Originally Posted by
Chugalug2
Tourist:-
I always thought that his rule breaking was in battle, in order to win and win as soon as possible, hence saving life rather than squandering it. The complete antithesis in other words of the VSO's that I denounce.
Chug
Honest question, leaving aside our differences of opinion.
Do you actually believe that the VSO's in question broke rules to deliberately reduce our capability to wage war and to deliberately kill our servicemen?
Do you honestly think, outcome aside, that that was their intention?
I'm seriously interested to know whether you are using hyperbole or deluded.
When people make decisions, those decisions have consequences. In military terms, that often means lives.
When a man takes a gamble based upon probabilities, even 100/1 chances sometimes happen.
A mission that has only 100/1 chance of going wrong will tend to go wrong on average once in a 100 times.
That means that even though the mission is a good idea, sometimes it will go wrong.
That doesn't mean you should stop the mission. The risk benefit balance may be worth the risk.
Just because something goes wrong, doesn't mean it was a bad idea to do it.
Everything, and I do mean everything has a risk attached.
VSO's need to be able to make such calls without being stalked forever by the likes of yourself quarterbacking after the game or the whole system becomes unworkable.
Go look at the Falklands war.
A huge number of big risk calls made there. Most, but not all paid off. Should we hound those decision makers too?