2
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Brit SAS whistleblower actually made me like them more
Posted on 9/26/26 at 3:50 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 9/26/26 at 3:50 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Nor did it in any way insinuate it would “permanently eliminate every cartel.” That’s your straw man.
On that narrow point, fair. Sure, you never claimed those exact words. “Permanently eliminate every cartel” was my own extrapolation from your “it didn’t matter” standard, and it went beyond what you said. Congrats, take your usual arrogant victory lap over a tiny procedural victory.
Now let’s return to what you actually said.
quote:
Yes the group that lost the war against the inferior opponent compared to the cartel would certainly do damage to the cartel.
Those guys were badasses, but it didn’t matter.
rltiger’s claim was that a few teams, with U.S. support, could inflict serious damage. Your response used the ultimate outcome of an entire war to dismiss the ability of one regiment to inflict that damage. Those are two different propositions. A unit can inflict serious tactical damage while still serving on the losing side of a much larger war.
quote:
My comment didn’t even require “serious” damage.
Then your comment didn’t address his claim, because his claim expressly did require “serious damage.”
If your point is merely that a few teams could inflict damage without defeating the entire cartel system, nobody disagreed with you. If your point is that they couldn’t inflict serious damage, pointing out that Rhodesia ultimately lost the war does not establish that.
That is the distinction I’ve been making. No redefinition required.
This post was edited on 9/26/26 at 3:55 pm
Posted on 9/26/26 at 4:15 pm to Klark Kent
The best, or worst, thing about the OT is how a good thread can get derailed into two people arguing over some point completely unrelated to the OP.
Posted on 9/26/26 at 4:26 pm to jbgleason
Fair. That’s what happens when an always-online, strip mall Perry Mason spots an opportunity to turn a casual comment into billable hours.
Posted on 9/26/26 at 4:30 pm to Klark Kent
quote:
rltiger’s claim was that a few teams, with U.S. support, could inflict serious damage.
We have done this exact thing before, in Mexico, against the cartels.
None worked at all, there were no long-term positives, and one turned into one of the most violent cartels in history (major negative)
Spec ops are awesome, and like I said the Rhodesian guys were certified badasses...but they're scalpels. There is only so much they can do.
Posted on 9/26/26 at 4:46 pm to SlowFlowPro
All this broad has done is reinforce the fact that women have no business in male-dominated industries such as the military or law enforcement - as well as any position of authority or leadership.
Posted on 9/26/26 at 4:47 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
None worked at all, there were no long-term positives
And there is the pivot.
The original claim was that they could inflict serious damage. Now the standard is whether a few special operations teams could produce long-term strategic success against the entire cartel system.
Thank you for finally making my point for me.
Enjoy the game!
Posted on 9/26/26 at 4:49 pm to KemoSabe65
quote:
Rad some history books on the subject and get back to me. Those badasses we’re fighting 10x their numbers and only lost because America phased out and quit supplying them
The USA succumbing to the anti-Rhodesia and anti-aparteid propaganda did long term damage to Africa.
Posted on 9/26/26 at 4:54 pm to udtiger
Plenty of people on Reddit will tell you how post apartheid Africa is the pinnacle of world society.
Posted on 9/26/26 at 5:10 pm to Roaad
quote:
They are aggressive, impolite, talk crudely with each other, show no empathy for their enemies, and they swear in the "workplace"
Them baws should look into freeing their country.
Posted on 9/26/26 at 5:26 pm to Stealth Matrix
Posted on 9/26/26 at 5:26 pm to Klark Kent
quote:
And there is the pivot.
I have not pivoted at all.
I'm using a historical example of just this suggestion to show that it has already failed.
quote:
The original claim was that they could inflict serious damage. Now the standard is whether a few special operations teams could produce long-term strategic success against the entire cartel system.
What would be "serious" about something immediately responded to and replaced by the cartels?
The cartels are like terrorist cells.
Posted on 9/26/26 at 5:50 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Yes the group that lost the war against the inferior opponent compared to the cartel would certainly do damage to the carte
The free world abandoned them. Just imagine what could have been, compared to what it is right now. A continent of that size with all of those resources somehow still lags behind.
Posted on 9/26/26 at 7:07 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I have not pivoted at all.
Right. Returning to the original claim was somehow a “pivot,” but changing the standard from “inflict serious damage” to “produce lasting strategic improvement” isn’t. Another convenient SFP tactic.
quote:
What would be “serious” about something immediately responded to and replaced by the cartels?
Serious and permanent are not synonyms. Leaders can be captured, infrastructure destroyed, assets seized, and operations disrupted without permanently eliminating the organization.
Your argument that tactical success may not produce lasting strategic improvement is reasonable. If that sort of semantics victory gets you off. But, it simply does not refute the original claim that those teams could inflict serious damage.
This post was edited on 9/26/26 at 7:14 pm
Posted on 9/26/26 at 7:15 pm to Roaad
quote:
show no empathy for their enemies
Posted on 9/26/26 at 9:19 pm to Klark Kent
quote:SlowFloPro's posts typically are. Bar none one of the worst posters on this message board.
Not to mention the SAS was one special-operations regiment. Saying it “lost the war” is like saying SEAL Team Six lost Afghanistan. Dumb.
Posted on 9/26/26 at 11:37 pm to Roaad
"whistleblower" huh? if this how it works ima tell everyone the sky is blue and act all smug about it.
Posted on 9/26/26 at 11:59 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Wow, you really do have a reading comprehension issue
Why would an op in Mexico against the cartels be ANY different?
There is no way to prove or disprove my original statement, but I am confident those guys, with US support, would wreck havoc on the cartels.
Posted on 9/27/26 at 4:18 am to gizmothepug
quote:
A continent of that size with all of those resources somehow still lags behind.
Posted on 9/27/26 at 1:40 pm to Roaad
A little Kipling:
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
Posted on 9/27/26 at 1:40 pm to Roaad
A little Kipling:
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News