[sayemthree]

it is sad that the politicians are LOSING the war. they are losers! all of them.

[sokdo]

Seems silly to be thinking of potential innocent bystanders as opposed to your own soldiers when you're the general of that army...but it just goes to show you that war is no longer about brute force and who has the biggest guns, it's about politics and sensitive issues and international scrutiny.

[Negotiator]

Originally Posted by sokdo

Seems silly to be thinking of potential innocent bystanders as opposed to your own soldiers when you're the general of that army...but it just goes to show you that war is no longer about brute force and who has the biggest guns, it's about politics and sensitive issues and international scrutiny.

I agree, Geneva convention is for pussies who don't have automatic rifles.

[Septro]

Instead of carpet bombing a whole city and the enemy to the stoneage like we did with Berlin, we have to put a gps-guided missile in someone's 4x6 window and have it only explode in the room the target is in and not make the boom loud enough to burst the next door neighbors eardrums because they might sue us.

Ask Germany and Japan if they will ever attack the U.S. again.. Don't ask the Taliban or Al Qeida, they're laughing at us while they shoot rockets from civilian's homes due to their ability to exploit our weakness.

[bspaceman]

The thing is these rules of engagement are not meant to help us "win" the "war on terror", just sustain it. It is not fiscally responsible of the businessmen financing this war to allow us to win it quickly.

[MteK]

ROE's have been killing Marines since before Vietnam. Remember the embassy in Beirut, ROE said no clips inserted, even at the entrance checkpoint.

"Advertised as a peacekeeping mission, our Marines were actually in a war. Furthermore, their hands were tied by the suits back in Washington with absurd rules of engagement (ROE)"

BTW, that was under the much revered GOP Godfather Reagan's watch.

ROE and war in general are a far more nuanced subject then some of you can appreciate, particularly for those of you who have never served.

[LostMarine]

Originally Posted by Septro

"We're Pinned Down"

Waiting for CAS (Close Air Support) or direct fire from artillery for over 80 minutes while under an intense Ambush in the Ganjgal area of Afghanistan - 3 Marines and 1 Navy Corpsman died due to a new set of Rules of Engagement regarding potential civilian casualties implemented by the Obama Administratration that delayed command decisions on providing fire support to repel the ambushers.


The embedded reporter, when provided with a rifle as their fighting position was about to be overrun, stated "I had no hesitation in grabbing that rifle".

This stems from McChrystal's order early this summer regarding deadly force (as relayed by his spokesman RA Smith):


That's basically what is known amongst the ground-pounders as the "Retreat-rule".. This hyper-sensitive approach to avoiding engaging the enemy if there is any potential civilian(s) around is what lead to the Ganjgal problem of providing timely fire support even though the ambushed Marines clearly stated they were no where near the village when under attack. The soft-glove approach is killing Marines and enabling the Taliban.

WTF!!!!!!!!!!!
One
Big
Ass
Mistake
America

I EFFING HATE THIS MAN!, HIS ETHICS, THOUGHT PROCESS AND MOST OF ALL, HIS SUPPORTERS!

[ragingclue]

Yes we should consider their needs and wants before the lives of our own sons and daughters, because if we screw up, "they" might not like us, call us names, and then we're at a political disadvantage....

/sarcasm

Regardless of why we're there, or what our greater purpose is, we should be guarding the lives of our soldiers/Marines/airmen/squids. Their job is not to make political allies. The job is to eliminate the enemy while minimizing collateral damage. It's not like our options were: either drop a nuke on em or: lose four of our own. This is ridiculous. And the shitty part is a lot of these voices you hear from supporters of shit like this comes from the mouths of people who never have and never will serve, and wouldn't let their children step foot in the grunt military.

The politicians need to make the right choice as far as where to go and what the objective needs to be. Everything else needs to be laid out by the military. Period. If you don't want civilian casualties, then don't go in the first place. Otherwise, collateral damage has been a reality of war forever and we need to accept it. Don't send our sons and daughters over there if they end up in situations where they die because we wanted to save a couple Afghan civilians.

Heck, who knows... Maybe the grateful civilians we saved will send Obama a goat out of gratitude. Well worth it IMO.

[BKsBimmer]

Originally Posted by LostMarine

WTF!!!!!!!!!!!
One
Big
Ass
Mistake
America

I EFFING HATE THIS MAN!, HIS ETHICS, THOUGHT PROCESS AND MOST OF ALL, HIS SUPPORTERS!

So I guess you're okay with the ethics, thought process and supporters of the previous president who didn't mind dragging us into an unnecessary war that lead to the deaths of over 4000 of America's finest. Not to mention the financial cost of that war. And never mind that the previous president started a war in Afghanistan which he later neglected and let go to hell then conveniently left the mess for the current president to clean up. How's that for a Big Ass Mistake???? I guess that doesn't bother you at all.

[shpirate87]

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer

So I guess you're okay with the ethics, thought process and supporters of the previous president who didn't mind dragging us into an unnecessary war that lead to the deaths of over 4000 of America's finest. Not to mention the financial cost of that war. And never mind that the previous president started a war in Afghanistan which he later neglected and let go to hell then conveniently left the mess for the current president to clean up. How's that for a Big Ass Mistake???? I guess that doesn't bother you at all.

At what point is this President and his supporters going to own this Presidency?

Geoerge W. Bush is not in office anymore. He is not responsible for the ROE in Afghanistan. He is no longer responsible for what happens in Afghanistan for good or ill. President Obama is the President. He did not inherit anything, he asked for the responsibilities he now has. It reflects an amazing lack of class for a President to constantly complain about his plight and blame others. It is time for Obama & his supporters to man up. A challenge to his supporters, try to defend his actions without mentioning Bush. Just rty.

[InsaneSkippy]

Originally Posted by shpirate87

At what point is this President and his supporters going to own this Presidency?

Geoerge W. Bush is not in office anymore. He is not responsible for the ROE in Afghanistan. He is no longer responsible for what happens in Afghanistan for good or ill. President Obama is the President. He did not inherit anything, he asked for the responsibilities he now has. It reflects an amazing lack of class for a President to constantly complain about his plight and blame others. It is time for Obama & his supporters to man up. A challenge to his supporters, try to defend his actions without mentioning Bush. Just rty.

So if a pilot made an error and now a plane was on a crash course for, then said "Well I'm off the clock now" and gets up out of the cockpit. Then someone comes and tries to correct the flight path, are they to blame then? After all, the pilot is not on the clock any more, and the plane crashed while the other person was trying to fix it.

[UltimateBMW]

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer

So I guess you're okay with the ethics, thought process and supporters of the previous president who didn't mind dragging us into an unnecessary war that lead to the deaths of over 4000 of America's finest. Not to mention the financial cost of that war. And never mind that the previous president started a war in Afghanistan which he later neglected and let go to hell then conveniently left the mess for the current president to clean up. How's that for a Big Ass Mistake???? I guess that doesn't bother you at all.

I feel that this post is a bit short sighted. How soon you forget how the entire nation demanded just action taken in response for 9/11. There was full support for it, then when the public grew tired of hearing about it, they wanted out. Things aren't always that easy, so perhaps because they aren't easy neglecting them was the best option. I'm not advocating the neglect, but you can't deny that the public demanded some sort of retribution.

Also, don't forget that GWB's father had his hand in wars with Iraq as well. But he never sealed the deal and took out Saddam. Most people don't see that GWB finished what his father did not.

[742]

Originally Posted by shpirate87

At what point is this President and his supporters going to own this Presidency?

Geoerge W. Bush is not in office anymore. He is not responsible for the ROE in Afghanistan. He is no longer responsible for what happens in Afghanistan for good or ill.....

Nixon ran in 1968 on a promise to end American involvement in the Vietnam War. It took him 4 ugly years (or more, depending on where you draw the line).

So it would be reasonable to give Obama the same time to fix his predecessor’s mess that it took Nixon.

[shpirate87]

Originally Posted by InsaneSkippy

So if a pilot made an error and now a plane was on a crash course for, then said "Well I'm off the clock now" and gets up out of the cockpit. Then someone comes and tries to correct the flight path, are they to blame then? After all, the pilot is not on the clock any more, and the plane crashed while the other person was trying to fix it.

That may be the most ridiculous analogy ever.

[shpirate87]

Originally Posted by 742

Nixon ran in 1968 on a promise to end American involvement in the Vietnam War. It took him 4 ugly years (or more, depending on where you draw the line).

So it would be reasonable to give Obama the same time to fix his predecessor’s mess that it took Nixon.

Did Nixon spend his first year in office blaming LBJ for the 'mess' he inherited? I don't think so.

[InsaneSkippy]

Originally Posted by shpirate87

That may be the most ridiculous analogy ever.

Nice job ignoring the point

Granted Bush didn't just quit his job, you can't say he's not to blame for this war. He set something in motion, failed miserably at it, and then handed over all of the responsibility once Obama was elected.

Obama can't just say "That's it, we're out of here" and pull every single troop out BECAUSE of what Bush started.

Perhaps a better analogy for you. Bush pushed the boulder just enough to get it rolling down hill, and now people are complaining because Obama can't stop it from rolling.

[shpirate87]

Originally Posted by InsaneSkippy

Nice job ignoring the point

Granted Bush didn't just quit his job, you can't say he's not to blame for this war. He set something in motion, failed miserably at it, and then handed over all of the responsibility once Obama was elected.

Obama can't just say "That's it, we're out of here" and pull every single troop out BECAUSE of what Bush started.

Perhaps a better analogy for you. Bush pushed the boulder just enough to get it rolling down hill, and now people are complaining because Obama can't stop it from rolling.

That analogy had no point.

Bush did not start the war in Afghanistan, al Qaeda and the Taliban government in Afghanistan did. You may disagree with the strategy and method Bush chose to execute in Afghanistan but isn't it funny how Bush is being blamed for using in Afghanistan, the exact strategy that the left wanted him to use in Iraq? Reliance on the 'international community' Let NATO take the lead.

Obama said during the campaign that he had a better way in Afghanistan. He announced in March HIS new strategy, he appointed HIS new commander to implement HIS strategy. Now he is trying to decide whether to resouce HIS commander to properly execute HIS strategy. The war in Afghanistan is HIS now and he needs to step up to the plate and take ownership.

[742]

Originally Posted by shpirate87

Did Nixon spend his first year in office blaming LBJ for the 'mess' he inherited? I don't think so.

Yes he did. How old were you in 1969?

[shpirate87]

Originally Posted by 742

Yes he did. How old were you in 1969?

Maybe you would like to provide quotes to back this up.

[742]

Originally Posted by shpirate87

Maybe you would like to provide quotes to back this up.

"Now, let me begin by describing the situation I found when I was inaugurated on January 20."

"The war had been going on for 4 years."

"31,000 Americans had been killed in action."

"The training program for the South Vietnamese was behind schedule."

"540,000 Americans were in Vietnam with no plans to reduce the number."

"No progress had been made at the negotiations in Paris and the United States had not put forth a comprehensive peace proposal."

"The war was causing deep division at home and criticism from many of our friends as well as our enemies abroad."

[UltimateBMW]

Originally Posted by InsaneSkippy

Granted Bush didn't just quit his job, you can't say he's not to blame for this war. He set something in motion, failed miserably at it, and then handed over all of the responsibility once Obama was elected.

You seem to think there was another alternative. He couldn't of pursued it any longer regardless. Your plane analogy is on the far side of ridiculous simple due to the semantics of the comparison. A more accurate comparison would of maybe been to compare traffic controllers. Since they are in more of a authoritative role.

Regardless, you are using the fact that we are already over there as a excuse or distraction from the actual topic that is the error of the current set up.

[shpirate87]

Originally Posted by 742

"Now, let me begin by describing the situation I found when I was inaugurated on January 20...

I can't believe you are using this as an example as Nixon, in this speech, did the exact opposite of what Obama is doing. The speech goes on to say:

In view of these circumstances there were some who urged that I end the war at once by ordering the immediate withdrawal of all American forces.
From a political standpoint this would have been a popular and easy course to follow. After all, we became involved in the war while my predecessor was in office. I could blame the defeat which would be the result of my action on him and come out as the peacemaker. Some put it to me quite bluntly: This was the only way to avoid allowing Johnson's war to become Nixon's war.
But I had a greater obligation than to think only of the years of my administration and of the next election. I had to think of the effect of my decision on the next generation and on the future of peace and freedom in America and in the world.
Let us all understand that the question before us is not whether some Americans are for peace and some Americans are against peace. The question at issue is not whether Johnson's war becomes Nixon's war.
The great question is: How can we win America's peace?

He takes ownership of the war.

He rejects the idea that it is still LBJ's war.