Eight More NATO Soldiers Killed In Afghanistan

Discussion in 'Diamond Lil's' started by Bergen, Aug 22, 2008.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Eight more soldiers killed and around thirty Afghan civilians killed by mistake in a separate incident. Commander Jeff Huber USN has an interesting article; written last week before these latest incidents and before the ambush on the French which killed ten and wounded twenty one. Here's young Mr. Bush & Co. from Georgia to Pakistan:-

    > http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,174057,00.html

    RM
     
  2. I take it CMDR Huber has reached his promotion ceiling... An excellent article but will anyone listen. I doubt it. The bit about US soldiers being forced to abandon a prepared postion is especially disturbing.
     
  3. Why not include his interview on the Huffington Post? www.huffingtonpost.com You can get more of the kind of political views that you like Mr. Prime Minister. Seems you never miss a chance to bash. What is your point? As opinions are like armpits, everyone has a couple, what makes one's opinion superior to anothers? It is easy to always look for something to bolster a view. Tell us what you really think. Please!
    PS: How are the Russian language classes coming along?
     
  4. PS: FYI. Commander Huber has indeed reached his promotion ceiling. He is retired!!!!
     
  5. Language skills are going great Slimey - I can translate the maintenance manuals for all the captured US Army equipment, including all those Humvees, from Redneckese into Russian :thumright: I am also working on Pashtun so that I can explain why the US Army is surrendering fire bases in the face of overwhelming Taleban attacks. :thumright: Might even try to learn Eubonics for the next Prezdint of the USA :thumright:

    RM
     
  6. It is ebonics not eubonics. You have already failed the course. But then again it is obvious we do not speak the same language.
     
  7. Obviously not. You Seppos have just spent a week lying through your collective teeth, stating categorically that you killed 30 AQ in Afghanistan but now admit [after a UN investigation] that the 30 terrarists were actually 90 civilians including 50 kids. Nice going chumps :thumright:

    And if we look at the big picture of how the USA is about to lose another war we need look no further than the increasingly rancorous relationship between the Brits and the USA about unfolding events in Afghanistan; especially the sacking of General David Richards by US General "Bomber McNeill" >

    [align=center]-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/align]

    So what's a poor NATO commander to do? American General Dan McNeill, who took control of all NATO forces in Afghanistan this spring, seems to have an answer: Bombs away, and let hearts and minds fall where they may. The spike in civilian deaths from NATO bombs is no coincidence. It reflects a major change in strategy, which has gone totally unreported in the American media.

    The British public knows about it. Journalists Jason Burke and Robert Fox think it's a story the Brits need to know, because it could well put the lives of British — as well as American — NATO troops in greater danger. And it will put British — as well as American — tax dollars to work paying for more bombs that kill more innocent civilians.

    Senior British officers told these journalists that Gen. McNeill, with too few troops on the ground to hold off the Taliban offensive, plans to rely on massive aerial bombing to do the job. "Bomber McNeill," the Brits call him bitterly, because they know that his heavy-handed strategy will be counter-productive in the long run. "Every civilian dead means five new Taliban," a British officer recently returned from southern Afghanistan told Jason Burke. "This could lose the entire south of the country to the Taliban, alienating them permanently from the Karzai government and its international supporters," Robert Fox adds. "In that case, the future of Hamid Karzai and his nemesis in Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf, looks dim."

    The British are unhappy because they are losing too — losing control of the Afghan war effort. Before McNeill took command of NATO forces, they were headed by a British General, David Richards. He focused more on economic reconstruction and building good relations with the Afghan people. But the Americans and Karzai criticized him for being too soft. Now they've got the tough guy they want in charge.

    The British saw it coming long ago. Back in December, Robert Fox reported that Karzai had removed Gen. Richards' local protégé in Helmand, provincial governor Mohammed Daud. British intelligence officers and military commanders "blamed pressure from the CIA. … The Americans knew Daud was a main British ally, yet they deliberately undermined him and told Karzai to sack him." Gen. Richards had also come in for American criticism as "too political," Fox added. "The American supreme commander of NATO, General Jim Jones, has let it be known, according to sources, that General Richards `would have been sacked if he had been an American officer.'"

    Now he's been sacked. So now our tax dollars, and the Brits', will be used not to win hearts and minds, but to drop bombs that destroy hearts and minds and lives.

    In the U.S., the mainstream media agree that it's all the fault of those evil Taliban, who attack NATO forces then scurry for cover inside local villages. The Taliban actually want to get more civilians kill, we are told, because it helps turn the locals against NATO and its puppet government in Kabul. It may be true. There is plenty about the Taliban that is reprehensible. It would be tragic if they returned to power.

    But "Bomber McNeill" would be the first to tell you that, when you are at war, you use whatever tactics work best. The Taliban are guerilla fighters. Of course they live and hide among the people. Do we expect them to fight only in open fields, far away from villages, where NATO bombers can pick them off effortlessly?

    If we want to keep the Taliban out of power, Gen. Richards' "soft" strategy is the only one that has a chance. Richards and his supporters say that his strategy was working, that the Taliban made few real gains last year. Perhaps the Americans, who call the shots, are afraid of appearing (or feeling) too "soft." Perhaps they are impatient.


    [align=center]-------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/align]

    As for eubonics - Slimey, don't you get totally sick of being so wrong so often:-

    Eubonics 101

    There is a handbook that has been passed around in the Houston police department for the last couple of months called "Eubonics 101". From what I could tell from the TV pictures of it, it was a many times copied effort originally made on a PC. But it had real English description of words used by the N word people and a blurb saying that understanding eubonics could save your life.(in tense police situations, one assumes)

    It has stuff like:

    Mo - (mow) - more
    Fo - (foe) - for, or four

    However, when you put the two together as in MoFo, it comes out with a completely different meaning, so it seems to me that a booklet describing what eubonics words and sounds actually mean appears useful to me.



    RM
     
  8. What a lot of anti-American tripe you peddle. You must be one miserable human being. All the woes of the world are the fault of the USA? Everything that goes wrong is the fault of the USA? Do you wake up in this miserable condition everday? Pray tell us what country is the savior of the world? You must have one in mind. We know which one you consider as satan. Typical liberal snob. Know it all attitude and no tolerance for any other viewpoint or opinion. Good show Mr. Snob. You are apparently the result of centuries of what happens to people that practice inbreeding on little islands.
     
  9. Read the following and then go to the appropriate wesite for more information. Who knows where the genuis came up with Eubonics?

    Ebonics

    Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    For African American U.S. English that is distinct from standard U.S. English, see African American Vernacular English.

    The term Ebonics was originally intended and sometimes used for the language of all people of African ancestry, or for that of Black North American and West African people, emphasizing the African roots of the former; since 1996 it has been largely used to refer to African American Vernacular English (distinctively nonstandard Black United States English), emphasizing the independence of the latter from (standard) English.
    •
    The term as first intended

    What is claimed to be the initial mention of "Ebonics" was made by the psychologist[1] Robert Williams in a dialogue with Ernie Smith that took place in a conference on "Cognitive and Language Development of the Black Child", held in St. Louis, Missouri, in 1973.[2] In 1975 it appeared within the title and text of a book edited and co-written by Williams, Ebonics: The True Language of Black Folks. Williams there explains it:
    A two-year-old term created by a group of black scholars, Ebonics may be defined as "the linguistic and paralinguistic features which on a concentric continuum represent the communicative competence of the West African, Caribbean, and United States slave descendant of African origin. It includes the various idioms, patois, argots, idiolects, and social dialects of black people" especially those who have adapted to colonial circumstances. Ebonics derives its form from ebony (black) and phonics (sound, the study of sound) and refers to the study of the language of black people in all its cultural uniqueness.[3]
    Other writers have since emphasized how the term represents a view of the language of Black people as African rather than European.[4] The term was not obviously popular even among those who agreed with the reason for coining it: it is little used even within the Ebonics book, in which "Black English" is the far more common name.[5]
    John Baugh claims[6] that the term Ebonics is used in four ways by its Afrocentric proponents. It may be (i) "an international construct, including the linguistic consequences of the African slave trade";[7] (ii) the languages of the African diaspora as a whole;[8] or it may refer to what is normally regarded as a variety of English: either (iii) it "is the equivalent of black English and is considered to be a dialect of English" (and thus merely an alternative term for AAVE), or (iv) it "is the antonym of black English and is considered to be a language other than English" (and thus a rejection of the notion of "African American Vernacular English" but nevertheless a term for what others term AAVE, but viewed as an independent language and not a mere ethnolect).[9]
    The term in an exclusively U.S. context
    For more details on this topic, see African American Vernacular English.
    Ebonics remained a little known and little remarked term until 1996; it does not appear within the second edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, published in 1989 and thus over a decade after it was coined, and it was not used by linguists.[10]
    In 1996, the term became widely known in the U.S. thanks to its use by the Oakland School Board to denote and recognize the primary language (or sociolect or ethnolect) of African American children attending school, and thereby to facilitate the teaching of standard English.[11] Thereafter, Ebonics seems to have become little more than an alternative term for African American Vernacular English (q.v.), although one emphasizing its African roots and its independence from English, linked with the nationally discussed controversy over the decision by the Oakland School Board, and avoided by most linguists.
     
  10. Plus the Ebonics stuff that I don't know how to quote.

    All I can say is Ease to five mate
     

Share This Page