Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: miko2d on April 01, 2003, 08:54:23 AM
-
john9001: Mogadishu, thats where a handfull of special forces killed about a thousand somollies.
miko: For no apparent purpose.
Martlet: not apparent to you, anyway. Try informing yourself. If you have trouble, ask. Someone will gladly fill you in.
I gladly accept your offer to enlighten me. Let me review the extent of my ignorance and misapprehension so that you know where to start.
We decided to go to Somali to arrest or kill a single person Mohamed Farrah Aidid who was apparently doing what hundreds of thousands of warlords do in third-world countries every day - engaged in low-intensity internecine warfare.
We failed in that purpose, lost some troops and equipment and killed a lot of peasants to improve our statistics.
Aidid was not materially affected by losing a few hundred peasants since one thing such places have in abundance are pesants.
In fact, I believe Aidid must have had real trouble sending away all the volunteers willing to serve him after he defeated the mighty USA and threw it out of his country and made a laughingstock out of our troops.
The effect would have been even more beneficial to him if our president did not selflessly undertake a distraction campaign that had the world's attention diverted towards his sexual antics.
The situation in Somali is no worse and no betteer than if we had removed Aidid or if we never came there art all.
Besides a spectacular filming of the amphibious assault by US marines against a beach filled with reporters, what purpose was accomplished by our involvement and killing of those peasants?
miko
-
Our purpose was capture of Aidid. We failed.
We did not go shooting "peasents" to "improve statistics" my dear boy, the US forces were attacked by militia after failing to capture the man and responded. Really simple.
Then Clinton pulled out and showed the rest of the third world that America will leave if attacked.
Then four planes were hijacked and three were flown into buildings in New York and Washington.
-
Sure, I'd be more than happy to help.
First, we obviously have to correct your facts. You are mistaken about why we were there, and obviously about how operators run. Since you are obviously VERY misinformed, I'm going to start you off small.
Here's a few books I have read. They are actually accounts from both sides, and not entirely pro US. I feel they paint an accurate picture. Some of them contain notes from my friends, as my team was present in that arena of action.
Black Hawk Down: Good for US perspective of the actual combat, and UN involvement.
Somalia: Good Intentions, Deadly Results. Contains some interesting interviews from both sides. Gives a fairly unbiased Somali point of view
Ambush in Mogadishu: Similiar to BHD, but contains a good timeline of events prior and past.
Ma-alinti Rangers: Very anti american, but good perspective of the Somali side.
When you finish those, let me know. We'll discuss them, and I'll give you a few more suggestions.
-
You're not willing to actually debate Miko's points?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
You're not willing to actually debate Miko's points?
He didn't really open any points to debate, did he? Maybe I'm tired, but I don't have the desire right now to enter into a mindless bash fest.
Accusing the US of going there, not accomplishing a task, then just whacking peasants in frustration isn't an invitation to debate.
Like I said, when he reads the papers I suggested, has enough information to at least make an intelligent, informed opening statement, I'll be happy to debate him.
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
Our purpose was capture of Aidid. We failed.
We did not go shooting "peasents" to "improve statistics" my dear boy, the US forces were attacked by militia after failing to capture the man and responded. Really simple.
Then Clinton pulled out and showed the rest of the third world that America will leave if attacked.
Then four planes were hijacked and three were flown into buildings in New York and Washington.
You're joking right?
Tronsky
-
The books descri be how combat took place. I have a good idea already - casualties, efficiency of weapons, specific weapons used, etc.
Being an ex-military and a (prospective) armed cirtizen - making a choice of a weapon at that time - I subjected the details of the battle to a detailed scrutiny - not just the book but the published opinions of experts and conversations with ex-military types on various boards.
AR-15 is a very popular rifle in US and it's failure to perform in Mogadishy - the short-barreled CAR rifles in particular was of a great concern.
I certainly went with a 5.56x45 chambered weapon instead of 7.62x39 under the influence of the fact that only 18 US troops were killed but 77 survived compared to hundreds of somalis killed outright.
Anyway, the tactics and battle plans are not in question. Neiter, it appears to be an outcome. Many dea, no aideed.
I cannot pose a question any better (open points to debate as you say it) since you stated that I do not know something and I cannot ask what I don't know I need to ask. So I disclosed my total views and let you frame the question for me and answer it.
I was not expecting a debate here but a lecture. Still waiting, btw.
Saurdaukar: We did not go shooting "peasents" to "improve statistics" my dear boy...
You personally may beleive so but in the thread from which this discussion branched out it was something like this:
"Mogadishu, thats where a handfull of special forces killed about a thousand somollies." - in a sence of accomplishment rather than botched operation that was supposed to be bloodless.
and:
"I am a bit surprised that any one could believe that. Werent like 3000 somalis killed for 18 us?
The US surely wasnt beaten they just pulled out and I cant think anyone can doudt that even with that light force they could have killed thousands more." - as long as we kill a lot of people, we can't say we are at a loss, right? And any screwed up operation can be remedied this way - pile up some corpses and report a resounding victory.
miko
-
Jeez, Miko you are going to be burned alive by the gravedancers!! :eek:
:D
-
BUsh the first started the mess in somolia and clinton did the right thing pulling them out of there before it became another vietnam. We shouldnt have gone in there in the first place.
-
Apparently, it would have been OK to pull out before the Mogadishu fiasco. After it we were supposed to exterminate those pesky people to instill fear in the world, not show them our "weakness"
That would have prevented 9/11 and emergence of Euro, right?
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
The books descri be how combat took place. I have a good idea already - casualties, efficiency of weapons, specific weapons used, etc.
Being an ex-military and a (prospective) armed cirtizen - making a choice of a weapon at that time - I subjected the details of the battle to a detailed scrutiny - not just the book but the published opinions of experts and conversations with ex-military types on various boards.
AR-15 is a very popular rifle in US and it's failure to perform in Mogadishy - the short-barreled CAR rifles in particular was of a great concern.
I certainly went with a 5.56x45 chambered weapon instead of 7.62x39 under the influence of the fact that only 18 US troops were killed but 77 survived compared to hundreds of somalis killed outright.
Anyway, the tactics and battle plans are not in question. Neiter, it appears to be an outcome. Many dea, no aideed.
I cannot pose a question any better (open points to debate as you say it) since you stated that I do not know something and I cannot ask what I don't know I need to ask. So I disclosed my total views and let you frame the question for me and answer it.
I was not expecting a debate here but a lecture. Still waiting, btw.
Saurdaukar: We did not go shooting "peasents" to "improve statistics" my dear boy...
You personally may beleive so but in the thread from which this discussion branched out it was something like this:
"Mogadishu, thats where a handfull of special forces killed about a thousand somollies." - in a sence of accomplishment rather than botched operation that was supposed to be bloodless.
and:
"I am a bit surprised that any one could believe that. Werent like 3000 somalis killed for 18 us?
The US surely wasnt beaten they just pulled out and I cant think anyone can doudt that even with that light force they could have killed thousands more." - as long as we kill a lot of people, we can't say we are at a loss, right? And any screwed up operation can be remedied this way - pile up some corpses and report a resounding victory.
miko
Again, it's school time. As soon as you finish the homework I assigned you, instead of taking guesses as to it's content, I'll continue my lecture.
Your obvious failure to try and educate yourself leaves me thankful I didn't take the time to start the lecture forthwith.
-
Martlet: Again, it's school time. As soon as you finish the homework I assigned you, instead of taking guesses as to it's content, I'll continue my lecture.
Your obvious failure to try and educate yourself leaves me thankful I didn't take the time to start the lecture forthwith.
You are full of BS as always. I've just posted a list of books last week that I've ordered at Amazon here (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=82157) - some advised by members of this board who cared enough to give me a taste of their content. Besides them I have a few dozen more waiting to be read on the shelf, accumulated over the last year and a half, subscribtion to "The Economist" and an 18-month boy to raise - that is besides my work and work-related reading and web research.
Yeah, I will drop everything and start reading the books which apparently did not make you any less of a bigoted idiot. If you do not want to tell us your big secret, f#ck off.
Someone else will find a few minutes to enlighten me.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Martlet: Again, it's school time. As soon as you finish the homework I assigned you, instead of taking guesses as to it's content, I'll continue my lecture.
Your obvious failure to try and educate yourself leaves me thankful I didn't take the time to start the lecture forthwith.
You are full of BS as always. I've just posted a list of books last week that I've ordered at Amazon here (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=82157) - some advised by members of this board who cared enough to give me a taste of their content. Besides them I have a few dozen more waiting to be read on the shelf, accumulated over the last year and a half, subscribtion to "The Economist" and an 18-month boy to raise - that is besides my work and work-related reading and web research.
Yeah, I will drop everything and start reading the books which apparently did not make you any less of a bigoted idiot. If you do not want to tell us your big secret, f#ck off.
Someone else will find a few minutes to enlighten me.
miko
Obviously, my refusal to be drawn into another one of your propaganda driven bait fests has ticked you off. You not having the time or the desire to educate yourself is hardly my problem, nor does it make me a bigoted idiot.
Keep posting your nonsense. Now that I see it is based on groundless speculation, it will bring me many good laughs. Hopefully your boy will grow up to receive a good american education, and forgive you for your ignorance.
Good Luck.
-
i dont think it would have prevented 9/11 at all. these guys dont care of reprisals, they just want to take out as many of us on their way down.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Again, it's school time. As soon as you finish the homework I assigned you, instead of taking guesses as to it's content, I'll continue my lecture.
Your obvious failure to try and educate yourself leaves me thankful I didn't take the time to start the lecture forthwith.
Man, you are looking like a handsomehunk here. You should stop. Really.
F.
-
Originally posted by Furious
Man, you are looking like a handsomehunk here. You should stop. Really.
F.
As usual, Furious chimes in with a self description.
-
Furious (to Martlet): Man, you are looking like a handsomehunk here. You should stop. Really.
From that I conclude you've just saw his posts for the first time.
Here and everywhere it's pretty much the same. :)
miko
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Obviously, my refusal to be drawn into another one of your propaganda driven bait fests has ticked you off. You not having the time or the desire to educate yourself is hardly my problem, nor does it make me a bigoted idiot.
Keep posting your nonsense. Now that I see it is based on groundless speculation, it will bring me many good laughs. Hopefully your boy will grow up to receive a good american education, and forgive you for your ignorance.
Good Luck.
Damn, didn't get to you in time.
But, please do stop. Your posts here contain no information, only invective.
You are telling us that you have full understanding of the event, but can't be bothered to "educate" us poor handsomehunkes? Come on. That's just a lame assed cop-out.
F.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Furious (to Martlet): Man, you are looking like a handsomehunk here. You should stop. Really.
From that I conclude you've just saw his posts for the first time.
Here and everywhere it's pretty much the same. :)
miko
More educated information!
Welcome to AMERICA!
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Saurdaukar: We did not go shooting "peasents" to "improve statistics" my dear boy...
You personally may beleive so but in the thread from which this discussion branched out it was something like this:
"Mogadishu, thats where a handfull of special forces killed about a thousand somollies." - in a sence of accomplishment rather than botched operation that was supposed to be bloodless.
and:
"I am a bit surprised that any one could believe that. Werent like 3000 somalis killed for 18 us?
The US surely wasnt beaten they just pulled out and I cant think anyone can doudt that even with that light force they could have killed thousands more." - as long as we kill a lot of people, we can't say we are at a loss, right? And any screwed up operation can be remedied this way - pile up some corpses and report a resounding victory.
IIRC, the post in question was in response to a claim that we were beaten badly. While we failed the mission, we werent exactly kicked out by force. In response to attack by militia, US forces simply defended themselves. If you are implying that we think the operation was a success because of the number of skinny KIA's, I think your really reaching.
In addition, I dont think Inspector Gadget could reach far enough with his go-go Gadget arms to imply that US forces went on a rampage of frustration, shooting civilians because they failed to capture the man.
I guess Im just failing to see where youre going with this beyond the usual "US Military = Bad bad men" and "US Military supporters = Bad bad evil armchair Nazis."
:confused:
-
Originally posted by Martlet
More educated information!
Welcome to AMERICA!
Your not gonna stop, are you?
It's funny to me, and I only care, because I think that you think you are truly winning this "debate".
That is a lovely sentence.
anyway. have fun.
F.
-
somolia, in brief
> people starving because of years of civil war
> UN sends food to feed people , war lords steal food
> UN sends in troops to distribute food to people, people now have food,( US sent marines w/armor, air planes.)
>new pres clinton pulls marines out, decides to capture war lord, US military says "we need armor back, clinton says no.
>US tries to capture war lord, helos shot down , troops traped, other US troops have to commandear paki APC's at gun point to get traped US troops out.
> clinton pulls all US troops out.
-
Originally posted by Furious
Your not gonna stop, are you?
It's funny to me, and I only care, because I think that you think you are truly winning this "debate".
That is a lovely sentence.
anyway. have fun.
F.
As I stated in my first post, if I felt that it was an honest quest for information, then I would be more than happy to post my opinion and the facts I have gathered and experienced. It isn't a big secret.
To do that, would be to sit down and right for an extended period of time.
He didn't post this to actually get my opinion, he pretty much stated that with his initial bulltoejam post. I'd rather banter with him about garbage than take the time to write about something I feel strongly about, when it isn't going to be read anyway.
-
Sorry, Martlet.
I have not placed a sigle person on my ignore list ever so far - even MG on agw.
But your posts refer to me, occupy a lot of space with worthless quotation of the whole previous posts and contain zero information - thus being an annoying distraction.
It's enough that Kanth uses my quote in his signature with my name in red, making me pause every time I scroll by.
The variety of invective you've addressed to me is apparently exhausted and you are already repeating yourself.
So save yourself the wear and tear on your fingers.
See you. Er - actually I won't... Life is too short to read all the worthless crap.
miko out
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Sorry, Martlet.
I have not placed a sigle person on my ignore list ever so far - even MG on agw.
But your posts refer to me, occupy a lot of space with worthless quotation of the whole previous posts and contain zero information - thus being an annoying distraction.
It's enough that Kanth uses my quote in his signature with my name in red, making me pause every time I scroll by.
The variety of invective you've addressed to me is apparently exhausted and you are already repeating yourself.
So save yourself the wear and tear on your fingers.
See you. Er - actually I won't... Life is too short to read all the worthless crap.
miko out
hmmm, I'll accept your not so gracious defeat.
-
hmmm, I'll accept your not so gracious defeat.
You what? lol
You didn't address any points in his post and topped your non-engagement with a 'go read a book, ignorant fool' response.
How can he be defeated, if you couldn't (wouldn't) take to the field?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
You what? lol
You didn't address any points in his post and topped your non-engagement with a 'go read a book, ignorant fool' response.
He didn't raise any points in his post. He blathered complete and flagrant nonsense.
-
Why is flagrant nonsense?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Why is flagrant nonsense?
http://www.dictionary.com
-
Thinking faster than I type, I missed the word 'it', otherwise the sentence is fine.
Why is it flagrant nonsense?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
I missed the word 'it', otherwise the sentence is fine.
Why is it flagrant nonsense?
I thought you were asking what is flagrant nonsense, asking for a definition.
stating that, after failing their objective, the troops began killing local "peasants" to raise their kill count is an outright lie, stated only to elicit a response. ANYONE that has enough fundemental knowledge to even form an opinion, right or wrong, knows this.
I answered crap with crap.
-
Dowding - save your eyes and fingers too. Follow my example.
Don't we provide enough disagreable stuff for each other to argue about that does have some content? Or do you still hope to get something novel? If you do - however unlikely it is - post a note for me, please.
miko
-
Originally posted by Dowding
...Why is it flagrant nonsense?
Because saying that is easier.
-
Originally posted by Furious
Because saying that is easier.
apparently you missed my explanation.
Gonna dive in? Or just keep taking shots from the sidelines?
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
BUsh the first started the mess in somolia and clinton did the right thing pulling them out of there before it became another vietnam. We shouldnt have gone in there in the first place.
But... but ...... Frogman.... it was blessed by the sainted UN Security Council as an approved operation. Surely we must all support the UN?
**********
Civil War and famine
Long-time dictator Siad Barre is forced out of Mogadishu in January, 1991. Conflict between the Somali National Movement (SNM), Aidid's party, and other factions causes clan infighting, leading to famine and lawlessness throughout portions of the country. An estimated 300,000 Somalis die of starvation during the year of civil war that followed Barre's ouster.
March 3
Ceasefire
Warring faction leaders sign a ceasefire agreement, which includes provisions to allow a UN monitoring mission into Somalia to oversee arrangements for providing humanitarian assistance.
April 24
UN Military Observers to Somalia
UN Security Council approves UN operation in Somalia, pursuant to the ceasefire agreement. In July, 50 unarmed UN military observers are deployed to Mogadishu to monitor the ceasefire.
August 15
Operation Provide Relief (United Nations Operation in Somalia -- UNOSOM I)
UN humanitarian relief effort begins.
December 4
US President George Bush launches Somalia intervention
Deteriorating security prevents the UN mission from delivering food and supplies to the starving Somalis. Relief flights are looted upon landing, food convoys are hijacked and aid workers assaulted. The UN appeals to its members to provide military forces to assist the humanitarian operation.[/color]
With only weeks left in his term as president, George Bush responds to the UN request, proposing that US combat troops lead an international UN force to secure the environment for relief operations. On December 5, the UN accepts his offer, and Bush orders 25,000 US troops into Somalia. On December 9th, the first US Marines land on the beach.
Bush assures the American people and troops involved that this is not an open ended commitment; the objective is to quickly provide a secure environment so that food can get through to the starving Somalis, and then the operation will be turned over to the UN peacekeeping forces. He assures the public that he plans for the troops to be home by Clinton's inauguration in January.
This US-led United Task Force (UNITAF) is dubbed "Operation Restore Hope."
January
Clinton takes over
Clinton, like Bush, is anxious to scale down the American military presence in Somalia and let the United Nations take charge.
March 15 -28
Addis Ababa Accords
The UN organized Conference on National Reconciliation in Somalia, held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, results in a resolution among faction leaders, including Aidid, to end the violence.
May 4
UN takeover; "nation building" (UNOSOM II)
In March, the UN authorizes UNOSOM II, a UN operation with expanded enforcement power, whose mandate stressed "the crucial importance of disarmament" (lol.. ring any bells?) of the Somali people. This UN-led mission was to take over from the US-led UNITAF. The expanded operation's new mission goes beyond simply providing humanitarian relief, calling for the UN to facilitate "nation building," to get Somalia back on its feet by restoring law and order, shoring up the infrastructure, and helping to set up processes for establishing a representative government. By the end of March, 28 different nations send contingents to Somalia in support of the new militarized operation. The US officially hands over the command to the UN on May 4.
While Clinton supported this expansion of the UN's mandate, he simultaneously ordered the number of US troops in Somalia to be reduced and replaced by UN troops. By June, only 1,200 US combat soldiers remained in Somalia, with 3,000 support troops.
June 5
Massacre of Pakistani troops; the hunt for Aidid
During an inspection of a Somali arms weapons storage site, 24 Pakistani soldiers are ambushed and massacred. The next day, the UN Security Council issues an emergency resolution calling for the apprehension of "those responsible" for the massacre. Though Aidid is not specifically named in the resolution, it is, in effect, a call to apprehend him. Twelve days later, Admiral Howe orders Aidid's arrest, offering a $25,000 reward for information leading to his apprehension.
June 8
Special Forces requested
In the aftermath of the June 5 massacre, Admiral Howe first requests a counterterrorist hostage rescue force from Washington because they he they needed more extensive military capability to deal with the escalating violence. No such troops are forthcoming until Task Force Ranger is deployed in August.
June 12-16
Attacks on Aidid's strongholds
US and UN troops begin attacking various targets in Mogadishu associated with Aidid, including a radio station and ammunition depots. The peacekeepers are now at war with Aidid.
July 12
Abdi house attack
In a major escalation, American Cobra helicopters attack a house in south Mogadishu where a group of clan leaders are meeting, destroying the building with TOW missiles and cannon fire and killing a number of Somalis. Four western journalists who had gone to investigate are beaten to death by an angry mob.
July 29
Last sighting of Aidid
August 8
Americans killed by land mines
Four American military police are killed by a remote detonated land mine set off by Somalis. Two weeks later, six more US soldiers are wounded in a similar attack. This gets attention in America, and shortly thereafter, Task Force Ranger is deployed to Somalia.
August 26
US Special Forces arrive in Somalia
US Army Task Force Ranger flies into Mogadishu -- 440 elite troops from Delta Force and the U.S. Rangers. Led by Major General William F. Garrison, their mission is to capture Aidid. They begin pursuing Aidid and his top lieutenants, with sporadic success.
September
Carter negotiating with Aidid
In the midst of the manhunt, the Clinton administration opens a secret initiative to negotiate with Aidid. Former president Jimmy Carter, who had a previous relationship with Aidid, volunteers to act as intermediary. The US military commanders in Mogadishu are not informed about this new initiative. [/color]
September
Request for armored reinforcements denied
In a decision that is later highly criticized, US Defense Secretary Les Aspin denies requests from General Montgomery for armored reinforcements, despite support for Montgomery's request from General Colin Powell. Aspin says that he did not want to create the appearance that the US was increasing forces in Somalia at a time when they were trying to reduce military presence. He later concedes,"Had I known at the time what I knew after the events of Sunday, [October 3]. I would have made a very different decision." In December, he is forced to resign.
October 3-4
Firefight
Task Force Ranger's assault on the Olympic Hotel in Mogadishu, in search of Aidid, results in a seventeen hour bloody battle in which 18 US soldiers are killed and 84 are wounded.
October 7
Clinton's response: withdraw troops
President Clinton decides to cut his losses. He sends substantial combat troops as short term reinforcements, but declares that American troops are to be fully withdrawn from Somalia by March 31. The hunt for Aidid is abandoned, and US representatives are sent to resume negotiations with the warlord. Two weeks later, in a letter to President Clinton, General Garrison accepts full responsibility for what happened in the battle.
October 14
Durant released
CWO Mike Durant, who had been taken captive by Aidid's men during the battle, is released along with a Nigerian prisoner.
March 25
Remaining US forces leave Somalia
Approximately 20,000 UN forces remain, composed primarily of Asian and African contingents.
Spring
Final UN withdrawal from Somalia
August 1
Aidid dies
Aidid dies in hospital from bullet wounds received during an outbreak of fighting in Mogadishu.
*****************
But... but... but... but....
It was authorised by the UN Security Council and supported by the 28 different UN nations.
This is how it is SUPPOSED to be done, is it not Frogman?
Yet you say we shouldn't have done it?
:confused: Ambush in Mogadishu from PBS (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ambush/etc/cron.html)
-
Miko,
Do you really think US killed a bunch of people just to improve Stats? If so, you are a big idiot.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Hopefully your boy will grow up to receive a good american education, and forgive you for your ignorance.
Guess here, but i'm 99% sure that Miko2d will be looking for a jewish/russian school for his son simply because only those offer good education. Immigrant schools routinly top the charts of school compeitions in NY state due to their "unamerican" educational approach. Can't say i blame him.
-
Originally posted by fd ski
Guess here, but i'm 99% sure that Miko2d will be looking for a jewish/russian school for his son simply because only those offer good education. Immigrant schools routinly top the charts of school compeitions in NY state due to their "unamerican" educational approach. Can't say i blame him.
care to post some state test stats?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
care to post some state test stats?
You cant trust this stuff - afterall, teachers, frustrated that they didnt get their raise, went on a rampage and failed over 3000 students.
Thankfully, only 18 teachers were fired.
-
fd ski: Guess here, but i'm 99% sure that Miko2d will be looking for a jewish/russian school for his son simply because only those offer good education. Immigrant schools routinly top the charts of school compeitions in NY state due to their "unamerican" educational approach. Can't say i blame him.
Actually, I intend to do as much home-schooling as possible. That is what I am doing righ now - including participation on this board - assembling a curriculum.
I found a decent russian school - if I am still living in Broolkyn in a few years. I am not sure what you mean by a "jewish" one. There are plenty of yeshivahs in Brooklyn but I was not at all sure they give such a good education, based on experience of my friends here. I would rather send him to a nearby Catholic school if I have to content with few hours of religious education a week as a price.
AT the same time I am seriously considering a regular public school with a few hours a week home instruction to counteract the government/liberal propaganda. I do believe that the fact of studying and the inherited smarts - as well as cultural environment provided by family - contribute more to the result that quality of a school.
I supeculate that stidying may be more interesting and involving for a child if it's put in context of "this is a war, let's counteract their lies with search for truth". All children are looking for a cause/excuse to rebel and a way to be different - harnessing that impulse towards constructive purpose of education is my current hope.
Let's see how it works out...
miko
-
Told you he had no interest in learning facts.
Someone actually takes the time to post them, and he completely ignores it.
I rest my case.
-
At work, don't have time for anything but quick search.
http://www.digitalcity.com/longisland/public_schools/
Top High Schools
Stuyvesant High School
http://www.insideschools.org/view/school/958/index
Immigrants and children of immigrants make up a large proportion of the student body
-
Back to the original question.
Toad, I appreciate you posting all that stuff. It was obvious that military did not know what they were supposed to do.
Administartions changed, policies changed, UN goals changed, troop presence changed - drastically, the requests of actuall commanders on the ground were ignored. The goal of getting food for hungry people was replaced with "pacifying"/disarming the population and later with actively interfering into the country's political process and taking sides in the internescine warfare. So far so good.
It looks like the purpose of the Mogadishu raid was not what was originally set when Congress approved sending our troops there - and neigher was accomplished then or elsewhere.
A spectacular casualty ratio was a partiall consolation for our super-troops cornered by a rag-tag crown with allegedely few imbedded foreign Al-Qaeda fighters.
I have only found time to read parts from the Black Hawk book and could not find any mention of the info on the web or elsewhere, so does anyone know anything about it.
Once it was clear that the operation was a total screw-up and there was no Aideed on location and no reason to continue, was there any attempt to raise a white flag, call for a ceasefire and negotiate the safe extrication of our troops from the hotel and the God-forsaken country altgether and save thousands of lifes?
How about such heresy as an outright surrender? Few more heavy weapons in the mob's hands, and the 18 dead might have become much greater number. The commanding officers could not know we would get off that "easily" and there was no reason to continue the operation.
Unlike some, somalis were taking prisoners - and returning them back. It's not like americans never surrender. Could have made a god story - we spared all those people instead of pointlessly killing them. Next week it would have been forgoten. "Few americans make a wrong turn and stray into the enemy's hands. Fortunately no bloodshed." Does not make for a good but not long memorable headline.
BigGun: Do you really think US killed a bunch of people just to improve Stats? If so, you are a big idiot.
I am a big idiot for may other reasons, may be for this one as well. Newertheless...
There are a lot of people even on this board who believe that we should not have entered Somali as a part of UN contingent but that after the Mogadishu fiasco we should not have left because it "showed our weakness" and inspired our enemies. We should have stayed and did some more damage, achieved a "conclusive" victory, piled some more corpses, rearranged the landscape, etc. Only then could we leave with our face saved.
If that is not "improving the stats" and how does that differ from scoring a few kills to make a specific bad situation appear better, please explain the difference to me.
miko
-
I'm with Martlet here.
It's pretty obvious that miko was only trolling for attention. When Martlet didnt take the bait Miko got peed off and put him on ignore...priceless.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Told you he had no interest in learning facts.
Someone actually takes the time to post them, and he completely ignores it.
I rest my case.
This is to damn funny. I, personally, am having a great time in this thread.
You have professed some expertise in this issue.
You refuse to share the expertise.
Someone else posts some information.
You claim victory.
hehehe, Golly-gee that's rich.
more entertainment please
F.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
As I stated in my first post, if I felt that it was an honest quest for information, then I would be more than happy to post my opinion and the facts I have gathered and experienced. It isn't a big secret.
To do that, would be to sit down and right for an extended period of time.
He didn't post this to actually get my opinion, he pretty much stated that with his initial bulltoejam post. I'd rather banter with him about garbage than take the time to write about something I feel strongly about, when it isn't going to be read anyway.
-
Hortlund: It's pretty obvious that miko was only trolling for attention.
That is an obvious BS. Besides the fact that Martlet first addressed me with no substantiation and then refused to continue/elaborate his opinion after I went to trouble of starting a while new thread. Tell me honestly - was there a single line of substance in his posts directed towards me before I stopped reading them? Go ahead, look for yourself.
Why the heck would I need to resort to trolling? I am so "popular" here that my simple tread on avatar sizes generated a record participation in a matter of minutes - that in the midst of all the war crase..
Look an any of the thread where I partcipate. When my points are argued, I always reply with volumnous arguments that can be further addressed, then read and address the counterpoints, etc. I may not have the most posts published here, but by the volume of my posts not counting quotes, I am way up there.
If you think that posting pages of stuff is "only", you have to tell me of a better way to contribute to this board.
miko
-
Originally posted by Martlet
bleh, quit posting that. miko is not the only person reading this.
306 views so far. If you have expertise, teach me. I will read it.
F.
-
Read Toad's post. I don't have really have any information on the politics side of it that isn't posted there already.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
We decided to go to Somali to arrest or kill a single person Mohamed Farrah Aidid who was apparently doing what hundreds of thousands of warlords do in third-world countries every day - engaged in low-intensity internecine warfare.
We failed in that purpose, lost some troops and equipment and killed a lot of peasants to improve our statistics.
This is your trolling miko. I've highlighted the trolling parts.
The first highlight is so outrageously stupid that it can be compared with someone saying that the only reason the US entered ww2 was to remove Hitler from power.
Frankly right there you prove to just about all of us that you dont really have a clue about the how's and why's of Somalia.
The response you got was a suggestion to read a couple of books on the subject. That is a good suggestion, you should take him up on that. I can understand that he doesnt want to dive into some debate about Mogadishu or SF operations in Somalia. The situation can be compared to someone walking up to you saying "I want to discuss the battle of Stalingrad, but I dont know what ww2 was, can you educate me?"
The second part about the kill ratio is trolling...pure and simple. And it pretty much sets the tone of your post. Going back to the Stalingrad example, I mean say you started explaining about ww2 and operation barbarossa and fall blau leading to stalingrad blah blah blah, and after explaining all that it turns out the person asking the question just wanted to get some weird "AHA, so the Germans LOST huh...IN YOUR FACE sucker"-satisfaction out of it.
-
Furious: bleh, quit posting that. miko is not the only person reading this.
What - you probably mean that you want to know something too? That this is not a private thread?
Sorry, you would have to start your own thread - and ask nicely. And once you admit that you may not know everything about the matter - or worse yet, disclose what you think you know and invite that mindview to be examined and attacked in an open honest argument, you no doubt will be labeled a VERY ignorant and unwilling to learn and trolling by Mar, Hortlund and company and sent back to government public school for fresh brainwash.
miko
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Going back to the Stalingrad example, I mean say you started explaining about ww2 and operation barbarossa and fall blau leading to stalingrad blah blah blah, and after explaining all that it turns out the person asking the question just wanted to get some weird "AHA, so the Germans LOST huh...IN YOUR FACE sucker"-satisfaction out of it.
Exactly
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Read Toad's post. I don't have really have any information on the politics side of it that isn't posted there already.
That's it?
-
Originally posted by Furious
That's it?
Yep
What else would you like to know?
-
Hortlund: This is your trolling miko. I've highlighted the trolling parts.
OK, now you are talking, Hortlund.
Guess what - I am perfectly willing to admit that my phrase "We decided to go to Somali to arrest or kill a single person Mohamed Farrah Aidid" was a bit of an exaggeration and should be viewed in context. Should have said "went to the Mogadishu hotel".
Surely everybody knows that we went in to help with the food, etc. and that without the Mogadishu incident or US troops getting killed some other way, nobody would ever remember we've ever been there.
Which is hardly relevant anyway - as I am not talking here about politics, as if slaughter of 3000 peasants contributed to the politics any.
The major event that happened there was US troops going after Aidid, so I concentrated on that.
The post in another thread from which this thread branched out was specifically about the unfulfilled purpose of that particular mission - the Mogadishu raid. If I mistakenly made an impression that I cared to discuss the whole Somali involvement - sorry, I was not clear. I am not even sure it was me who derailed the conversation to Somali from that one day in Mogadishu.
The 99 troopers there were not bringing food. They were killing Aidid - and having found no Aideed, they had no reason to fight and die and should have considered other solutions.
The first highlight is so outrageously stupid that it can be compared with someone saying that the only reason the US entered ww2 was to remove Hitler from power.
Apparently not. US also had to kille tens of thousands of germans in bombing raids of 1945 which could not have made the slightest difference towards the outcome of the war. Improving stats?
The situation can be compared to someone walking up to you saying "I want to discuss the battle of Stalingrad, but I dont know what ww2 was, can you educate me?"
It depend what aspects of that battle the person is interested in discussing.
and after explaining all that it turns out the person asking the question just wanted to get some weird "AHA, so the Germans LOST huh...IN YOUR FACE sucker"-satisfaction out of it.
Not at all. You can ask a valid point that apply to only a narrow aspect of the event. Like I ask - why kill all those peasants when Aidid was not home", some could ask about Stalingrad "Why was that army left to die and even supplemented by the soldiers returning from the leave rather then be allowed to pull back - if the purpose of Holding Stalingrad could not have possibly been accomplished."
On which a rational and possibly valid answer exists like "The surrounded 6th army at Stalingrad distracted a lot of soveit troops and allowed germany to orderly evacuate the whole southern front towards bridges in Kiev, scorch the land and thus escape major disaster."
See - I don't need to know why and when the WWII started and what it was about, and who else fought in it, etc. I may even be ignorant about a lot of those things but since I am not claiming to know about them and not entering them into a conversation, what's the problem.
At least that's what happened. Manshein thought it was an error to leave the army there because he did not think russians would be so incompetent as to concentrate on the 6th army and let the southern group escape.
miko
-
That one raid:
We weren't there for one person, we were there for several.
We took the people we were after prisoner.
We were egressing the city.
We were attacked by the hoards of skinnys.
We made a few tactical errors.
The UN contingent refused to provide support because they were afraid of taking casualties.