics from British, Polish and
other commanders."


LOL! There is *always* criticism--even internally, within US forces, no
doubt. Par for the course. So what? My favorite Patton quote went

something
like, "If everyone is in agreement, then someone is not thinking."


Do all your friends agree with you, by any chance?


But there all Anti American aren't they, perhaps you wish to share
your thoughts as to why these two US generals are wrong, as to Why
the British are wrong, and the polish too..


No, YOU are anti-American, by dint of your past tirades; they just

disagree.
Even you should be able to see the difference.


Apparently the news today is the rest of Washington is coming round
to their way of thinking too, time for some fancy footwork Kevin.

Baathist to join the new Iraqi regime!!, (I know I know, these are
Good Baathists, bad baathists need not apply);-).
Hmmm. sort makes you wonder what happened to all the 'Good Nazi's'
doesn't it.



Out of time to debate this with you further at this point.


No your getting a reality readjustment, the 'US centric' view of the
world has to go through this when it actually meets the rest of the
world, In case you hadn't noticed the Internet is global (I really
should define 'global' as inclusive of outside of the US)

Go back to your
"Typhoon is Great, and All US Aircraft are Turkeys" website


That's the best thing you've said!, it neatly brings us back on
topic. (My apologies to the group for filling it up OT stuff, I offer
my humble apologies, I couldn't just sit here and not try to help
Kevin get a clue to the opinions of the global village we live in)

and general
bashing of us Yanks,


You don't need bashing, but a collective 'checkup from the neckup'
might be beneficial ;-)

John--it was more entertaining than this misguided
foray of yours into "strategy and tactics" (neither of which you ever
specifically critiqued...).


Ok its a Gentleman's agreement, we will mention it no more, for the
benifit of international relations and RAM.

Good day to you.


Brooks


John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :-
http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk