• Canadian soldier killed in Afghanistan
    72 replies, posted
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;28856412] Whoops no you're just ignorant.[/QUOTE] Lol it's amazing the amount of people I know who think Afghanistan and Iraq are one in the same.
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;28856412][img_thumb]http://attackstatered.com/wordpress/wp-content/gallery/operations/green-zone-patrol-2.jpg[/img_thumb] [/QUOTE] You can tell shit's about to go down when they have their bayonets attached
[QUOTE=Bad)-(and;28856584]You can tell shit's about to go down when they have their bayonets attached[/QUOTE] Well it is a good idea considering someone could jump out of the tall grass/bushes near them at any moment.
A vietcong could pop out at any second!
[QUOTE=JustGman;28856337]Oh 155 dead Canadians? Lets look at the total US/EU/Civilian deaths.[/QUOTE] Look at the amount of soldiers total
[QUOTE=JustGman;28856337]Oh 155 dead Canadians? Lets look at the total US/EU/Civilian deaths.[/QUOTE] it's not a contest
[QUOTE=JustGman;28856337]Oh 155 dead Canadians? Lets look at the total US/EU/Civilian deaths.[/QUOTE] anyone have the quote of someone on the forums saying that the US army air core had killed 400,000 British troops on accident?
[QUOTE=Monty Pie-thon;28856308]Don't want to sound like a dick or anything. But do we really need a thread for one death? People die all the time.[/QUOTE] Yeah but it's a bigger deal when they're Canadian because of how drastically it lowers their population
[QUOTE=Meller Yeller;28859054]Yeah but it's a bigger deal when they're Canadian because of how drastically it lowers their population[/QUOTE] One time a woman pregnant with triplets got hit by a bus and we almost had to shut down the whole operation
[QUOTE=Treybuchet;28856340]There's never been honor in war.[/QUOTE] sirs who disagreed when exactly has there been honor in war
[QUOTE=Teracotta;28855255]Shit sucks. I think an IED is probably the biggest pussy tactic of all time.[/QUOTE] thanks for your very enlightened opinion mr. call of duty commando
[QUOTE=JustGman;28856337]Oh 155 dead Canadians? Lets look at the total US/EU/Civilian deaths.[/QUOTE] Yeah cause it's a comparison thing right? We're obviously fighting for e-peen over which country has died the most in the conflict? That matters to you, right? Is that what helps you sleep at night, knowing that one side has lost more lives and is therefore the better? Because clearly the side that has lost the most people is the best side? God damn it I can't believe how fucking retardedly obsessive people are over being superior in any fucking way they can find. There wasn't even any fucking competition here, it was just saying the damn death toll for Canada in Afghanistan so far, and this douchebag has turned it into competitive superiority bullshit. I'm sure families of dead soldiers are proud to have the biggest death toll. If you really love having the bigger death toll so much, why don't you head over there and contribute yourself to it?
[QUOTE=Teracotta;28855255]Shit sucks. I think an IED is probably the biggest pussy tactic of all time.[/QUOTE] Ahhhh, it's psychologically comforting to give something you don't understand a degrading name, isn't it? Remember what the British during the Revolutionary War called the Colonials? Nothing more than rabble. If you're a smart guy I recommend that you seek out Robert Asprey's "War in the Shadows" and read it good.
People like him don't read books.
Not trying to sound like a dick, and I definitely sympathize with his family, but why is this in the news? It's not odd for soldiers to die when their job is to be shot at and bombed.
[QUOTE=fishyfish777;28855276]Well the Taliban ain't gonna just sit there and engage in line battles like it's 1745[/QUOTE] They could try conventional warfare. Bah who am I kidding they wouldn't last 2 weeks doing that.
[QUOTE=P1X3L N1NJA;28862706]They could try conventional warfare. Bah who am I kidding they wouldn't last 2 weeks doing that.[/QUOTE] Since when was war conventional? The idea is to kill your enemy. If that means through IEDs, then so be it. It obviously works.
[QUOTE=P1X3L N1NJA;28862706]They could try conventional warfare. Bah who am I kidding they wouldn't last 2 weeks doing that.[/QUOTE] Look at the first major conflict of the war, we convinced them that the best way to fight would be to line up their tanks against ours, we didn't lose one, they lost them all.
[QUOTE=Teracotta;28855255]Shit sucks. I think an IED is probably the biggest pussy tactic of all time.[/QUOTE] Oh wow. Oh my god wow. How is a bomb a pussy tactic? Its used as a way of defense. Not a "OH MY GOD IM SO SCARED HERE LET ME PLANT THIS BOMB" How old are you sir?
[QUOTE=Bad)-(and;28862761]Since when was war conventional? The idea is to kill your enemy. If that means through IEDs, then so be it. It obviously works.[/QUOTE] The idea in war isn't to kill your enemy its to send them running, to have them back down its just that some times that leads to them being killed in the process. I dont think the IED idea is working for the taliban and they should start thinking of other methods if they are ever to drive the ISAF out. [editline]28th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=BigBeretFrenchi;28862813]Oh wow. Oh my god wow. How is a bomb a pussy tactic? Its used as a way of defense. Not a "OH MY GOD IM SO SCARED HERE LET ME PLANT THIS BOMB" How old are you sir?[/QUOTE] You are just as bad as him. IEDs aren't employed as defensive measures, the idea is to cripple supply lines and patrols.
[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;28862762]Look at the first major conflict of the war, we convinced them that the best way to fight would be to line up their tanks against ours, we didn't lose one, they lost them all.[/QUOTE] I don't think the Taliban had much in the way of tanks back in 2001, and any that were operational were most likely ones left by the Soviets and the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan back in the 1980s. (Not to mention that they were already second or third-rate by that time as well)
[QUOTE=P1X3L N1NJA;28862892]The idea in war isn't to kill your enemy its to send them running, to have them back down its just that some times that leads to them being killed in the process. I dont think the IED idea is working for the taliban and they should start thinking of other methods if they are ever to drive the ISF out. [editline]28th March 2011[/editline] You are just as bad as him. IEDs aren't employed as defensive measures, the idea is to cripple supply lines and patrols.[/QUOTE] A war is by definition, a conflict, not a goddamn chase.
[QUOTE=Tac Error;28862963]I don't think the Taliban had much in the way of tanks back in 2001, and any that were operational were most likely ones left by the Soviets and the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan back in the 1980s. (Not to mention that they were already second or third-rate by that time as well)[/QUOTE] Well that's exactly what I'm saying, it's just a perfect example that in conventional warfare they can't stand up to the world's superpowers and their allies. It's the same thing the Colonials did in the American Revolution, they couldn't stand up to the Brits, so they had to use geurilla war to do anything without dying, although the overconfidence of the British army was a big factor as well.
Also, the 2001 attack into Afghanistan was conducted by mainly light forces, not heavies. [editline]28th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=l337k1ll4;28863004]Well that's exactly what I'm saying, it's just a perfect example that in conventional warfare they can't stand up to the world's superpowers and their allies. It's the same thing the Colonials did in the American Revolution, they couldn't stand up to the Brits, so they had to use geurilla war to do anything without dying, although the overconfidence of the British army was a big factor as well.[/QUOTE] And America's overconfidence of their own military will cost them when they face a peer enemy.
[QUOTE=Bad)-(and;28862966]A war is by definition, a conflict, not a goddamn chase.[/QUOTE] When did I imply that in war you chase people? "Send them running" means to have a person back down. The idea of war and the definition of war are two different things. In war you want to win, to win you have to make the other side back down or wipe them out if they dont.
This may be useful to you guys. The good stuff starts on page 77: [url=http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:t35LcrA9B3EJ:usacac.army.mil/cac2/coin/repository/coin_symposium_may_2010/briefing_slides/Soviet_COIN_In_Afghanistan_Lester_Grau_briefing_11May2010.pptx+soviet+%22separate+motorized%22&hl=en&gl=ca&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiQWpUjmW5eYcvaWY8stSJ-Ho0hgJ8797icZ4DH9RCTzZF4hnQFviLElAOyfjVLR8UDb4C7c8L4kJFsVaJisFMlecDqewmqU26iSGA49-YprGNIH6NO2LJyWrFE3wO7minT7V3n&sig=AHIEtbQsx6hnOXqsKuEkIGc_5tp02s7Ahw]Soviet_COIN_in Afghanistan_Grau[/url] If you're too lazy to click: [quote][b]Lessons Learned[/b] * Guerrilla war is a contest of endurance and national will. The side with the highest moral commitment will hold the ground at conflict’s end. For the guerrilla, battle field victory is almost irrelevant. * Air domination is irrelevant unless precisely targeted * Secure logistics and LOC essential * Conventional tactics, equipment and weapons require major adjustment or replacement * Conventional war force structure inappropriate * Tanks of limited value. Light infantry and engineers at a premium * Medical support paramount * Logistics determines the scope of activity and force size either side can field * Information battle essential to maintaining external support[/quote] [quote][b]What the Soviets did right[/b] * Realized that they were in a mountain war and expanded mountain training facilities from one to seven and sent all combat soldiers through mountain training prior to deployment. * Fought in the deep mountains with lengthy ambushes. * Effective use of agent nets. * Built a large support base among 1000s sent to USSR for training * Effective withdrawal operation [b]What the Soviets did wrong[/b] * Overreliance on aviation and technology * Conscript NCO corps * Bulk of force in security, not contesting control in districts and villages * Sporadic hearts and minds campaign * Imposed Soviet-appropriate training on DRA armed forces rather than adapting to Afghan culture * Took over the fight from the DRA * MRDs roadbound[/quote] [quote][b]The Soviets were not defeated and driven out of Afghanistan[/b] * Soviet withdrawal was a Soviet political decision * Soviets 1988-1989 withdrawal was coordinated, deliberate and professional * Soviets left behind a functioning government, an improved military and an advisory and economic effort insuring the continued viability of the government. * The withdrawal was based on a coordinated diplomatic, economic and military plan permitting Soviet forces to withdraw in good order and the Afghan government to survive. * The Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (DRA) held on despite the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Only then, with the loss of Soviet support and the increased efforts by the Mujahideen and Pakistan, did the DRA slide toward defeat in April 1992. * From 1979-1989, the Soviet 40th Army conducted 220 independent operations and over 400 combined operations. Many large-scale operations accomplished little, since this was primarily a tactical commanders’ war. Three large-scale operations, the initial incursion into Afghanistan, Operation Magistral and the final withdrawal, were the most effective operations of the war--the force and supporting measures employed were appropriate to the mission. * The Soviet effort to withdraw in good order was well executed and is a model for other disengagements. [/quote] [quote][b]Counterinsurgency 101[/b] * Census * Deny sanctuary. Pakistan is one issue but why won’t we go into the mountains? * [b]Curb close air support. We are creating opposition through airpower.[/b] * It’s their country. Give them more of the lead. Encourage competent, representative leadership. * Work in the context of their culture, not ours. [b]The Taliban is not our chief problem[/b] * It’s bad governance * The Karzai government has lost the confidence of much of the people. It must regain this confidence without looking as if it is the pocket of the United States * The solution is political and economic, with military support[/quote]
Tons of American Deaths in Afghanistan= Dont care attitude | Someone died that wasn't American= Sadness Facepunch, I know this is true to you all.
[QUOTE=Tac Error;28863060]This may be useful to you guys. The good stuff starts on page 77: [url=http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:t35LcrA9B3EJ:usacac.army.mil/cac2/coin/repository/coin_symposium_may_2010/briefing_slides/Soviet_COIN_In_Afghanistan_Lester_Grau_briefing_11May2010.pptx+soviet+%22separate+motorized%22&hl=en&gl=ca&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiQWpUjmW5eYcvaWY8stSJ-Ho0hgJ8797icZ4DH9RCTzZF4hnQFviLElAOyfjVLR8UDb4C7c8L4kJFsVaJisFMlecDqewmqU26iSGA49-YprGNIH6NO2LJyWrFE3wO7minT7V3n&sig=AHIEtbQsx6hnOXqsKuEkIGc_5tp02s7Ahw]Soviet_COIN_in Afghanistan_Grau[/url][/QUOTE] That was pretty good. It's true that the their government is shit, I think to beat the Taliban you have win the hearts and minds, the problem is thats pretty hard now if you consider that for every one of them you kill im sure you're bound to piss off 4 people they knew.
[QUOTE=P1X3L N1NJA;28863258]That was pretty good. It's true that the their government is shit, I think to beat the Taliban you have win the hearts and minds, the problem is thats pretty hard now if you consider that for every one of them you kill im sure you're bound to piss off 4 people they knew.[/QUOTE] ughguhuguh How many times do I have to go over this. There are no civilians fighting for the Taliban. The Afghani people literally HATE the Taliban. Afghanistan =/= Iraq.
[QUOTE=fishyfish777;28855276]Well the Taliban ain't gonna just sit there and engage in line battles like it's 1745[/QUOTE] Except they do. The Taliban is the deposed government of Afghanistan and they have an organized military.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.