Would You Do the Same for Someone You Hardly Know?
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
well..wonder y i ask him the question?
I'm not sure about you, but Gary is making little sense to me.
Adding facts will change your points. Why? Because when taken into their context, something which you have obviously failed to notice. Do change things a lot for you. But of course, the only fact you are concerned about was "100 on 2" which I dunno where you drew it from.
(Considering nobody actually saw the engagement, one wonders if it actually played out the way it did in the movie.)
And if you haven't listened to the commentary, go do so now, [b]don't expect us to do your homework for you. So far you have been doing little but shooting from the hip based on your own shaky and personal opinion of a dramatization and then expecting people to put you straight. For goodness sakes and everybody's sanity, please get your facts right before you post anything.
Nobody's gonna deny your right to your own point of view, no matter how silly or wrong it may be. As you can see from my signature, while I don't agree with everything he's saying, I certainly found them funny as you are starting to become slightly amusing as well.
Anyway, I am amazed you can deduce the actual emotions and their context of the people and their actions in the situtation based on actors preformance in a dramatization in which Ridney Scott, which respecting his attempt to tell the story, himself has taken several liberities for the sake of making a movie.
At the same time, you said that you did not trust the book and the pilots, a nonfiction narrative and the people who were actually there and probably know a heck load more about actual combat and the tools of war then you can ever hope to know.
I think this entire pointless debate would have been avoided if you had simply done your basic homework before you came in here with lots of style, but no substance.
There were plenty of factors and things that could have been done, have been done, and have not been done in that incident. At the end of the day, was
And please, spare people the 100 on 2 canapoly crap. As I stated a few posts before, these were D-Boys, and they certainly weren't going in there to take on 100 (how on earth do you even know the number) sammies and fend them off the save the pilot. Due to many things beyond their control, things went wrong and they got killed. You can't simply pin this on a bad call on their part or the commander. It's just war. Things like this happen. You can be the best trained person with the highest level of skill, but still die. Wait... why am I telling you this? Oh yeah, because you didn't listen to the commentary.
What matters is that these soldiers did their duty to the best, or even beyond their call of duty given their situtation, and their actions were extraordinary. That deserves a MOH by any book.
If you didn't notice, there were situtations where small numbers of americans were isolated and had to fight off far larger numbers of skinnies as well. I don't see you harping on that.
[/b]
im tryin to throw some sense into him..but think its gona be pointless..
since when u can put sense into a senseless reason? -
I will not send in two additional men to join Durant, but instead I will use the Little Bird from afar to fire off a salvo ot two of rockets against the mob at least hold them there.( I dun know why they did not use the rocket in the day, but the nite time they use it. Was it becos that there civilian among the mob or that they were afraid that it would be shot down again in the day)Originally posted by NathanG5:lolz..okok
so wat would u have done if u are the commanders?
wat strategy will u use?
Then at the same time gather as many soldiers from the base as possible move them in via helo using the Black Hawk or Little Bird just like what they did for the two snipers.
At least a minimum of 10-20 men will be send down with some heavy power like LMG and heavy MG. This I believe wil be able to hold a all round defence perimeter just like what did for the crash site 1.
I think the US commander were bounded from directives, that is no firing against anyone unless fire upon.
They saw a large mob was moving toward the 2nd crash site but did nothing, why dun they just fire rocket at time as they approached
the 2nd crash site?
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
So tell me what is actual number of the mob?
I'm not sure about you, but Gary is making little sense to me.
Adding facts will change your points. Why? Because when taken into their context, something which you have obviously failed to notice. Do change things a lot for you. But of course, the only fact you are concerned about was "100 on 2" which I dunno where you drew it from.
(Considering nobody actually saw the engagement, one wonders if it actually played out the way it did in the movie.)
And if you haven't listened to the commentary, go do so now, [b]don't expect us to do your homework for you. So far you have been doing little but shooting from the hip based on your own shaky and personal opinion of a dramatization and then expecting people to put you straight. For goodness sakes and everybody's sanity, please get your facts right before you post anything.
Nobody's gonna deny your right to your own point of view, no matter how silly or wrong it may be. As you can see from my signature, while I don't agree with everything he's saying, I certainly found them funny as you are starting to become slightly amusing as well.
Anyway, I am amazed you can deduce the actual emotions and their context of the people and their actions in the situtation based on actors preformance in a dramatization in which Ridney Scott, which respecting his attempt to tell the story, himself has taken several liberities for the sake of making a movie.
At the same time, you said that you did not trust the book and the pilots, a nonfiction narrative and the people who were actually there and probably know a heck load more about actual combat and the tools of war then you can ever hope to know.
I think this entire pointless debate would have been avoided if you had simply done your basic homework before you came in here with lots of style, but no substance.
There were plenty of factors and things that could have been done, have been done, and have not been done in that incident. At the end of the day, was
And please, spare people the 100 on 2 canapoly crap. As I stated a few posts before, these were D-Boys, and they certainly weren't going in there to take on 100 (how on earth do you even know the number) sammies and fend them off the save the pilot. Due to many things beyond their control, things went wrong and they got killed. You can't simply pin this on a bad call on their part or the commander. It's just war. Things like this happen. You can be the best trained person with the highest level of skill, but still die. Wait... why am I telling you this? Oh yeah, because you didn't listen to the commentary.
What matters is that these soldiers did their duty to the best, or even beyond their call of duty given their situtation, and their actions were extraordinary. That deserves a MOH by any book.
If you didn't notice, there were situtations where small numbers of americans were isolated and had to fight off far larger numbers of skinnies as well. I don't see you harping on that.
[/b]
According to the MOH citation, which I have already mentioned early a few days ago, it said that the they have actually ran out ammo they have carry and at the same time using those recovered from the wreck, this itself show that they have gone thru a fight against a large number of skinnies.Master Sergeant Gordon used his long range rifle and side arm to kill an undetermined number of attackers until he depleted his ammunition. Master Sergeant Gordon then went back to the wreckage, recovering some of the crew's weapons and ammunition. Despite the fact that he was critically low on ammunition, he provided some of it to the dazed pilot and then radioed for help. Master Sergeant Gordon continued to travel the perimeter, protecting the downed crew. After his team member was fatally wounded and his own rifle ammunition exhausted, Master Sergeant Gordon returned to the wreckage, recovering a rifle with the last five rounds of ammunition and gave it to the pilot with the words, "good luck."
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/mohsom.htm
So is the citation from the US Army Centre of Military History wrong or I am wrong abt the large number of skinnies?!?
Read thru the whole citation, then make your conclusion abt the mob and the arrival of a large mob b4 they were inserted which the two snipers as well as their commanders were fully aware of the situation.Remember that were still two commanders in the air surveying the area, even Durant did not see how they were hit, the two commanders saw what happened, otherwise how they did know a large mob was approaching ???
So am I wrong that the commanders as well as the snipers knew that they will be facing a large mob of with automatic fire as well as RPG?!?
Am I wrong that they knew they did not know when is additional support coming in?!?
The citation indicated them clearly!!!
Now we have three sources, the book , the movies as well as the actual citation from the US army , so which is more believable?
You guys give a lot of info but the odds still remains. -
I will not send in two additional men to join Durant, but instead I will use the Little Bird from afar to fire off a salvo ot two of rockets against the mob at least hold them there.( I dun know why they did not use the rocket in the day, but the nite time they use it. Was it becos that there civilian among the mob or that they were afraid that it would be shot down again in the day)
to use rocket would mean they have to hover still n fire..pls keep in mind that the skinnies are still firing RPG at them..n lotsa them..
n u forgot..they have miniguns..so now u will ask..y cant they use them?
they did use them for awhile..but that means they have to fire into civilians..n they will be flying on the same path tryin to get the mob..
n any dude with RPG can just wait for them to fly past n down it..n you are right..its in the day..the SOAR or night stalker perform better during the night..n yes they are afraid more chopper will be down..
n there are 2 crash site..Then at the same time gather as many soldiers from the base as possible move them in via helo using the Black Hawk or Little Bird just like what they did for the two snipers.
how are u gona do that? if u do that..aint it defeat the purpose u recommend up there?
unless u assume that the crash site is next to the Ranger base?
n yes..u must be thinking there are alot of Black Hawk available..
by the time the 1st fresh heavily arm troops insert into the crash site...it will be over-run even earlier...get it?
2 crash site..get it? 2 black hawk down..n another 3 cripple but went back to base safely..
so how do u use the remaining black hawk?At least a minimum of 10-20 men will be send down with some heavy power like LMG and heavy MG. This I believe wil be able to hold a all round defence perimeter just like what did for the crash site 1.
they can do it for the 1st crash site..because the Ranger were nearer to it..n the rest of the Ranger are pin down by the mob..I think the US commander were bounded from directives, that is no firing against anyone unless fire upon.
yes..u are right..they were told not to shoot at civilian whom are not holding guns or fire at them..
in one incident..one ranger was fire upon n unable to shoot at the enemy because the enemy was hiding below a woman..the woman was sitting on him...They saw a large mob was moving toward the 2nd crash site but did nothing, why dun they just fire rocket at time as they approached
civilians...
the 2nd crash site?
n seriously..go get the book..read the EPILOGUE of the book..
n there are lotsa things i dunno how to relate..my ang moh sux..pls go read...its cheap..i bought it for S$14.50...4 years ago.. -
Just want to add one point from the citation:
Master Sergeant Gordon continued to travel the perimeter, protecting the downed crew.
Why did he need to travel the perimeter?
That is becos the mob were not just coming from the 12 but at least 3 and 9 as well.
i.e. A large mob coming from the front ,the sides maybe even the back.
That is why I said that they need at least 10 men or more to hold the perimeter, two men certainly could not have a all round defence!!!
Those who are in combat units should know what I mean. -
so again..leave Durant there to die?Originally posted by gary1910:Just want to add one point from the citation:
Why did he need to travel te perimeter, that is becos the mob were not justing from 12 but at least 3 and 9 as well.
i.e. A large mob coming from the front ,the sides maybe even the back.
That is why I said that they at least 10 men or more to hold the perimeter, two men certainly could not have a all round defence.
Those who are in combat units should know what I mean. -
I have already given the answer.Originally posted by NathanG5:so again..leave Durant there to die? -
i urge myself from calling u names..
since when we argue abt the numbers of somalies on the ground?
it was never even abt the numbers..since when we provide the number of mobs on the ground? we were asking u..how u got the number 100? state the facts 1st..even its 5000..u still state the fact..
n btw..nobody is argueing with u abt the numbers of somalis on the ground..
so they shld leave Durant there to die?? -
no...u didnt..Originally posted by gary1910:I have already given the answer. -
I have reply to Viper in Pg4 I think, sending only two men is not rational.Originally posted by NathanG5:no...u didnt.. -
Originally posted by gary1910:
omg..im not sure..whether u are senile or wat...did we deny that there were a large mob there?
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/mohsom.htm
So is the citation from the US Army Centre of Military History wrong or I am wrong abt the large number of skinnies?!?
Read thru the whole citation, then make your conclusion abt the mob and the arrival of a large mob b4 they were inserted which the two snipers as well as their commanders were fully aware of the situation.Remember that were still two commanders in the air surveying the area, even Durant did not see how they were hit, the two commanders saw what happened, otherwise how they did know a large mob was approaching ???
So am I wrong that the commanders as well as the snipers knew that they will be facing [b]a large mob of with automatic fire as well as RPG?!?
Am I wrong that they knew they did not know when is additional support coming in?!?
The citation indicated them clearly!!!
Now we have three sources, the book , the movies as well as the actual citation from the US army , so which is more believable?
You guys give a lot of info but the odds still remains.[/b]
nobody is denying it..so y get so wrok up?
did we say u are wrong?
u realize that the original question being ask..was whether the operators are emotional n not using their brain..im i right?
we give u facts that the operators are not emotionals..
so y change of stance now?
we know abt the large number of somalis down there since the start of this thread.. -
im me..not Viper..u answer my question..Originally posted by gary1910:I have reply to Viper in Pg4 I think, sending only two men is not rational.
still u have not reply the question..u only say it is not rational to send 2 men down...u never say anything abt whether Durant shld be left to die?
n i have answer your question on y cant the BG send more troops down on Durant crash site..
so answer me -
So is the citation from the US Army Centre of Military History wrong
US Army deny Mark Bowden from getting info abt the veterans from the battle..they claim that some of the mens were in unit off-limit to the press..
part of it were true...most are lied make up by the US Army...because they wana save their previous commander in chief face..
u can decide from here whether if its true..
Mark Bowden got the info from the men involve in the battle.. -
From the beginning, I said that the BG is emotion ruled over rationality by letting the two to be put even against his better initial judgement on the whole situtaion.Originally posted by NathanG5:omg..im not sure..whether u are senile or wat...did we deny that there were a large mob there?
nobody is denying it..so y get so wrok up?
did we say u are wrong?
u realize that the original question being ask..was whether the operators are emotional n not using their brain..im i right?
we give u facts that the operators are not emotionals..
so y change of stance now?
we know abt the large number of somalis down there since the start of this thread..
Why I said that was the overwhelming odds against the two snipers, a 2 against 100 is just illustration, maybe even more.
Let me requote what I have stated earliar:A standard military offensive against heavily defended objectives is 3 : 1 to be successful.
So based on the above, they should not be send but according to you even 1% chance it should be taken.
Now you are talking defending an area with no fortifcation against the enemy number more then 20-50 times against yours?!?
Well you have your view and I have mine, becos I believe that the odds of them survival is practically nil, therefore it is not a rational option.
Since I believe it is not rational option,only reason was that they let emotion ruled over rationality.Someone said that since they are pro SpecOps, they should know what they are doing.
But to me ,two well trained men with only rifles and pistols only against a large mob coming from all sides with automatic weapons as well as RPG still dun really change the odds much. -
some of u question whether the BG Gerrision enforce the idea of leaving no men behind..
no he did not...the creed or motto is always there in the US Army..
it is imbedded into every combat men heart..
read "We Were Soldiers Once n Young"..also...leave no men behind were their creed also..althought it was never mention in words..but in detail.. -
So who is lying and who is not?Originally posted by NathanG5:US Army deny Mark Bowden from getting info abt the veterans from the battle..they claim that some of the mens were in unit off-limit to the press..
part of it were true...most are lied make up by the US Army...because they wana save their previous commander in chief face..
u can decide from here whether if its true..
Mark Bowden got the info from the men involve in the battle..
Afterall those on the ground might not be telling the whole truth too, right?
Afterall , those on the ground might not even have the whole picture becos they are fightng elsewhere.
I think only those in the air as well as in the CP will have the most info, but are they telling the truth?!?
Nobody really know. -
From the beginning, I said that the BG is emotion ruled over rationality by letting the two to be put even against his better initial judgement on the whole situtaion.
Why I said that was the overwhelming odds against the two snipers, a 2 against 100 is just illustration, maybe even more.
Let me requote what I have stated earliar:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A standard military offensive against heavily defended objectives is 3 : 1 to be successful.
Now you are talking defending an area with no fortifcation against the enemy number more then 20-50 times against yours?!?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So based on the above, they should not be send but according to you even 1% chance it should be taken.
Well you have your view and I have mine, becos I believe that the odds of them survival is practically nil, therefore it is not a rational option.
Since I believe it is not rational option,only reason was that they let emotion ruled over rationality.Someone said that since they are pro SpecOps, they should know what they are doing.
But to me ,two well trained men with only rifles and pistols only against a large mob coming from all sides with automatic weapons as well as RPG still dun really change the odds much.This was not a hopeless mission. One or two properly armed, well-trained soldiers could hold off an undisciplined enemy indefinitely. Shughart and Gordon were experts at killing and staying alive. They were career soldiers trained to get hard, ugly things done. Gordon had enlisted at 17; his wife and children lived near Fort Bragg, N.C. Shughart was an outdoorsman from Western Pennsylvania who loved his Dodge truck and his hunting rifles.
that sound like our own local doctrine?
When the crew chief gave Gordon the word that he and Shughart were going in, Gordon grinned and gave an excited thumbs-up. Goffena made a low pass at a small clearing, using his rotor wash to knock down a fence and blow away debris. He held a hover at about five feet, and the two D-boys jumped.
y not following doctrine = not rational?
we have already give u facts that they are not emotional..u wana rebuke on that part? im still waiting for it..
btw..how did u know it was MG Garrision who send the sniper in?
once again..u can read the passage above...
read my post above abt Leaving No Men Behind.. -
tell me a reason y those on the ground lie abt the whole battle?Originally posted by gary1910:So who is lying and who is not?
Afterall those on the ground might not be telling the whole truth too, right?
Afterall , those on the ground might not even have the whole picture becos they are fightng elsewhere.
I think only those in the air as well as in the CP will have the most info, but are they telling the truth?!?
Nobody really know. -
hey Gary..i realize that u are choosing which question to answer..
all the above question n answer are link..we wont get anywhere if u chose question u can answer.. -
Gary is indeed the one who is caught up with emotionism here.
He can't get it out of his mind that the D-boys didn't go down there to fight 100+ skinnies or establish a perimeter. They were going down there to get the aircrew. Unlike Gary, who is mad enough to dream up such ideas, professional D-boys avoid firefightrs unless they really have to. Gary just can't get it out of his head that they weren't going in on a sucide mission. The outcome nevertheless.
Unfortunately, things did not turn out quite that way for them, and one thing that Gary has failed to prove, despite his exausive attempts to fit a square peg into a round hole, was that the D-operatives chose their actions based on emotionism and irrationality.
What's obvious is that they weren't going in there to fight sammies off (even the most irrational would know they didn't stand a chance), they were going in to get the crew otta there, and probably to some safe area they could hold out for a while until help arrived. It was a dangerous undertaking that went wrong. Could their plan had worked? Certainly, but it was risky and could go wrong, and it did.
How would they be considered irrational? If they decided that they could acomplish their mission by fighting off the mob on their own, and that was their main action plan. Which is nuts and certainly wasn't in their decks. They were forced to fight the mob, they certainly didn't camp out and wait for the mob to come to them while they sniped away.
Of course, need I mention after the battle one of the operatives actually went into the enemy zone for three days and three nights to recover the bodies of his comrades, and he did it. Now, 1 guy against a hostile city. I wonder what that reflects on his rationality.
The best I can determine is that Gary suffers from a bad case of hollywood logic, where the only solution he sees to the problem is by force and action alone. While they ended up using up all their ammo and having to fight to the finish. One wonders if that was their actual intention or plan when they went in. And if that wasn't their intention, their undertaking certainly wasn't irrational, or emotional. It was a calculated risk that went wrong.
If Gary's logic is to be followed, every soldier who died when the odds were against him is irrational or emotional. -
Any if we know from FIBUA, one of two dudes can hold off a far larger number of people for a very long time. In Stalingrad, 50 ruskies holed up in a factory held off over 2000 Germans for three months.
-
That is not a just local doctrines but rather quite standard in many armies in the world or something similar, it was based on historical facts as well thru many evaluation and simulation to get that ratio.Originally posted by NathanG5:that sound like our own local doctrine?
y not following doctrine = not rational?
we have already give u facts that they are not emotional..u wana rebuke on that part? im still waiting for it..
btw..how did u know it was BG Garrision who send the sniper in?
once again..u can read the passage above...
read my post above abt Leaving No Men Behind..
It is a guide but not a gospel, but one also have to look at weapons that both have.
But 1:20 or even 50 certainly not a good odds to have.
As I said once,it does not matter whether they have volunteered or somebody give the order, he was the top guy therefore whatever decision he make or his subordinate make , he should be held responsible.
gtg, need my sleep. -
yes..i have already mention..one of the reason y the operators were send in because the convoy were coming..n it was correct that the convoy was unable to reach Durant crash site on time..
the Delta operators were not rope in to fight off the mob..but to give more time for the convoy to reach...
the above facts was not clear by Gary..he still insist on his own view..n avoid the above facts..well..thats fine with me.. -
u have not answer my question..shld they leave Durant to die?Originally posted by gary1910:That is not a just local doctrines but rather quite standard in many armies in the world or something similar, it was based on historical facts as well thru many evaluation and simulation to get that ratio.
It is a guide but not a gospel, but one also have to look at weapons that both have.
But 1:20 or even 50 certainly not a good odds to have.
As I said once,it does not matter whether they have volunteered or somebody give the order, he was the top guy therefore whatever decision he make or his subordinate make , he should be held responsible.
gtg, need my sleep.
btw...do u realize that..it was a rescue mission...
he did nothing wrong..y shld MG Garrison be held responsible?
i dun even think u know his name in the 1st place(we make a mistake here..he is a MG not a BG..was make blur by someone..damn).. -
i just realize something..
When MG Garrison testify before the US Senate Commitee..the death of the 2 Delta Sniper was never in question...n even outside SpecOps community..it was deem they did the right things..n i believe so too..
Leave No Men Behind...it is a logic simple to understand..