Light Infantry and Afghanistan

[JMA]

Originally Posted by Fuchs

This must not be his fault or the media's at all.
I've encountered the worst misinformations about military hardware among both journalists and soldiers. Others tend to shut up unless they played a videogame that mentioned something related.

For the little it is worth I am somewhat disappointed at your lack of intuition.

Would you agree that questions can be asked with at least two purposes in mind. One to learn something from the answer and second to see if the person asked the question knows what the hell HE is talking about.

I have in the short while I have been here received some very 'illuminating' answers to some very basic questions.

[Fuchs]

Originally Posted by JMA

For the little it is worth I am somewhat disappointed at your lack of intuition.

Would you agree that questions can be asked with at least two purposes in mind. One to learn something from the answer and second to see if the person asked the question knows what the hell HE is talking about.

I have in the short while I have been here received some very 'illuminating' answers to some very basic questions.

Trust me when I admit that I underestimate the competence of others more often than I overestimate it.
Nobody can guess correctly all the time.

[Uboat509]

Originally Posted by JMA

Oh dear. It seems that when confronted with the facts you would rather throw the manual out the window than accept that you were out on the definition. Sad.

...oh, and the personal stuff Ken, its water off a ducks back.

Which "facts" did you confront him with? A single source media report? Really? That's what you've got to "confront" a man with 20+ years and two wars worth of experience? Arrogance and disrespect aren't helping you make your point.

[Ken White]

Lieutenants confronting me with books for over 50 years.

Generally without thinking about what the books say and what really happens on the ground. Or realizing they're only embarrassing themselves.

[JMA]

Originally Posted by Uboat509

Which "facts" did you confront him with? A single source media report? Really? That's what you've got to "confront" a man with 20+ years and two wars worth of experience? Arrogance and disrespect aren't helping you make your point.

Excuse me.

This matter is purely in relation to what is a "hasty ambush". There is nothing in that article to support his position and when the definition further proved him to be in error he just threw the manual out the window.

But... that article is an absolute gem of information about the quality of that particular units soldiering. Now you can respond in two ways. Blame everything on the reporter or say, hey, we need to look a little deeper into this matter, we have some work to do.

[JMA]

Originally Posted by Ken White

Lieutenants confronting me with books for over 50 years.

Generally without thinking about what the books say and what really happens on the ground. Or realizing they're only embarrassing themselves.

Perhaps you were a lieutenant once yourself. I remember the lessons I learned as a lieutenant as much as I did later.

Ken, I am starting to find this hilarious. You make a minor error over a definition and then just can't find it in you to say oops, yes I slipped up there.

[MikeF]

Originally Posted by JMA

Excuse me.

This matter is purely in relation to what is a "hasty ambush". There is nothing in that article to support his position and when the definition further proved him to be in error he just threw the manual out the window.

But... that article is an absolute gem of information about the quality of that particular units soldiering. Now you can respond in two ways. Blame everything on the reporter or say, hey, we need to look a little deeper into this matter, we have some work to do.

Naw, it's about as prolific as a commentator telling a quarterback that he just needs to score more touchdowns in order to win the game.

[JMA]

Originally Posted by MikeF

Naw, it's about as prolific as a commentator telling a quarterback that he just needs to score more touchdowns in order to win the game.

Prolific?

[Infanteer]

Originally Posted by JMA

All the information I have from different sources informs me that very few if any night ops are being carried out by non special forces units.

Wrong.

[MikeF]

Originally Posted by JMA

Prolific?

Prolific- highly productive. Producing ideas or works frequently in large quantities.

Synonyms- Productive, creative, inexhaustible, fertile, fruitful

Antonyms- unproductive

[JMA]

Originally Posted by Infanteer

Wrong.

I would be happy if someone could set me straight on this point. No ones seems able to do so.

[JMA]

Originally Posted by MikeF

Prolific- highly productive. Producing ideas or works frequently in large quantities.

Synonyms- Productive, creative, inexhaustible, fertile, fruitful

Antonyms- unproductive

Yes I know that but was hoping you used it incorrectly in that analogy. Care to make a translation into simple English please?

[Steve Blair]

Originally Posted by JMA

Yes I know that but was hoping you used it incorrectly in that analogy. Care to make a translation into simple English please?

Pretty simple: stating the obvious. Unless Mike has some deeper connotations in mind?

[Ken White]

Originally Posted by JMA

Ken, I am starting to find this hilarious. You make a minor error over a definition and then just can't find it in you to say oops, yes I slipped up there.

I cheerfully admit errors; I ordinarily do not acknowledge pedantic corrections and two cent 'gotcha' as errors if they are insignificant -- and this one is all that...

Perhaps you were a lieutenant once yourself. I remember the lessons I learned as a lieutenant as much as I did later.

Er, no, I was never a Lieutenant. I always worked for a living.

Trained a bunch, the majority who went to be successful Colonels and above. Then I worked for the Army as a civilian trainer, 45 years all told; that's called masochism.

[Steve Blair]

Ok, folks. Let's all take a deep breath, have some more coffee (or whatever your beverage of choice is for your current time zone), and cut back on the snarkiness (bitchiness and sniping for those who don't often use the term). There's intelligent discussion to be had here if we take a moment to find it again.

Thanks.

[Ken White]

Originally Posted by JMA

I would be happy if someone could set me straight on this point. No ones seems able to do so.

here to entertain you. You worry about casualties but ask for details that are available on the internet to a great extent but that need not be collected to give someone lurking on this board some information that might aid the bad guys.

While there's little real and current information due to OpSec concerns, there's adequate information on the net to produce a far better picture than you seem to have but no one is going to do your research for you, either.

ADDENDUM: One of the Posting Rules contained in the FAQ (LINK) states:

"This is a public forum. You agree that you will not discuss details of current operations that could compromise or disadvantage lawful combatants, and you will not discuss classified material." The large number of currently serving and former military people posting her perhaps mean excessive caution in that regard but that's the way it is.

[Ken White]

I'd have left off my last line above.

ADDED: Removed it, forgot the edit function...

[JMA]

Originally Posted by Steve Blair

Pretty simple: stating the obvious. Unless Mike has some deeper connotations in mind?

The word quarterback is not in the vocabulary out here in the colonies.

[JMA]

Originally Posted by Ken White

I cheerfully admit errors; I ordinarily do not acknowledge pedantic corrections and two cent 'gotcha' as errors if they are insignificant -- and this one is all that...Er, no, I was never a Lieutenant. I always worked for a living.

Trained a bunch, the majority who went to be successful Colonels and above. Then I worked for the Army as a civilian trainer, 45 years all told; that's called masochism.

OK gotcha... did you ever get to do any operational para jumps?

[JMA]

Originally Posted by Ken White

here to entertain you. You worry about casualties but ask for details that are available on the internet to a great extent but that need not be collected to give someone lurking on this board some information that might aid the bad guys.

While there's little real and current information due to OpSec concerns, there's adequate information on the net to produce a far better picture than you seem to have but no one is going to do your research for you, either.

ADDENDUM: One of the Posting Rules contained in the FAQ (LINK) states:

"This is a public forum. You agree that you will not discuss details of current operations that could compromise or disadvantage lawful combatants, and you will not discuss classified material." The large number of currently serving and former military people posting her perhaps mean excessive caution in that regard but that's the way it is.

There is absolutely nothing being said here which may compromise opsec. The information that I have which may do so would never be posted to a public forum such as this.

As far as research goes. I can do my own and seeing how others reply to my questions sometimes I get a cut and paste from some other source. Meaning I don't like to get tied down in discussions with 5-min goggle experts.