What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Why do we announce we (or partners) are invading a location? (1 Viewer)

fantasycurse42

fantasycurse42

Footballguy Jr.
Look, Trump is an ####### IMO, but he has said some things that I do think make a sense. 

This is certainly one of them - ISIS in Mosul knows the invasion is coming, they basically even know when... How does this benefit invading forces at all? 

What I've read is high level and local ISIS members have fled and a lot of foreign fighter brainwashed dolts are left behind to fight. Furthermore, I read stuff like this which is disgusting about human shields... There are obviously going to be civilian casualties when dealing with a group as ####ty as ISIS, why let them increase that number and do what we knew what they would do?

I'm not looking for a Trump/Hillary idiot circle in here, just trying to understand the logic behind this. TIA

 
We should sneak in quietly and hide behind doors and when the bad guys open them we can be all like SUPPLIES then bang, shoot them in the face and win the war.

 
The Iraqi army is trying to retake Mosul.  The objective is not Al-Baghdadi.  An announcement can for one thing give embedded civilians and friendly forces time to prepare. I don't know the details of who made what announcements, or why, but I'm sure there have been many attempts to go after Baghdadi and other leadership that we haven't heard about. 

In any case, it doesn't have much to do with us at this point.

 
fantasycurse42 said:
Good answer...

Maybe we should tell them, "hey, we'll be showing up on 11/4/2016 at 215pm EST. 
Click to expand...
I've no doubt you and Trump are correct and we tell our enemies all our plans and there's zero benefit to announcing some invasions so innocents can prepare they surely do it for the lolz and ratings. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
JZilla said:
The Iraqi army is trying to retake Mosul.  The objective is not Al-Baghdadi.  An announcement can for one thing give embedded civilians and friendly forces time to prepare. I don't know the details of who made what announcements, or why, but I'm sure there have been many attempts to go after Baghdadi and other leadership that we haven't heard about. 

In any case, it doesn't have much to do with us at this point.
Click to expand...
On the flip side, you have the article in the OP though and the enemy has time to grab human shields, a lot of them.

 
Hilts said:
I've no doubt you and Trump are correct and we tell our enemies all our plans and there's zero benefit to announcing some invasions so innocents cam prepare they surely do it for the lolz and ratings. 
Click to expand...
Apparently you missed the linked article in the OP, it looks like the best prepared are ISIS (who are willing to die) and those civilians are sitting ducks.

 
fantasycurse42 said:
On the flip side, you have the article in the OP though and the enemy has time to grab human shields, a lot of them.
Click to expand...
Well I'm not here to argue military strategy with you, and I don't know that much about this particular offensive.  Maybe someone else knows more than I do.  One thing I will say is the Iraqi army is enough of a ####show, ISIS probably knew it was coming anyway.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
fantasycurse42 said:
Look, Trump is an ####### IMO, but he has said some things that I do think make a sense. 

This is certainly one of them - ISIS in Mosul knows the invasion is coming, they basically even know when... How does this benefit invading forces at all? 

What I've read is high level and local ISIS members have fled and a lot of foreign fighter brainwashed dolts are left behind to fight. Furthermore, I read stuff like this which is disgusting about human shields... There are obviously going to be civilian casualties when dealing with a group as ####ty as ISIS, why let them increase that number and do what we knew what they would do?

I'm not looking for a Trump/Hillary idiot circle in here, just trying to understand the logic behind this. TIA
Click to expand...
It's one of the dumber things that Trump repeats over and over. You think it makes sense.

I am surprised that I am suprised by this.

 
Apparently allowing the enemy to take on as many human shields as possible is a good thing, got it... No need to continue

Was just looking for some sort of explanation without insults. 

 
It's a double edged sword. Our government should be as transparent as possible. Sending in troops means sending in citizens which means we should know when and where our people are going to be. Sending in missles does not affect our citizens/military. We need to know that. 

Trump is going down a slippery slope with being all secretive. It may sound good but what happens when he sends, or his way of thinking, sends troops into neutral/ally territory without us knowing? That will play out a lot differently and badly going down that way of thinking. 

 
Mario Kart said:
It's a double edged sword. Our government should be as transparent as possible. Sending in troops means sending in citizens which means we should know when and where our people are going to be. Sending in missles does not affect our citizens/military. We need to know that. 

Trump is going down a slippery slope with being all secretive. It may sound good but what happens when he sends, or his way of thinking, sends troops into neutral/ally territory without us knowing? That will play out a lot differently and badly going down that way of thinking. 
Click to expand...
I'm not advocating Trump at all, I'm just reading headlines about tons of human shields and it does sound like the message (not messenger) have some validity. 

 
Announce an all out urban offensive like this, it gives civilians time to prepare and protect themselves.  See 2003 SHOCK AND AWE.. that was us (this isn't)

ISIS is going to use human shields anyway.  They have them where they want them.  You watching any of this or just listening to Trump?

A secret operation to get a Baghdadi or Bin Laden.. yeah you don't announce that

 
it is a rare thing that can make the ole swcer dumber for having read it but you have done it and for that i salute you sir take that that to the bank bromigo 

 
fantasycurse42 said:
I'm not advocating Trump at all, I'm just reading headlines about tons of human shields and it does sound like the message (not messenger) have some validity. 
Click to expand...
Not saying you are but the mentality does not play out to well the other way around either. I'm now talking more micro and not macro. If we allow one offensive to be in secret then what happens to the next offensive? And, this doesn't compare to getting Bin Laden (not saying you are saying that but someone might). A larger scale is something we need to know about. It is also advertising to other nations that if they want to join, let us know. Can't do that when we go all gestapo on it. 

 
JZilla said:
Announce an all out urban offensive like this, it gives civilians time to prepare and protect themselves.  See 2003 SHOCK AND AWE.. that was us (this isn't)

ISIS is going to use human shields anyway.  They have them where they want them.  You watching any of this or just listening to Trump?

A secret operation to get a Baghdadi or Bin Laden.. yeah you don't announce that
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

And obvious too.

Invading Mosul is a massive operation involving 50,000+ Iraqi and Kurdish forces. It isn't a secret. The OpSec within Iraqi forces is a joke.

Announcing it also gives the less committed ISIS fighters time to desert into the desert.

 
RedmondLonghorn said:
:goodposting:

And obvious too.

Invading Mosul is a massive operation involving 50,000+ Iraqi and Kurdish forces. It isn't a secret. The OpSec within Iraqi forces is a joke.

Announcing it also gives the less committed ISIS fighters time to desert into the desert.
Click to expand...
For dessert

 
There could be reason...

Let's say we have satellite surveillance going on - as we get closer to the invasion date and time we can probably view activity that gives away central command sites.

Also if some leaders were to try and escape - perhaps we leave a corridor open where they believe they can get out and we have a drone or two waiting along the route.

 
If we're looking to take out a specific individual, I'd think it would be done with special forces or a drone strike; not a huge invasion.

 
NutterButter said:
If we're looking to take out a specific individual, I'd think it would be done with special forces or a drone strike; not a huge invasion.
Click to expand...
I hear that, but my thought is a lot of innocent people are going to get slaughtered bc of this, maybe more than necessary (maybe not). 

Who knows - obviously nobody in this thread.

 
fantasycurse42 said:
I hear that, but my thought is a lot of innocent people are going to get slaughtered bc of this, maybe more than necessary (maybe not). 

Who knows - obviously nobody in this thread.
Click to expand...
Wait, wait, wait.  You think an announced invasion kills MORE innocents than an unannounced?

 
Come on man, REALLY?

BECAUSE IT'S PART OF A FREAKIN' STRATEGY!!!!!

I mean, information and misinformation games have been around since the advent of international conflict. Perhaps its a political lever. Perhaps its a distraction. Perhaps it's just going on record to send some message or something that works in tandem with unknown current and/or future operations.

Why do we "announce" this stuff? Because those in charge believe it is a tactic that is a component of a strategy which furthers our interests.  

 
Koya said:
Come on man, REALLY?

BECAUSE IT'S PART OF A FREAKIN' STRATEGY!!!!!

I mean, information and misinformation games have been around since the advent of international conflict. Perhaps its a political lever. Perhaps its a distraction. Perhaps it's just going on record to send some message or something that works in tandem with unknown current and/or future operations.

Why do we "announce" this stuff? Because those in charge believe it is a tactic that is a component of a strategy which furthers our interests.  
Click to expand...
Hold on.

Trump thinks it's dumb. So does the guy who posted this #### thread. 

Aren't you paying attention?

 
RedmondLonghorn said:
Hold on.

Trump thinks it's dumb. So does the guy who posted this #### thread. 

Aren't you paying attention?
Click to expand...
It just kills me that the level of (lack of) critical thought has a huge swarth of our population seriously wondering why we are "giving away" our intelligence and purposely "tipping our hand"

I mean, it's abjectly ridiculous on it's surface... when you say (type) these things, doesn't some voice tell you, dude.... this is kinda stupid, no?

Now, do you want to question certain tacts and hold folks accountable? Sure.  But let's also not pretend like we know 10% of the real intel that leads to these decisions.  It's like playing armchair quarterback after viewing two sentences from a pregame or halftime interview. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L
Why are we still working 40 hours a week?
2 3
Replies
110
Views
3K
Terminalxylem
Terminalxylem
D
Servicemember killed in Yemen, others wounded
Replies
15
Views
1K
badmojo1006
badmojo1006
mr roboto
Why Do We Judge Candidates on Policy Stances?
Replies
7
Views
307
lod01
lod01

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top