Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 7/4/2002 3:39:22 PM EST
The acting was great. The special effects were great. The story line was great. I could really feel the story in this movie. What I hated about it was the suffering and loss of our American servicemen at the hands of stoneage, knucle dragging, khat chewing, rat bag, shit head, goat raping turds. I also hated the way the UN assholes took their merry time going to help the Americans that bail ther asses out of every altercation they get their noses into. I suffered through out that whole movie feeling like hell for the men slugging it out under engagement rules that would seem too rigid for a school yard fist fight. I never liked the idea of a "UN" and never will. Let them skinney world welfare Somalies starve. I wouldn't trade one US serviceman for that whole cesspool country.
Link Posted: 7/4/2002 3:46:39 PM EST
Originally Posted By Pangea: What I hated about it was the suffering and loss of our American servicemen...I suffered through out that whole movie feeling like hell for the men slugging it out under engagement rules that would seem too rigid for a school yard fist fight. I wouldn't trade one US serviceman for that whole cesspool country.
View Quote
I hear you, but the rules of engagement wasn't what got our guys killed. Once the shooting started, we lit into them with everything we had on-site. The problem was they requested armor and gunships but the Clinton Admin. decided against it. Armor alone would have prevented most of our casualties. Just a few Bradleys would've fit the bill nicely.
Link Posted: 7/4/2002 3:48:05 PM EST
Link Posted: 7/4/2002 3:52:56 PM EST
Originally Posted By Wolfpack: Starting that mission at night would have been a HUGE advantage too, but Washington didn't want us to have an advantage I guess[whacko]
View Quote
The decision to "go" during daylight hours was made by the commanders in Mog. They wanted to capture the two Aidid Lts. while they were out in the open. Waiting until nighttime might have allowed them to disappear.
Link Posted: 7/4/2002 3:54:07 PM EST
BE GLAD!! that you did not go see this movie in the theaters then. I had much the same feelings as you before even going to see the movie, while watching the movie in the theater there would occasionally be minor to extreme annoyances by the few morons in the audience who didn't quite understand the importance of what was going on. It's likely that you would have been so mad that you would have been fit to be tied if you watched the movie at the theater with the audience filled with idiots as I saw it with. Great movie that really gives a good representation of what happened there. It was about an hour or two before I managed to pull myself out of the slump I was in after seeing the movie, the movie itself was enough to emotionally drain most any person.
Link Posted: 7/4/2002 3:56:01 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/4/2002 3:57:58 PM EST by More_Cowbell]
Do you think we lost that battle? I think we lost, big-time. The only good thing you can say is that the troops fought outstandingly well. The defeat can't be attributed to them, their training, discipline, valor, or equipment.
Link Posted: 7/4/2002 4:04:27 PM EST
Link Posted: 7/4/2002 4:07:26 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/4/2002 4:11:13 PM EST by sgtar15]
Originally Posted By More_Cowbell: Do you think we lost that battle? I think we lost, big-time. The only good thing you can say is that the troops fought outstandingly well. The defeat can't be attributed to them, their training, discipline, valor, or equipment.
View Quote
Lost the battle?? Most conservative account have it at 19 US men lost to over 1000 skinnies lost (probably more)!! That's a ratio of close to 1-50, plus they did capture many personnel targets!! A loss?? More like the biggest lopsided US battle of all time IMHO. Sgtar15
Link Posted: 7/4/2002 4:09:13 PM EST
Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:
Originally Posted By More_Cowbell: Do you think we lost that battle? I think we lost, big-time. The only good thing you can say is that the troops fought outstandingly well. The defeat can't be attributed to them, their training, discipline, valor, or equipment.
View Quote
Our men achieved the objective and inflicted many, many times the number of casualties we took. That's a "loss?" I bet you think we "lost" the fighting portion of the Vietnam war too?
View Quote
We got the lieutenants of Aidid? Didn't know that. But was it worth it? Did we hurt his organization, or embolden it? Was Clinton's retreat a factor in the Arab jihadis seeing us as weak and easily cowed?
Link Posted: 7/4/2002 4:12:49 PM EST
Originally Posted By Pangea: The acting was great. The special effects were great. The story line was great. I could really feel the story in this movie. What I hated about it was the suffering and loss of our American servicemen at the hands of stoneage, knucle dragging, khat chewing, rat bag, shit head, goat raping turds. I also hated the way the UN assholes took their merry time going to help the Americans that bail ther asses out of every altercation they get their noses into. I suffered through out that whole movie feeling like hell for the men slugging it out under engagement rules that would seem too rigid for a school yard fist fight. I never liked the idea of a "UN" and never will. Let them skinney world welfare Somalies starve. I wouldn't trade one US serviceman for that whole cesspool country.
View Quote
[blue]DUDE!! Tell us how you really feel!!! You're right man... They ain't worth the sweat off a good GI's balls... It's time we pulled out of peace keeping and feeding the world... Let 'em eat goat/camel dung...[/blue]
Link Posted: 7/4/2002 4:14:49 PM EST
Originally Posted By More_Cowbell: Was Clinton's retreat a factor in the Arab jihadis seeing us as weak and easily cowed?
View Quote
Clinton's retreat was soley because he was the coward and that operation made him look bad!!! That was the only reason!!! Learn some history friend...or at least read the damn book. Sgtar15
Link Posted: 7/4/2002 4:15:51 PM EST
Originally Posted By More_Cowbell:
Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:
Originally Posted By More_Cowbell: Do you think we lost that battle? I think we lost, big-time. The only good thing you can say is that the troops fought outstandingly well. The defeat can't be attributed to them, their training, discipline, valor, or equipment.
View Quote
Our men achieved the objective and inflicted many, many times the number of casualties we took. That's a "loss?" I bet you think we "lost" the fighting portion of the Vietnam war too?
View Quote
We got the lieutenants of Aidid? Didn't know that. But was it worth it? Did we hurt his organization, or embolden it? Was Clinton's retreat a factor in the Arab jihadis seeing us as weak and easily cowed?
View Quote
[blue] Cowed?? I think not!! We lost 17 GIs, they lost about 1000 scumbags. [/blue]
Link Posted: 7/4/2002 4:16:37 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/4/2002 4:18:41 PM EST by thebeekeeper1]
Link Posted: 7/4/2002 4:24:17 PM EST
I thought Ridley Scott wasn't the right director for the movie. He hired all those British actors(Ewan McGregor, Jason Isaacs) and had them fake those hilarious pseudo-American accents. And the movie had very little tension, omitting many of the tense details of the book. An American director like Michael Mann would have done the book justice. If you haven't read it yet, go now and get a copy! Much better than the movie and shows the exact political machinations that led to the whole fiasco.
Link Posted: 7/4/2002 4:27:27 PM EST
As far as numbers go, if I recall correctly our numbers were 18 dead (1 other guy died by a morter attack I think a few days or weeks later) and 70 to 80 wounded. Theres were 500 dead, 1000 wounded (some were probably collateral damage of course) I believe our side did very well considering the odds and the fact that they were up against a shitstorm. Should we have been there in the first place is another matter entirely...
Link Posted: 7/4/2002 4:48:56 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/4/2002 4:49:51 PM EST by QCMGR]
Originally Posted By More_Cowbell: Do you think we lost that battle? I think we lost, big-time.
View Quote
What kind of shit are you smoking? Your talking Klinton speak. Did you read the book? We won by any measure.
Link Posted: 7/4/2002 5:07:49 PM EST
Originally Posted By PhoenixPete: I thought Ridley Scott wasn't the right director for the movie. He hired all those British actors(Ewan McGregor, Jason Isaacs) and had them fake those hilarious pseudo-American accents. And the movie had very little tension, omitting many of the tense details of the book. An American director like Michael Mann would have done the book justice. If you haven't read it yet, go now and get a copy! Much better than the movie and shows the exact political machinations that led to the whole fiasco.
View Quote
I guess I am lucky I did not read the book. Because when I walked out of that film. I was wound up so tight, I would have hopped a plane to Somalia right then and accomplished the original plan of feeding the hungry. I hear 5.56mm fills a man up pretty quick!.
Link Posted: 7/4/2002 5:18:22 PM EST
Originally Posted By Lckydevl:
Originally Posted By PhoenixPete: I thought Ridley Scott wasn't the right director for the movie. He hired all those British actors(Ewan McGregor, Jason Isaacs) and had them fake those hilarious pseudo-American accents. And the movie had very little tension, omitting many of the tense details of the book. An American director like Michael Mann would have done the book justice. If you haven't read it yet, go now and get a copy! Much better than the movie and shows the exact political machinations that led to the whole fiasco.
View Quote
I guess I am lucky I did not read the book. Because when I walked out of that film. I was wound up so tight, I would have hopped a plane to Somalia right then and accomplished the original plan of feeding the hungry. I hear 5.56mm fills a man up pretty quick!.
View Quote
Heres something thats just as good as the book. I believe this came out before the book...haven't read it all yet but what little I did read is great. [url]http://inquirer.philly.com/packages/somalia/sitemap.asp[/url]
Link Posted: 7/4/2002 5:23:20 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/4/2002 5:32:08 PM EST by jz02]
It was a tactical victory but a strategical defeat. Although we achieved tactical objectives, we incurred such losses in the process that it would've been political suicide to continue the operation. If they had continued the operation, and more people got killed, Clinton's presidency would've ended up on the list of casualties. The problem with modern wars is that in addition to being fought on the battle field, it's also fought in the media and the minds of the American public. The Gulf War did much to repair the damage of Vietnam, and show the world that the US military is truely on top again. Mogadishu quickly shattered that aura of the US military. If the elite of the US Army could be so badly beaten by a rag tag band of third world militia, then how does the rest measure up? Now before you start flaming me for suggesting that the Rangers and Delta were beaten, I do not mean they were defeated. They were however seriously hurt. While only 18-19 were KIA, if you count the WIA into the list of casualties, and figure in the percentage KIA and WIA, it's a very high percentage. In small theatre operations like this, the US mostly have the initiative due to our superior air mobility. but such losses can not be sustained in a longer operation. It wasa pyrric victory, because in the process of achieving tactical victory, Task Force Ranger was rendered combat ineffective. For all intents and purposes, the TFR was beaten out of Somalia. Which brings us to the problem of defining victory. Is it possible for both sides to win? In our modern flexible definitions of victory, winning is a vague concept. A long time ago holding ground was considered victory, and victory was exclusive. But Vietnam changed all that. The TFR accomplished their tactical objectives and successfully extracted almost everyone. (except Shugart, Gordon and Durant), so it was a 97% victory? What about the Somalis? What were their objectives? From what I can tell from the book and the movie, it was to expell the Rangers, and they too accomplished their objective. They did lose some important people from prior raids, so they didn't have a perfect victory either. But both sides achieved their main objective, who won?
Link Posted: 7/4/2002 5:32:36 PM EST
Originally Posted By jz02: It was a tactical victory but a strategical defeat. Although we achieved tactical objectives, we incurred such losses in the process that it would've been political suicide to continue the operation. If they had continued the operation, and more people got killed, Clinton's presidency would've ended up on the list of casualties. The problem with modern wars is that in addition to being fought on the battle field, it's also fought in the media and the minds of the American public. The Gulf War did much to repair the damage of Vietnam, and show the world that the US military is truely on top again. Mogadishu quickly shattered that aura of the US military. If the elite of the US Army could be so badly beaten by a rag tag band of third world militia, then how does the rest measure up? Now before you start flaming me for suggesting that the Rangers and Delta were beaten, I do not mean they were defeated. They were however seriously hurt. While only 18-19 were KIA, if you count the WIA into the list of casualties, and figure in the percentage KIA and WIA, it's a very high percentage. In small theatre operations like this, the US mostly have the initiative due to our superior air mobility. but such losses can not be sustained in a longer operation. It wasa pyrric victory, because in the process of achieving tactical victory, Task Force Ranger was rendered combat ineffective. For all intents and purposes, the TFR was beaten out of Somalia. Which brings us to the problem of defining victory. Is it possible for both sides to win? In our modern flexible definitions of victory, winning is a vague concept. A long time ago holding ground was considered victory. But Vietnam changed all that. The TFR accomplished their tactical objectives and successfully extracted almost everyone. (except Shugart, Gordon and Durant), so it was a 97% victory? What about the Somalis? What were their objectives? From what I can tell from the book and the movie, it was to expell the Rangers, and they too accomplished their objective. They did lose some important people from prior raids, so they didn't have a perfect victory either. But both sides achieved their main objective, who won?
View Quote
Did you read the same book the rest of us read?
Link Posted: 7/4/2002 5:33:43 PM EST
Originally Posted By jz02: Mogadishu quickly shattered that aura of the US military. If the elite of the US Army could be so badly beaten by a rag tag band of third world militia, then how does the rest measure up?
View Quote
Posts like this is why I think there should be an IQ test requirement before posting. jz02, you are an idiot who has no concept of how the world(much less war) really works. Sgtar15
Link Posted: 7/4/2002 5:41:15 PM EST
Originally Posted By Pangea: The acting was great. The special effects were great. The story line was great. I could really feel the story in this movie. What I hated about it was the suffering and loss of our American servicemen at the hands of stoneage, knucle dragging, khat chewing, rat bag, shit head, goat raping turds. I also hated the way the UN assholes took their merry time going to help the Americans that bail ther asses out of every altercation they get their noses into. I suffered through out that whole movie feeling like hell for the men slugging it out under engagement rules that would seem too rigid for a school yard fist fight. I never liked the idea of a "UN" and never will. Let them skinney world welfare Somalies starve. I wouldn't trade one US serviceman for that whole cesspool country.
View Quote
My man you will be mad fr a long long time. The sec. our guys step off the lowwer 48 states they have a bulls eye on there ass. Nobody whats to help and nobody gives a damn,and the UN is nothing but a buch off commies looking to get there hands on all the cash they can.
Link Posted: 7/4/2002 5:51:15 PM EST
Link Posted: 7/4/2002 5:51:24 PM EST
Link Posted: 7/4/2002 6:03:08 PM EST
Originally Posted By jz02: The Gulf War did much to repair the damage of Vietnam, and show the world that the US military is truely on top again. Mogadishu quickly shattered that aura of the US military. If the elite of the US Army could be so badly beaten by a rag tag band of third world militia, then how does the rest measure up?
View Quote
I think the only "world" that thinks that way are civilians that have no idea of the difficulty in executing military operations in urban areas where you still have innocent people living. The gulf War was just that - a war. A war faught between military forces. Somalia was closer to a police action in it's goals than an actual war. Also, you had an entire city that took on the TFR, none of the Somalis wore uniforms, someone who a second ago was an unarmed non-combatant would pick up a rifle and take action. This factors present their own sets of unique problems.
Now before you start flaming me for suggesting that the Rangers and Delta were beaten, I do not mean they were defeated. They were however seriously hurt. While only 18-19 were KIA, if you count the WIA into the list of casualties, and figure in the percentage KIA and WIA, it's a very high percentage.
View Quote
So what? When comparing casualties, were all those wounded GI's unable to continue fighting? Just cause you've been wounded doesn't mean that you can't keep going if needed.
It was a pyrric victory, because in the process of achieving tactical victory, Task Force Ranger was rendered combat ineffective. For all intents and purposes, the TFR was beaten out of Somalia.
View Quote
Temporarly rendeded combat ineffective! The problem is that your comparing a military unit (TRF) with the civilian populus of Mogadishu. The TRF was a fairly small unit tasked with a very specific mission. Taking on the whole city of Mogadishu was not part of that mission. But they still managed to do just that.
Which brings us to the problem of defining victory. Is it possible for both sides to win? In our modern flexible definitions of victory, winning is a vague concept. A long time ago holding ground was considered victory, and victory was exclusive... ..What about the Somalis? What were their objectives? From what I can tell from the book and the movie, it was to expell the Rangers, and they too accomplished their objective. They did lose some important people from prior raids, so they didn't have a perfect victory either. But both sides achieved their main objective, who won?
View Quote
The battle was won, but the war was lost. But the war was not lost in Somalia, it was lost in Washington. The fault lies with the Clinton administration for not wanting to fully commit. They wanted to have the cookie and eat it at the same time. Then again it's interesting to note that Clinton deployed the military more times than any other president to this date, and that without being engaged in any real war (wars where the reason for U.S. engagement wasn't to support a U.N. mission or some sort of humanitarian operation.)
Link Posted: 7/4/2002 6:09:15 PM EST
Originally Posted By Paul:
Originally Posted By More_Cowbell: Do you think we lost that battle? I think we lost, big-time. The only good thing you can say is that the troops fought outstandingly well. The defeat can't be attributed to them, their training, discipline, valor, or equipment.
View Quote
19 good guys dead, over 1000 bad guys dead. If this is concidered a loss have a look at the WWII battles - we must have lost. The cost of freedom is never free. Every military member knows this.
View Quote
But it also didn't accomplish anything, except causing Clinton to bail which made it look like we were running with our tails between our legs. It further perpetuated the idea, even amongst our own people, that Americans have no stomache for casualties. Adid died of cancer, never being held accountable for the the deaths of any peacekeepers, American or anyone else. Even tacticly, most of the people we were sent to snatch- arrived back at base dead or wounded. The ones that made it in one piece told us nothing and we had to kick them back out onto the street within weeks... no arrests, trials or executions resuted there either. Granted the soldiers on the ground didn't do anything to make this a defeat, they were set up to fail by decisions made above their level, but a defeat it was none the less. The only good that Americans can draw from this was the performance of its servicemen [i]from the rank of Lieutenant Colonel down[/i] was outstanding. Above that actions are suspect, the conduct of the Civilian administration is too depressing to think about...
Link Posted: 7/4/2002 6:14:35 PM EST
Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin: Just a few Bradleys would've fit the bill nicely.
View Quote
The movie makes it look as though there are plenty of wide streets in Mogadishu, but from my understanding that particular city is littered with vey narrow streets and alleys. I think Bradley IFV's would have been too wide. I remember escorting Bradley's and Abrams in Bosnia, where we several times had to take extensive detours because the Bradley's and Abrams were to wide to go through some small towns or to cross narrow bridges. But, since I haven't seen but one picture from the streets of Mogadishu, I'll take the word of any member of the TFR if they say that armor would have been effective. But then again, if there had been word about armor entering the city it's quite likely that the targets of the raid would have postponed their meeting to some other time.
Link Posted: 7/4/2002 6:29:49 PM EST
Originally Posted By sgtar15: Lost the battle?? Most conservative account have it at 19 US men lost to over 1000 skinnies lost (probably more)!! That's a ratio of close to 1-50, plus they did capture many personnel targets!! A loss?? More like the biggest lopsided US battle of all time IMHO. Sgtar15
View Quote
NVC: 1 million KIA US: Over 55,000 KIA Oh, and we lost.
Link Posted: 7/4/2002 6:35:24 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/5/2002 4:10:42 AM EST by JIMBEAM]
Originally Posted By More_Cowbell: Do you think we lost that battle? I think we lost, big-time. The only good thing you can say is that the troops fought outstandingly well. The defeat can't be attributed to them, their training, discipline, valor, or equipment.
View Quote
Lost? They captured the objective, the two aides. Lost 19 men and killed approximatley 3000. Doesn't seem like a lose to me. It seems a waste to me to loose those men but it wasn't a lose.
Link Posted: 7/4/2002 6:35:53 PM EST
Originally Posted By Pangea: I also hated the way the UN assholes took their merry time going to help the Americans that bail ther asses out of every altercation they get their noses into.
View Quote
Please be specific - in this case it was the Pakistani U.N. troops. The Pakistani's egoes were bruised after the TFR apprehended some of their troops in an earlier raid (it's in the book).
I never liked the idea of a "UN" and never will.
View Quote
It's an U.S. invention. Anyway, the problem with the U.N. is politics and egoes. you have a bunch of small nations and not so small nations that are supposed to work alongside each other. More often than not it ends up being a pissing match behind the scenes.
I wouldn't trade one US serviceman for that whole cesspool country.
View Quote
I might catch some flak for saying this, but anyone who enlists in the U.S. Armed Services should have a reasonable expectation to be out in harms way. These guys knew that. It's their choice. They were willing to make that sacrifice. If you are uncomfortable with the idea of dying in some god forsaken corner of the world for a cause you personally don't agree with - then don't sign over your life to the military. To say that you're not willing to trade any U.S. serviceman's life for this cause is disrespectful to the men and women of our military that are out there on these missions. According to the book the one thing that the members of TFR and Delta have a beef with is that the U.S. pulled out soon after this incident. So what did they fight and die for in the first place if we're not going to stick around to see this thing to it's end? Something that might have helped the mission in Somalia is PsyOps. Aidid would spread out the word that the U.N. and the U.S. were there to convert everyone to Christianity. And since Islam is the one thing that the Somalis actually care about, this didn't go over to well. People that weren't sided with Aidid would join in in the fighting because they thought their religion was being in jeopardy. Successfull PsyOps might have stopped this.
Link Posted: 7/4/2002 6:43:41 PM EST
I thought the movie was great. It happened 3 years after I got out but it brought back memories. The movie reminded me of another favorite of mine "A Bridge Too Far" They fought against great odds and did it with honor and tenacity just like Johnny Frosts 1st Airborne at Arnham. In the end it could be questioned if it was a loss, but the shear bravery and tenacity of these great men shines through. I was suprised on 3 accounts. 1st the urgency of getting the wounded out. When I was in we were taught, just get them to the medics and they will get evaced as soon as possible. But breaking up a mission, even spliting up a convoy in the middle of a hot zone? Now I know what your gonna say "youd sure want them to get you out if you where the wounded" Yes but thats not what I was taught and my unit was notorious for dragging the wounded(ill, injured ect) along? 2nd seems to me that Heuys took allot more punishment. I remember stories and from reading books like "Chickenhawk" that Hueys in Nam used to get shot up like swiss cheese and still come back. Its probably just how they were presented in the movie. Why did the ground troops need to secure the crach site. It seemd in the movie that there where hovering gun ships gallor. why not ring the downed ship all at once plastering everything around it while the SARs landed quick and evacuated all survivors. then the whole bunch up and flies. Seems like we have been rescueing pilots like that since Korea? Now if they were British this would be a VICTORY of course. Since British history is littered with such names as Kartoom, Isanluana and countless instances in India where its best troops where popped into the middle of inragged locals and massacred after fighting until the ammo ran out and the lined where overwhelmed by shear numbers. I think the Brits have always admired how good men respect honor and duty and fight and die even more when its at the ahands of perverse political bunggling. It seems they expect thier politicians to be idiots and respec the soldiers evern more for fighting the unpopular battles. If that makes any sense. God Bless those who fought and dies for Freedom and peace. Clinton will have to answer for each and every one of them when judgement comes his way. Rev Rob
Link Posted: 7/4/2002 6:43:52 PM EST
Originally Posted By JIMBEAM:
Originally Posted By More_Cowbell: Do you think we lost that battle? I think we lost, big-time. The only good thing you can say is that the troops fought outstandingly well. The defeat can't be attributed to them, their training, discipline, valor, or equipment.
View Quote
Lost? They captured the objective, the two aides. Lost 19 men and killed approximatley 3000. Doesn't seem like a lose to me. It seem a waste to me to loose those men but it wasn't a lose.
View Quote
Where the heck are you guys getting these overinflated numbers from? The body count was: 18 Americans were dead and 73 were wounded The Somalian toll was far worse. Reliable witnesses in the U.S. military and in Mogadishu now place the count at nearly 500 dead - scores more than was estimated at the time - among more than a thousand casualties. Many were women and children. This was hardly what U.S. and United Nations officials envisioned when they intervened in Somalia in December 1992 to help avert widespread starvation. This is taken from Mark Bowden in that Philadelphia thing on Blackhawk down.
Link Posted: 7/4/2002 6:44:52 PM EST
Link Posted: 7/4/2002 6:46:24 PM EST
Originally Posted By Paul: 19 good guys dead, over 1000 bad guys dead. If this is concidered a loss have a look at the WWII battles - we must have lost. The cost of freedom is never free. Every military member knows this.
View Quote
"good guys/bad guys"? Imagine if a bunch of damn Somolies came over here and started sticking their nose in our business. There was NO reason for those fine young men to die. As the man that the Rangers first captured early in the film said, "this is civil war". We should not have been there. If they tomorrow start hurling lead at each other again we should not go back. No other nation IN ALL HISTORY ever sent it's sons to fight other peoples wars the way we do. The continent of Africa is DOA, they just don't all know it yet. Civil war, famine, plague, and HIV are going to wipe out by some estimates 75% of the continent. And ain't nothing or no one going to stop it.
Link Posted: 7/4/2002 6:48:14 PM EST
Yeah we won, but does it matter? We won by our definition, they won by their definition. So what we have here is that both sides WON. In the old times victory used to be exclusive, now thanks to funny accounting rules, everyone can be a winner. Now all we need are stickers to make everyone feel good. I for one thinks that victory conditions have to be defined to be exclusive. As in only one side can win, not both sides.
Link Posted: 7/4/2002 6:51:19 PM EST
Originally Posted By PhoenixPete: I thought Ridley Scott wasn't the right director for the movie.
View Quote
I disagree. I think he was the right director, and I base that on the visuals.
He hired all those British actors(Ewan McGregor, Jason Isaacs) and had them fake those hilarious pseudo-American accents.
View Quote
No, that would be the fault of Bonnie Timmermann who did the casting. I personally can't understand why they had two very young looking actors (one from Denmark!) playing Gordon and Shughart. Granted, both Gordon and Shughart were in their early thirties, as were the actors (at least the one playing Gordon), but the actors looked like they were in their mid-twenties.
And the movie had very little tension, omitting many of the tense details of the book.
View Quote
Really?
An American director like Michael Mann would have done the book justice. If you haven't read it yet, go now and get a copy! Much better than the movie and shows the exact political machinations that led to the whole fiasco.
View Quote
Isn't that case with any book turned into a movie? Scott focused on the men on the ground instead of the socio-political cause for the foreign involvement in Somalia. Had he done that it would have been a 4-hour movie.
Link Posted: 7/4/2002 6:53:21 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/4/2002 6:58:31 PM EST by RevRob]
The Somalian toll was far worse. Reliable witnesses in the U.S. military and in Mogadishu now place the count at nearly 500 dead - scores more than was estimated at the time - among more than a thousand casualties. Many were women and children. This was hardly what U.S. and United Nations officials envisioned when they intervened in Somalia in December 1992 to help avert widespread starvation.
View Quote
Im sure the women where like the one that one fella kep yelling at not to pick up the AK until his buddy had to take her out. And Im sure the kids where just like the one who with his dad cornered that one Ranger in the school house. In that part of the world age and gender mean nothing. Each and every person, Male, female, young and old is liberated to the point that they feel right at home with an AK or a bomb strapped to them. (Sarcasm) Not to mention how well they are at screening thier shooters behind the women and children like in that movie "Rules of Engagement". Oh ya they are also good at stripping the bodies of weapons right before the cameras arrive. Just my 2 ceents
Link Posted: 7/4/2002 6:58:46 PM EST
Originally Posted By RevRob:
The Somalian toll was far worse. Reliable witnesses in the U.S. military and in Mogadishu now place the count at nearly 500 dead - scores more than was estimated at the time - among more than a thousand casualties. Many were women and children. This was hardly what U.S. and United Nations officials envisioned when they intervened in Somalia in December 1992 to help avert widespread starvation.
View Quote
Im sure the women where like the one that one fella kep yelling at not to pick up the AK until his buddy had to take her out. And Im sure the kids where just like the one who with his dad cornered that one Ranger in they school house. In that part of the world age and gender mean nothing. Each and every person, Male, female, young and old is liberated to the point that they feel right at home with an AK or a bombed strapped to them. Not to mention how well they are at screening thier shooters behind the women and children like in that movie "Rules of Engagement". Oh ya they are also good at shrtipping the bodies of weapons right before the cameras arrive. Just my 2 ceents Rev Rob
View Quote
I know there were women and children fighting and I know they were also being used as shields...just cut/pasting the paragraph. Just trying to get people to stop using the wrong numbers.
Link Posted: 7/4/2002 7:02:16 PM EST
Originally Posted By jz02: I for one thinks that victory conditions have to be defined to be exclusive. As in only one side can win, not both sides.
View Quote
Well, that requires both sides to agree on what has to happen in order for one side to win over the other. And that's not gonna happen, so let it go. The TFR's goal was to get those two lieutenants - the did. Hence they were victorious. The Somali's didn't have a specific goal for this battle - they just fought. Aidid's long term goal was to take over Somalia. Now, I don't know if he succeeded before he died (from cancer I think). But now his son, a former U.S. Marine (who served with the USMC in Somalia) is leading the Aidid troops down there. The U.S. was just an obsticle in Aidid's way. As long as they didn't prevent him from taking over the country he didn't care what they did.
Link Posted: 7/4/2002 7:03:27 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/4/2002 7:06:21 PM EST by RevRob]
Originally Posted By cgwahl:
Originally Posted By RevRob:
The Somalian toll was far worse. Reliable witnesses in the U.S. military and in Mogadishu now place the count at nearly 500 dead - scores more than was estimated at the time - among more than a thousand casualties. Many were women and children. This was hardly what U.S. and United Nations officials envisioned when they intervened in Somalia in December 1992 to help avert widespread starvation.
View Quote
Im sure the women where like the one that one fella kep yelling at not to pick up the AK until his buddy had to take her out. And Im sure the kids where just like the one who with his dad cornered that one Ranger in they school house. In that part of the world age and gender mean nothing. Each and every person, Male, female, young and old is liberated to the point that they feel right at home with an AK or a bombed strapped to them. Not to mention how well they are at screening thier shooters behind the women and children like in that movie "Rules of Engagement". Oh ya they are also good at shrtipping the bodies of weapons right before the cameras arrive. Just my 2 ceents Rev Rob
View Quote
I know there were women and children fighting and I know they were also being used as shields...just cut/pasting the paragraph. Just trying to get people to stop using the wrong numbers.
View Quote
Oh ya I wasnt arguing with you or anything, just writing out loud :) Ofcourse it might depend on who is doing the counting. They might take the same body to the graveyard 6 times like the do in Jenin. I love the video. :)
Link Posted: 7/4/2002 7:17:54 PM EST
Originally Posted By RevRob:
Originally Posted By cgwahl:
Originally Posted By RevRob:
stuff was said by Charlie
View Quote
stuff was said by Robbie
View Quote
more stuff was said by Charlie
View Quote
Oh ya I wasnt arguing with you or anything, just writing out loud :) Ofcourse it might depend on who is doing the counting. They might take the same body to the graveyard 6 times like the do in Jenin. I love the video. :)
View Quote
Hehe, wonder how many people fell out of the casket only to stand back up and got in in Mog...
Link Posted: 7/4/2002 8:09:22 PM EST
Victory or not? Let's get down to basics. The classic Clauswitzian definition of war is "politics by other means." That means the overall _purpose_ of the war is to achieve some political end; otherwise it's just a bunch of mindless violence, nothing more than a brawl with deadly and complex weapons. Did the US achieve its political ends? Nope. Did Aidid? Yep. Victory for Aidid. Which takes nothing away from the Rangers, who fought well. The basic problem was that the operation was high risk. Achieving the political ends would in most events also have involved higher casualties than the Clinton administration was willing to accept. The Blackhawks took a lot of damage. Getting hit by an anti-tank rocket is a significant mechanical event, and several kept on flying despite hits. The two that went down were hit in critical areas. That said, using RPGs against helos seems to be a popular and effective tactic. The same thing happened in the Shah-e-Kot valley fight, when some Apaches took direct hits from RPGs. They managed to exit the battlefield, but they were out of action after that. We have to assume that from now on everybody is going to be shooting every RPG they've got against the helos, and since RPGs are ubiquitous, there will be a lot in the air. Since they're unguided active countermeasures won't work; tactics or mechanical changes will have to be made.
Link Posted: 7/4/2002 9:01:31 PM EST
Originally Posted By mcgredo: Since they're unguided active countermeasures won't work; tactics or mechanical changes will have to be made.
View Quote
A good eye, and constant movement is probably the best protection as of now.
Link Posted: 7/4/2002 9:17:24 PM EST
Originally Posted By jz02: Although we achieved tactical objectives, we incurred such losses in the process that it would've been political suicide to continue the operation.
View Quote
That is idiocy. You have it backwards. Tucking tail and running away destroyed clinton's reputation with the military.
If the elite of the US Army could be so badly beaten by a rag tag band of third world militia, then how does the rest measure up?
View Quote
Stupid
For all intents and purposes, the TFR was beaten out of Somalia.
View Quote
No, they were ready to go at it again but they got a NO GO from up top. They were forced to leave.
Which brings us to the problem of defining victory. Is it possible for both sides to win?
View Quote
Your post was awful. Maybe you should consider philosophy as your major if you want to keep writing this drivel.
Link Posted: 7/4/2002 9:23:32 PM EST
Originally Posted By skullworks: To say that you're not willing to trade any U.S. serviceman's life for this cause is disrespectful to the men and women of our military that are out there on these missions.
View Quote
No it's not. These men knew they were putting themselves in danger. That does not change the fact that any one of these men was worth more than all of somalia. For you to "reason" otherwise is the only thing that is disrespectful.
Link Posted: 7/4/2002 9:28:06 PM EST
Originally Posted By skullworks: Granted, both Gordon and Shughart were in their early thirties, as were the actors (at least the one playing Gordon), but the actors looked like they were in their mid-twenties.
View Quote
They looked in their thirties to me. But maybe when you're on the other side of thirty, people look younger.
Link Posted: 7/4/2002 10:17:07 PM EST
Klinton was / is a coward. None of those guys should have died. Period. We should have just asked for the people we wanted to surrender, and then whe they didn't we should have bombed the fuck out of them. And after the 17 were killed we should have carpet bombed the entire place into smoking rubble with troops to catch the ones who made it out alive. Streets too narrow? How about a couple of Daisy Cutters to open the area up a little bit. Put a foot up someones ass enough times and they will get the picture. We should STILL be bombing the fuck out of Afghanastan.
Link Posted: 7/4/2002 10:34:19 PM EST
Hey USNJOE, I agree with you... keep bombing until the camels bleed from their humps ! Fuck those BASTARDS ! We should begin " Operation Sandbox " and get this shit over with. If it's more than 3' tall LEVEL IT !
Link Posted: 7/4/2002 10:34:21 PM EST
Originally Posted By USNJoe: Klinton was / is a coward. None of those guys should have died. Period. We should have just asked for the people we wanted to surrender, and then whe they didn't we should have bombed the fuck out of them. And after the 17 were killed we should have carpet bombed the entire place into smoking rubble with troops to catch the ones who made it out alive. Streets too narrow? How about a couple of Daisy Cutters to open the area up a little bit. Put a foot up someones ass enough times and they will get the picture. We should STILL be bombing the fuck out of Afghanastan.
View Quote
[b] WELL STATED![/b]
Link Posted: 7/4/2002 10:35:36 PM EST
Originally Posted By zonan:
Originally Posted By skullworks: Granted, both Gordon and Shughart were in their early thirties, as were the actors (at least the one playing Gordon), but the actors looked like they were in their mid-twenties.
View Quote
They looked in their thirties to me. But maybe when you're on the other side of thirty, people look younger.
View Quote
I'm still in my late twenties, but they looked my age or younger. If you see pics of the real Gordon and Shughart you'll see what I mean. They looked more experienced than the two actors.
Link Posted: 7/4/2002 11:10:23 PM EST
Pangea: I recommend highly that you read the book if you haven't already done so, and read it carefully. The book explains more thoroughly what actually transpired during the battle as closely as Mark Bowden could come. He also shows you the battle from the Somali view, which was very interesting. The movie because of time constraints left out a few important facts such as another rescue column was organized consists of cooks, amourers etc but they couldn't meet, and was sent back. The book is also now available in paperback. Read the epilog, and see what conclusions the author reached. The author concluded that the battle was not a win or a lost, but the it just didn't matter a whole lot. Figure that Adm. Jonathan Howe made a false assumption that if Aidad was capture the clans rule would fall apart, but according to Bowdan, there were many people waiting to take his place.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top