Obama's massacre. Children,Cover-up

[AllosaursRus]

If it's Gulf I you're talking about, I believe the answer is it actually saved their bacon, the Iraqis ended up capturing them and it probably wouldn't have gone over real big if they had left a trail of civilian bodies beforehand.  The goat herder led the Iraqis to them, but the hunt was on for special ops teams and chances are pretty good they Iraqis would have caught up with them eventually.  The Coalition launched some remarkably ill-conceived spec ops missions in Gulf I, and not against the will of the operators either.  The boundless confidence of spec operators is not always justified and they tend to need a lot of adult supervision.   

Nope, I think it's Afghanistan and they got tore up pretty bad. I'll have to find it. It was quite a few years ago, seems to me, not long after we were first in-country.

Gotta work on my damn car! I'll try and find it later. Crown Vics are a pain in the ass when it comes to water leaks. They've got a stinkin water jacket under the intake!

[DumbAss Tanker]

Yeah, the SEALs that got eaten up in Afghanistan had the same issue and it came out alot worse for them.  It did involve another issue of locals and hostiles being a whole lot denser on the ground than they'd really planned for, though, and their ability to move undetected proved to be much less than they expected when they launched.     

[docstew]

In the military, aren't all the lawyers in the service?

Just what they need, moonbats defending someone who has released classified documentation!

We can only hope this guy didn't get somebody killed releasing the info! If so, a firing squad is too good for him!

Oh yeah, FOAD DUmmies! There's a frikkin' reason it's called classified intel! ****in' degenerates!

Military members are entitled to a military lawyer, or they can hire one at no expense to the government.

[blitzkrieg_17]

How 'bout DIpshitDIrtbags.com?

 

Good one.

[AllosaursRus]

Yeah, the SEALs that got eaten up in Afghanistan had the same issue and it came out alot worse for them.  It did involve another issue of locals and hostiles being a whole lot denser on the ground than they'd really planned for, though, and their ability to move undetected proved to be much less than they expected when they launched.    

Levin had the Dad of one of the fallen on his show a while back. You could tell he was extremely proud of the decision his son and fellow seals made not to silence the civilians in order to keep their location clandestine. It was a real tear jerker! He said it was just the right thing to do at the time.

[DumbAss Tanker]

It's not nearly the easy call that the uninitiated think it is.

For one thing, the spec ops types are generally somewhat overconfident in their ability to move undetected in hostile terrain, so their estimate of success in the planning stage usually needs to be somewhat discounted by the mission planners before it even gets tasked out.

When they do come on an innocent or vise-versa on a mission, killing the local in cold blood is first of all pretty tough on anyone who isn't psycho to begin with, and second it's just not all that productive anyway.

If you scare the shit out of the local or bribe him, there is after all a chance they will shut up about the whole thing, at least as long as matters to you.  But, if they don't make it home (Where they may be due in an hour for all you know) they'll be missed and you might as well leave a trail of candy wrappers as a trail of dead bodies and strange disappearances, either one tells the enemy where you're going and how fast, plus it really motivates the shit out of them to catch you. 

Morality aside, it's just generally a bad idea to kill the locals for seeing you, and anyone who jumps straight to that as the number one solution probably has serious judgment issues if not actual mental ones.   

[AllosaursRus]

It's not nearly the easy call that the uninitiated think it is.

For one thing, the spec ops types are generally somewhat overconfident in their ability to move undetected in hostile terrain, so their estimate of success in the planning stage usually needs to be somewhat discounted by the mission planners before it even gets tasked out.

When they do come on an innocent or vise-versa on a mission, killing the local in cold blood is first of all pretty tough on anyone who isn't psycho to begin with, and second it's just not all that productive anyway.

If you scare the shit out of the local or bribe him, there is after all a chance they will shut up about the whole thing, at least as long as matters to you.  But, if they don't make it home (Where they may be due in an hour for all you know) they'll be missed and you might as well leave a trail of candy wrappers as a trail of dead bodies and strange disappearances, either one tells the enemy where you're going and how fast, plus it really motivates the shit out of them to catch you. 

Morality aside, it's just generally a bad idea to kill the locals for seeing you, and anyone who jumps straight to that as the number one solution probably has serious judgment issues if not actual mental ones.   

I suppose with me, the decision would have to do with how important the mission was to the overall effort. I can see a situation where morals be damned if it is going to save my buddies lives.

[DumbAss Tanker]

I suppose with me, the decision would have to do with how important the mission was to the overall effort. I can see a situation where morals be damned if it is going to save my buddies lives.

Yeah.  Thing is, it is never that clear-cut. 

Clear-cut but morally unpleasant comes up when you're dealing with an emergent situation in your own territory, like a guerrilla giving a street kid an armed grenade and telling the kid to give it to the American on guard across the street, 'he'll give you a candy bar for it,' and you happen to see the kid on the way and have to choose between the shooting the kid and letting the situation go on to an even worse end.

Personally I don't find anything morally unpleasant about the clear-cut choice to shoot armed enemy troops, though.  They'd be happy to return the favor, after all, why disappoint them by failing to live up to their expectations?

[AllosaursRus]

Yeah.  Thing is, it is never that clear-cut. 

Clear-cut but morally unpleasant comes up when you're dealing with an emergent situation in your own territory, like a guerrilla giving a street kid an armed grenade and telling the kid to give it to the American on guard across the street, 'he'll give you a candy bar for it,' and you happen to see the kid on the way and have to choose between the shooting the kid and letting the situation go on to an even worse end.

Personally I don't find anything morally unpleasant about the clear-cut choice to shoot armed enemy troops, though.  They'd be happy to return the favor, after all, why disappoint them by failing to live up to their expectations?

In a way I'm glad I'm too old to have to make those decisions now, cause if I was younger I'm pretty sure I'd be there with 'em!