Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

300 US Marines Trapped at Base ?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by The Purist View Post
    I am simply replying to his post where he chose to lose his focus and previous calm demeanour to engage in a (mild) personal attack. I simply replied in kind.
    Puist, I didn't lose my focus and you started out with the "(mild) personal attack." While you may think it is funny to equate someone to a cartoon figure....most people don't. From that point on, I replied in kind.

    Originally posted by The Purist View Post
    If one cannot run with the big dawgs, one best remain on the porch.
    I can "run with the big dawgs," you on the other hand behind your status as a moderator. Hida was warned by a mod about claiming another member was drinking. You on the other hand think you have no limits on personal attacks even if they are "mild" and claiming someone is drinking.

    ACG isn't like that and I think you are abusing your authority as a moderator.

    Originally posted by The Purist View Post
    I hold no animosity towards Mr Nicols but constantly slamming Mr Obama over events he does control (ie: tactical operations and non-surrender of weapons) is counter productive to any serious discussion of events.
    That's nice, I also have no animosity towards Mr. Proudfeet. Contrary to his limited knowledge on the current subject and his false claim that I am constantly slamming President Obama. His lack of knowledge on these two points is counter productive to a serious discussion of this event.

    Then again, he is a mod.....

    Comment


    • This has been talked about since last September, finally CNN is mentioning mission creep....

      Robert Baer, a former CIA officer, said the battles may indicate a deepening involvement of U.S. troops in the fight against ISIS.

      "I think what we're seeing here is mission creep," he said Friday night. "The Iraqi army is not up to the task. And without the United States Air Force and the military on the ground, a lot of these ... bases would be overrun."

      http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/13/middle...raq/index.html

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Nichols
        ...
        Let's start with the blatantly obvious.....a question mark. Now spend a little bit of your time before you go to bed and read the title of the thread:

        US Marines Trapped at Base ?

        Do you understand why there is a question mark there?
        Indeed I do. They question is misplaced and deliberate misleading. Twenty-five insurgents had zero opportunity to trap 320 Marines on a base as large as some cities.

        Keep digging, the hole you are making is getting deeper.

        Originally posted by Nichols
        ... What you appear to be incapable of comprehending is that if you are going to take military action, you don't half step it and apply limited force. Read history, there are numerous examples of what happens when you half step military operations....
        Now, you have repeated this over the weeks and months and have been proven wrong at every turn. If the defeatists on our boards were correct the caliphate would now be a fact, Baghdad fallen along with Jordan and Lebanon. ANd yet,....

        This fight does not belong to the US or the West. This is local fight by local groups in the area. The coalition forces are there to support, not fight for, them.

        Everyone except a certain group within the US right understands and agrees with this strategy, even the locals. "Give us the tools and we will finish the job" is a quote that comes to mind.

        History tells us that occupation forces lose because they eventually go home. The latest example of this is only a few years old and fresh in the minds of politicians and generals.

        Originally posted by Nichols
        ... You should really try to master the question mark before you attempt subtle plays on English.
        You still do not understand. See above.

        Originally posted by Nichols
        ...
        Brilliant, I never expressed that belief, I did post this:

        "If this is true, I hope the President doesn't order something like yesterday's Yemen surrender."
        A strawman, a non sequitir. Neither accurate nor pertinent to the discussion

        I responded that there was no surrender in Yemen and zero possibility of such an event in Iraq. I also pointed you to the article in The Washigton Post. However, if that source is not trustworthy in your eyes you may wish to read a simlar article at "marincecorpstimes.com".

        There was no surrender of weapons.

        Originally posted by Nichols
        ...
        The Yemen operation was a surrender of weapons. If you understood anything about how the State Department works you would know that it wasn't made by some lower pay grade....
        Another strawman. I made no claim that the decision was made by junior staffer. It was likely made by the State Department in conjunction with the Chiefs of Staff and after advising the President. Then the State Department sent out the order to shut down the embassy and the Marines got their orders through the chain of command.

        Originally posted by Nichols
        ... The other aspect of this is that the President is responsible, he is the Commander in Chief. Obviously you can't grasp the concept of responsibility...
        Simplistic, and deliberately so. This is just another example of the American Rights "blame Obama' meme.

        You know very well that this is not how tactical decisions are made. The President would not have said "oh, by the way, have the Marines destroy their weapons". That order would have come from the military to the embassy staff as part of policy practices in place longgggg before Mr Obama took office.

        In any case there was no surrender. The US military spokesman, as reported by the MCT has been quite clear, no weapons were taken from Marines or handed over to Yemenis.

        Originally posted by Nichols
        ... A member of the ACG Forums General Staff begins posting in this thread by insulting a forum member.
        As I pointed out above you were doing quite well in maintaining a very civil conversation until you lost your balance in describing the 'adult conversation'. If you wish to take part in adult conversations then it is best to focus on the debate and not 'characterisations'.

        Originally posted by Nichols
        ...
        "as a former Marine"

        You are not a Marine how could you possibly know what a Marine would or wouldn't do?...
        Marines, soldiers, sailors, airmen. All operate under very similar codes. US Marines are a very proud bunch, believers in their creed, hard core (the ones I met while in uniform anyway) and professional. I am confident they follow orders.

        Originally posted by Nichols
        ...
        I haven't been drinking but then a member of the ACG General Staff says that I have been, so it must be true....
        Ah, back to reading comprehension and understanding the meaning of sentences. Perhaps you need to better understand the meaning of 'if', yourself. See paragraph 4, post 83

        Originally posted by Nichols
        Talk about abuse of authority...
        This discussion is not being carried out in my role as staff. You need not drape a mantle of martyrdom about your shoulders, it does not wear well.

        Originally posted by Nichols
        Perhaps if you traveled some, read some history, and actually understood a geo-politics....you might just bring some meaningful discussion to this thread.
        My, that is very amusing. I have probably spent more time 'travelling' than most citizens of western countries in my career in the oil industry since leaving the military. London, Houston, Calgary are the most travelled but the list is long

        The money is extraordinary. In fact, I am waiting on word to see if I will be posted again to a position in Saudi Arabia. Now that is really solid coin.

        Originally posted by Nichols
        ...If you do manage to learn something about how geo-politics work, please come back but leave the personal insults out of the discussion.
        Happy to,... you first.
        Last edited by The Purist; 14 Feb 15, 11:59.
        The Purist

        Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Nichols View Post
          ...
          I can "run with the big dawgs," you on the other hand behind your status as a moderator. Hida was warned by a mod about claiming another member was drinking. You on the other hand think you have no limits on personal attacks even if they are "mild" and claiming someone is drinking...
          As I have stated, I am not involved in this conversation as a mod. However, if you do not let go of this particular point, I suspect you may hear from one.

          I personally do not want this to happen.

          My last word on that issue unless you wish to persist
          The Purist

          Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Nichols View Post
            This has been talked about since last September, finally CNN is mentioning mission creep....

            Robert Baer, a former CIA officer, said the battles may indicate a deepening involvement of U.S. troops in the fight against ISIS.

            "I think what we're seeing here is mission creep," he said Friday night. "The Iraqi army is not up to the task. And without the United States Air Force and the military on the ground, a lot of these ... bases would be overrun."

            http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/13/middle...raq/index.html
            Now, back to business.

            I agree. Mission creep has always been possibility and the Iraqi army certainly has a long way to go. My personal view is that Daesh will gain more ground against Iraqi army in Anbar before the tide begins to turn.

            If there is one good side to current Daesh moves it is that it brings them and their kit out into the open where air power can get at easily identified targets. I doubt anyone questions the effectiveness of the Apache gunship.

            It will also be interesting to find out in the coming days and weeks whether this is part of a Daesh drive to recover lost 'reputation' over the past few weeks of defeat. Has Daesh weakened their hold in other areas to concentrate in Anbar? Could the Kurds take advantage of any weakness elsewhere if this is the case? Could the Syrian army? The FSA?

            There s much more in play here than just a battle near al-Baghdadi.
            The Purist

            Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by The Purist View Post
              Indeed I do. They question is misplaced and deliberate misleading. Twenty-five insurgents had zero opportunity to trap 320 Marines on a base as large as some cities.
              The titled was written as a question....it wasn't misplaced or misleading. Why do you find that so hard to comprehend?

              Originally posted by The Purist View Post
              Now, you have repeated this over the weeks and months and have been proven wrong at every turn. If the defeatists on our boards were correct the caliphate would now be a fact, Baghdad fallen along with Jordan and Lebanon. ANd yet,....
              Again you are twisting facts or failing to comprehend. We started out with 300 boots on the ground, now it has grown ten times that to over 3000 boots on the ground. Increasing troop strength is not being proven wrong my points have been verified.

              Originally posted by The Purist View Post
              This fight does not belong to the US or the West. This is local fight by local groups in the area. The coalition forces are there to support, not fight for, them.
              If the fight does not belong to the US, the US should not be there, it is as simple as that. Do you honestly think ISIS sits there and says....the coalition forces are not fighting us, it is only local groups...

              Originally posted by The Purist View Post
              Everyone except a certain group within the US right understands and agrees with this strategy, even the locals. "Give us the tools and we will finish the job" is a quote that comes to mind.
              Can you name one historical example of when this type of strategy ever worked? The tools that we are giving them are warfighters, not a rifle, tank or airplane. Take note of what happened to the Jordanian pilot.

              Originally posted by The Purist View Post
              History tells us that occupation forces lose because they eventually go home. The latest example of this is only a few years old and fresh in the minds of politicians and generals.
              Yes, they lose......take a look at Germany, Japan, and South Korea.

              What history tells us is that if the occupation forces leave prematurely, they lose. Take a look at Iraq, South Vietnam....

              Originally posted by The Purist View Post
              A strawman, a non sequitir. Neither accurate nor pertinent to the discussion

              I responded that there was no surrender in Yemen and zero possibility of such an event in Iraq. I also pointed you to the article in The Washigton Post. However, if that source is not trustworthy in your eyes you may wish to read a simlar article at "marincecorpstimes.com".

              There was no surrender of weapons.
              You are attempting to create the strawman. The Marines were ordered to surrender their weapons. Again, study history...there are numerous examples of surrendering weapons and what it means.

              You don't have the capacity to understand the significance of surrendering you weapons.

              Originally posted by The Purist View Post
              Another strawman. I made no claim that the decision was made by junior staffer. It was likely made by the State Department in conjunction with the Chiefs of Staff and after advising the President. Then the State Department sent out the order to shut down the embassy and the Marines got their orders through the chain of command.
              Stop building your strawman. To you I specifically said:

              "If you understood anything about how the State Department works you would know that it wasn't made by some lower pay grade...."

              I didn't reply with a "junior staffer" to you. Here's a hint; everyone in the chain of command under the President is a lower pay grade.


              Originally posted by The Purist View Post
              Simplistic, and deliberately so. This is just another example of the American Rights "blame Obama' meme..
              If you were a leader and you understood responsibility, you would understand why it is so simplistic.

              If you understood history you would also realize that every President has received the "blame _______ meme. Where you asleep during President Bush's time in office?

              Originally posted by The Purist View Post
              You know very well that this is not how tactical decisions are made. The President would not have said "oh, by the way, have the Marines destroy their weapons". That order would have come from the military to the embassy staff as part of policy practices in place longgggg before Mr Obama took office.
              It's obvious that you don't understand the word "tactical"...

              Yes, I do know very well that the policy wasn't in place a long time before President Obama took office. Unlike you I actually was on embassy duty, I actually was a Detachment Commander at a third world country.

              BTW, I noticed how you claim it was a tactical decision and then claim it was part of a policy.....

              Originally posted by The Purist View Post
              In any case there was no surrender. The US military spokesman, as reported by the MCT has been quite clear, no weapons were taken from Marines or handed over to Yemenis.
              Yes, the weapons were surrendered, the Marines boarded the plane without their weapons....they no longer had custody of the weapons.

              Originally posted by The Purist View Post
              As I pointed out above you were doing quite well in maintaining a very civil conversation until you lost your balance in describing the 'adult conversation'. If you wish to take part in adult conversations then it is best to focus on the debate and not 'characterisations'.
              You are not having an adult conversation when you insult the other person..

              Originally posted by The Purist View Post
              Really Nicols, you remind me of the seagulls in "Finding Nemo". Except instead of "mine", "mine", "mine", "mine" at the sight of a potential fish you jerk into action at every breath with "disaster", "disaster", "disaster" in attempts to discredit the Obama Administration, when there is no neded at all for panic.
              Originally posted by The Purist View Post
              Marines, soldiers, sailors, airmen. All operate under very similar codes. US Marines are a very proud bunch, believers in their creed, hard core (the ones I met while in uniform anyway) and professional. I am confident they follow orders.
              Again, you are not a Marine, you are clueless. We can have an adult conversation about this if you could control yourself and stop with the insults.

              Originally posted by The Purist View Post
              Ah, back to reading comprehension and understanding the meaning of sentences. Perhaps you need to better understand the meaning of 'if', yourself. See paragraph 4, post 83.
              Stawman, I was talking specifically about you doing personal insults.

              Originally posted by The Purist View Post
              This discussion is not being carried out in my role as staff. You need not drape a mantle of martyrdom about your shoulders, it does not wear well.
              You are a mod, a member of the staff. You have responsibilities to the staff and the community. If you do not want the responsibility then you should stop being a moderator.

              While you may honestly believe that you can turn your 'mod' light off to insult another forum member; the only thing it does is lower the trust and confidence in the current system that guides the forum.

              It's leadership 101

              Originally posted by The Purist View Post
              My, that is very amusing. I have probably spent more time 'travelling' than most citizens of western countries in my career in the oil industry since leaving the military. London, Houston, Calgary are the most travelled but the list is long

              The money is extraordinary. In fact, I am waiting on word to see if I will be posted again to a position in Saudi Arabia. Now that is really solid coin. .
              All that traveling, it is sad that your vision is so narrow.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by The Purist View Post
                As I have stated, I am not involved in this conversation as a mod. However, if you do not let go of this particular point, I suspect you may hear from one.

                I personally do not want this to happen.

                My last word on that issue unless you wish to persist
                Gerry, you are a moderator, you can't take the hat off when you feel like it. When someone in a leadership position belittles another, the role of the leadership gets blurred.

                A moderator has to be impartial if he or she can't be impartial then the effort will fail.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by The Purist View Post
                  Now, back to business.

                  I agree. Mission creep has always been possibility and the Iraqi army certainly has a long way to go. My personal view is that Daesh will gain more ground against Iraqi army in Anbar before the tide begins to turn.
                  Mission creep has been my concern since the beginning. That is why from the very beginning I have said either go all out and defeat them or don't get involved. If the CNN story from yesterday about ISIS gaining influence in multiple other countries....we will be playing wack-a-mole for a long time.

                  We saw mission creep after the fall of Iraq, there was no clear mission change over from conquering to building.

                  We saw mission creep after we took back Kuwait, the no fly zone was only established after Iraq started using it's air assets to attack the Kurds.

                  I see requirements creep when we let out a contract for a video game. The results are usually the same, the end product is not what was originally needed.

                  Originally posted by The Purist View Post
                  If there is one good side to current Daesh moves it is that it brings them and their kit out into the open where air power can get at easily identified targets. I doubt anyone questions the effectiveness of the Apache gunship.
                  It will still end up taking more than just air assets. We have been using air against them since September yet they can still mount an offense.

                  Originally posted by The Purist View Post
                  It will also be interesting to find out in the coming days and weeks whether this is part of a Daesh drive to recover lost 'reputation' over the past few weeks of defeat. Has Daesh weakened their hold in other areas to concentrate in Anbar? Could the Kurds take advantage of any weakness elsewhere if this is the case? Could the Syrian army? The FSA?
                  I would guess that they have weakened other areas in order to conduct this operation but that leaves the question; What assets are there to exploit this vulnerability?

                  Originally posted by The Purist View Post
                  There s much more in play here than just a battle near al-Baghdadi.
                  From the article that we are currently discussing:

                  Years before, in the mid-2000s, the United States recruited and paid Sunnis like members of al-Gaoud's Albu Mimr tribe to join its fight against al Qaeda. Those efforts helped turn the tide in the war.

                  But now, al-Gaoud says, ISIS -- which consists of Sunni extremists -- is making his tribe pay the price.

                  "There are people who will be killed in cold blood, and there will be more massacres," al-Gaoud told CNN in November. "We are getting killed because of our friendship with the Americans. Does a friend abandon his friend like this?"

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
                    What I don't get is if a FAST team could be deployed to Sanaa, then why not a C-130, a C-17, or a C-5? Then the US personnel -- including the Marines -- would not have had to rely on commercial air for transport, and they could have taken all of their gear -- weapons included, out with them. Surely AMC assets operate regularly -- probably daily -- within CENTCOM's AOR.

                    http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/stor...tion/23281977/

                    I was thinking the same thing. With 2 ships offshore, they should have sent helicopters in to evacuate all personnel, vehicles & eqpt intact to the ships.
                    Just doesn't make any sense. I want to know who planned this cluster fk!
                    "Stand for the flag ~ Kneel for the fallen"

                    "A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer." ~ Bruce Lee

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Persephone View Post
                      I was thinking the same thing. With 2 ships offshore, they should have sent helicopters in to evacuate all personnel, vehicles & eqpt intact to the ships.
                      Just doesn't make any sense. I want to know who planned this cluster fk!

                      You are right, it doesn't make sense. In addition to the helicopters and Ospreys, there are also Harriers, LCAC, AmTracs, & LAVs....

                      My guess is that the President thought the method they used would be the less 'news worthy.' He was probably hoping for a Tripoli type operation where the staff quietly left the Embassy and drove to Tunisia. What he didn't understand was how bad the PR would be if the Marines surrendered their weapons.

                      Tripoli went smoothly, the President took credit for making the decision. With the backlash over the Marines being ordered to surrender their weapons.....the Administration is trying to back peddle.

                      An idea on how decisions are made in these situations:

                      When they are doing a NEO, the Command is given 3 options. The three options can become painful because all of the elements had to give three options. When I was the Company Navigator for the small boats, I had to submit 3 navigation routes. Where we departed the ship and the beach landing site didn't move so there really isn't too many different nav plans to submit, but I always had to submit three.

                      Comment


                      • One of the problems is that the Marines stationed at the embassy as guards are subject to the ambassador and the state department.

                        And having to work for either the Hillary Clinton or John Kerry state departments is not a good thing at all.

                        Neither of those two idiots are either competent or care about anyone but themelves and their futures-no one else's, least of all Marines or the nation.

                        And the mess that is the state department is exemplified by the two walking disasters, one blonde and one redhead, who are the egocentric teenager types that are spokes'persons' for the department.

                        Sincerely,
                        M
                        We are not now that strength which in old days
                        Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                        Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                        To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Massena View Post
                          One of the problems is that the Marines stationed at the embassy as guards are subject to the ambassador and the state department.
                          There are many people here that can't wrap their minds around that concept. The State Department is the Marines Operational Command, the Marine Corps is the Marines Administrative Command.

                          I was lucky at my posts, Shirley Temple took care of us. Her replacement Ambassador Basora came up within the ranks of DOS. He sent us down to Brataslava to provide security while the beltway guys pulled out listening devices. His orders to us were short and to the point; don't allow anyone into the building, if someone doesn't listen to you, deadly force is authorized.

                          Ambassador Griffin was another up through the ranks guy that would bend over backwards to protect his Marines. He spent his career in Africa so he really valued us.

                          Comment


                          • Good thing the base perimeter is over 13 miles. I have no doubt the 300+ Marines will prevail if they are forced to defend their position.


                            "Stand for the flag ~ Kneel for the fallen"

                            "A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer." ~ Bruce Lee

                            Comment

                            Latest Topics

                            Collapse

                            Working...
                            X