Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-24-2010, 06:17 PM
 
Location: Near Manito
20,170 posts, read 24,237,000 times
Reputation: 15284

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by delusianne View Post
1st - true. 2nd - GLIB.
Both true. To your rue.

I take no pleasure in this tragic repetition of mistakes by a liberal President convinced that he has to prove his machismo by throwing away the lives of our young soldiers on an
unwinnable "war" (which, in actuality, is a combination of police and social work, with our troops -- as in Vietnam -- hemmed into a box, restricted by the borders of an unfriendly "ally' and forbidden to pursue the enemy across those borders, while attempting to prop up a corrupt and unpopular regime).

The only thing worse than the President's willful ignorance of history is the deafening silence from the "anti-war" progressives, who are either silent through shame or hypocritically resigned to supporting that which they claim to abhor -- because the unclothed emperor, while sharing the emotional numbness of his predecessor, bestrides a jackass instead of an elephant...

Last edited by Yeledaf; 06-24-2010 at 06:27 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-24-2010, 06:18 PM
 
Location: Lewes, Delaware
3,490 posts, read 3,770,646 times
Reputation: 1953
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy View Post
Do you mean to suggest that he still thinks of Petraeus just as he did in 2007? Come on, he was against the General then and now supports him. After he carried out the Surge so successfully Obama and Biden learned that he was a winner so now they jump to the Bush man. Either he does feel that way or he is just as big a liar as many have called him.

I hope that Obama lets Petraeus bribe the Taliban chiefs like Bush let him bribe the Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2010, 10:18 PM
 
946 posts, read 2,594,177 times
Reputation: 509
Quote:
Originally Posted by James420 View Post
I hope that Obama lets Petraeus bribe the Taliban chiefs like Bush let him bribe the Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq.
Problem is, we're already bribing them by paying protection money for our convoys to get through, as well as other money we have strewn around Afghanistan that has likely made its way to our enemy.

Obama should have fired this entire crew of conflicted military officers when he took office. Instead, he allowed them to stay and boxed himself into a no-win situation, as well as sending thousands more Americans to risk their lives in support of allies who are definitely our enemy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2010, 10:32 PM
 
31,387 posts, read 36,908,857 times
Reputation: 15038
I find it interesting that in some quarters it was considered down right treasonous to denigrate the Iraq surge when it was first implemented, yet now it appears that the loudest critiques of the current surge were great proponents of the one that occurred in Iraq.

My how times change when it is fashionable to do so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2010, 06:59 AM
 
Location: Long Island
56,859 posts, read 25,787,282 times
Reputation: 15431
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy View Post
I have never thought that one is unwinnable, however I did not think the Vietnam one was unwinnable until the Democrat congress critters got started putting restrictions on what could be done and managed to lose it for the troops. I think the same thing will happen this time unless the Dems lose the House in November. I doubt that Congress could do that with just 6 months left of the control of Congress they have now. However, who knows what Nasty Nancy could get done to defeat them.
Why do you think a new republican president can win a war that the previous one could not do in 8 years? I think you are confusing failures in Vietnam and Afghanistan with political affiliation. Neither of these so called wars had the full support of the American people no matter who was in power. You can’t win the war in Afghanistan without more troops and the people are unwilling to make the sacrifice.

Right now something like 1% of our population is making the sacrifice, if you think that will suddenly change with republican leadership good luck.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2010, 08:03 AM
 
Location: S.E. US
13,163 posts, read 1,624,130 times
Reputation: 5131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf View Post

The only thing worse than the President's willful ignorance of history is the deafening silence from the "anti-war" progressives, who are either silent through shame or hypocritically resigned to supporting that which they claim to abhor -- ..
The "cub reporter" at the publication that facilitated this upset and change in military leadership is nothing more than a keft wing eager beaver out to make his mark. The Rollling Stone is left leaning and anti-war, and I believe they hoped to disrupt the war effort to hasten troop withdrawal. It's coming out now that they were very selective in what they included in the article, choosing only the most negatively charged comments that were made in conversation over hours of talk. It's a very slanted article. Typical of Left wing progressive type of propaganda.

Well, it looks like their attempt is backfiring.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2010, 08:05 AM
 
Location: Florida
76,857 posts, read 47,191,511 times
Reputation: 14734
Quote:
Originally Posted by subsound View Post
I love watching the people who were screaming that if you were against the war, you are against America, for the last ~7 years change their tune to ranting about Obama's hemorrhaging money into unwindable conflicts killing American soldiers.

It's so funny watching war hawk extremists change their tune, and try to rationalize it without getting tied up in their own words.
It's amazing, isn't it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2010, 08:14 AM
 
Location: Florida
76,857 posts, read 47,191,511 times
Reputation: 14734
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy View Post
I have never thought that one is unwinnable, however I did not think the Vietnam one was unwinnable until the Democrat congress critters got started putting restrictions on what could be done and managed to lose it for the troops. I think the same thing will happen this time unless the Dems lose the House in November. I doubt that Congress could do that with just 6 months left of the control of Congress they have now. However, who knows what Nasty Nancy could get done to defeat them.
It is already happening, but not because of Congress, but because of McCrystal. He made it virtually impossible for the troops to get air strikes and artillery support authorized, because McCrystal insisted in preventing civilian casualties. Trying to "win the hearts and minds" sounds similar to Vietnam, doesn't it? A Marine lieutenant in Afghanistan said he gave up on even trying to call for air support because he knows that when he picks up the radio, he'll stuck on the phone for half an hour arguing about the situation. He said his time is better spent on fighting. Also, they said that sometimes they need to send a US soldier out in the open to draw fire so the US pilots can verify that they are taking fire, and only then they can engage. This is not good.

And for all this they resented McCrystal and his rules. I posted an article with the above examples on the McCrystal thread.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2010, 08:42 AM
 
Location: S.E. US
13,163 posts, read 1,624,130 times
Reputation: 5131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
It is already happening, but not because of Congress, but because of McCrystal. He made it virtually impossible for the troops to get air strikes and artillery support authorized, because McCrystal insisted in preventing civilian casualties. Trying to "win the hearts and minds" sounds similar to Vietnam, doesn't it? A Marine lieutenant in Afghanistan said he gave up on even trying to call for air support because he knows that when he picks up the radio, he'll stuck on the phone for half an hour arguing about the situation. He said his time is better spent on fighting. Also, they said that sometimes they need to send a US soldier out in the open to draw fire so the US pilots can verify that they are taking fire, and only then they can engage. This is not good.

And for all this they resented McCrystal and his rules. I posted an article with the above examples on the McCrystal thread.
Can you post links to this proving that the "rules of engagement" were issued by McCrystal?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2010, 09:14 AM
 
Location: Florida
76,857 posts, read 47,191,511 times
Reputation: 14734
Quote:
Originally Posted by southward bound View Post
Can you post links to this proving that the "rules of engagement" were issued by McCrystal?
Yes, I posted it on the McCrystal thread. They were his rules of engagement, because he believed the civilian casualties were turning the Afghan public opinion against the US troops.

Here is another one from a year ago.

New Rules of Engagement issued to NATO Forces by Gen McChrystal | NowPublic News Coverage

================================================== ===
The new rules, issued by General McChrystal (ISAF Commander) will prevent troops from shooting at theTaliban, if there is a risk of civilian casualties. The tactical directive highlights that this is the case even if it means to allow the enemy to escape.

General Stanley McChrystal was appointed to replace General Kearney, amids criticism of too many civilians being killed in Afghanistan.

The directive points out that civilians are the centre of gravity and that everything must be done to gain their support. Colonel Julian a US spokesman for ISAF said that everything must be done to avoid civilian casualties.

The stricter rules of engagement were laid down in a "tactical directive" sent to all foreign forces in Afghanistan by U.S. army Gen. Stanley McChrystal who was President Barack Obama's recent choice to take over the NATO-led war here.
================================================

That's from LAST YEAR, so this is nothing new.

One of the rules of engagement (printed on a laminate card) says:

“Patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that you will not have to defend yourselves with lethal force,”

Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 06-25-2010 at 09:30 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top