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 09-16-2009, 03:45 PM
 
Location: South Fla
9,644 posts, read 8,585,158 times
Reputation: 1942

Advertisements

There is an echo in here.HELLOOOOooooooooo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-16-2009, 03:59 PM
 
Location: Yootó
1,305 posts, read 3,259,177 times
Reputation: 803
Quote:
Originally Posted by karfar View Post
Shake things up? LOL, well sure that's good in theory but look at what's happening w/Obama. The air is rife w/claims that Obama is too radical. If he's not shaking things up, then I don't know who is.
That's exactly what they want you to think. Obama is about as radical as oatmeal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2009, 04:00 PM
 
Location: NW Nevada
14,143 posts, read 11,575,313 times
Reputation: 13208
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper View Post
I think Obama knew very well what he was doing, but I think he is miscalculating the liberal base. There have been grumblings of some that wish to primary against him. Wouldn't that be something.

I'm rather saddened by those folks who opposed the war so strongly under Bush, who now remain silent now that the Obama administration is in office. If folks are going to oppose the war, then oppose the war, don't give a free pass just because the party of choice is now running the show.
Hmmmm, ain't it the truth though. Is our men and women fighting and dieing in a s***hole of a country, for people who despise us at a core level, so much better because the left is issuing the orders? Oh wait, the ROE's have been dictated by the left for 45 years or so. You know those little rules. Fire only if fired upon, sentires with empty rifles, BBQ's for 'collateral damage', Mirandizing enemy fighters, focusing on the horrors of war by pointing at the soldiers fighting said war as being at fault, hamstringing our fighting forces with 'target lists' an running combat operations like a bloody soccer game, with out of bounds rules, time outs,designated areas of play etc. I oppose the war in the middle east, but not on the same premise that the left does. I oppose it because there is no real plan to WIN and achieve a REAL objective. If our fighting forces are going to be sent into combat, they should be given the latitude to do their jobs, and smash the enemy. Not pattycake around stupid , hand wringing rules that sympathize with the plight of the enemy. The only commitment that we have 'over there' is the lives of our soldiers, which I feel, are being layed on the line for the sake of an appearance of strength. A fact that is not lost on our enemy. But hey! The place is a great proving ground for new battlefield technology to let the rabbit breed place new ROE's on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2009, 04:02 PM
 
Location: Yootó
1,305 posts, read 3,259,177 times
Reputation: 803
Quote:
Originally Posted by NVplumber View Post
Hmmmm, ain't it the truth though. Is our men and women fighting and dieing in a s***hole of a country, for people who despise us at a core level, so much better because the left is issuing the orders? Oh wait, the ROE's have been dictated by the left for 45 years or so. You know those little rules. Fire only if fired upon, sentires with empty rifles, BBQ's for 'collateral damage', Mirandizing enemy fighters, focusing on the horrors of war by pointing at the soldiers fighting said war as being at fault, hamstringing our fighting forces with 'target lists' an running combat operations like a bloody soccer game, with out of bounds rules, time outs,designated areas of play etc. I oppose the war in the middle east, but not on the same premise that the left does. I oppose it because there is no real plan to WIN and achieve a REAL objective. If our fighting forces are going to be sent into combat, they should be given the latitude to do their jobs, and smash the enemy. Not pattycake around stupid , hand wringing rules that sympathize with the plight of the enemy. The only commitment that we have 'over there' is the lives of our soldiers, which I feel, are being layed on the line for the sake of an appearance of strength. A fact that is not lost on our enemy. But hey! The place is a great proving ground for new battlefield technology to let the rabbit breed place new ROE's on.
And don't forget that the Blackwaters and others are making a mint for some cats out there....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2009, 04:17 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,777 posts, read 24,824,895 times
Reputation: 12162
Knowing that we're talking about non-combat troops, I wouldn't make a bigger deal out of this than it is:
"The troops are what the military calls “combat enablers” — noncombat troops who specialize in areas such as intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; explosives ordnance disposal; medical and mental health; and personnel administration. They will deploy in team-sized elements as opposed to larger units, according to the official, who asked not to be identified." (
Link)

If people can't handle effects of war, and the toll it takes, they should refrain from supporting its initiation to begin with. I was wary about it in 2001, and said it in 2002-2003... don't go war mongering. But we did, and must pay for our stupidity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2009, 04:46 PM
 
31,385 posts, read 32,007,059 times
Reputation: 14896
Did anyone take the time to read the original source material?

“He’s looking at seeing how he can get more counter-IED capabilities over to our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan,” Morrell said. “He wants to figure out how he can provide them [more] route clearance, explosive ordnance disposal teams, medics, medevac capabilities, intelligence assets, things of that nature. But nothing has been determined yet about how to do this.”

As such, no deployment orders have been signed and no time frame for the deployments has yet been finalized, the official said.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2009, 04:51 PM
 
11,127 posts, read 12,655,114 times
Reputation: 3676
Quote:
Originally Posted by NVplumber View Post
Hmmmm, ain't it the truth though. Is our men and women fighting and dieing in a s***hole of a country, for people who despise us at a core level, so much better because the left is issuing the orders? Oh wait, the ROE's have been dictated by the left for 45 years or so. You know those little rules. Fire only if fired upon, sentires with empty rifles, BBQ's for 'collateral damage', Mirandizing enemy fighters, focusing on the horrors of war by pointing at the soldiers fighting said war as being at fault, hamstringing our fighting forces with 'target lists' an running combat operations like a bloody soccer game, with out of bounds rules, time outs,designated areas of play etc. I oppose the war in the middle east, but not on the same premise that the left does. I oppose it because there is no real plan to WIN and achieve a REAL objective. If our fighting forces are going to be sent into combat, they should be given the latitude to do their jobs, and smash the enemy. Not pattycake around stupid , hand wringing rules that sympathize with the plight of the enemy. The only commitment that we have 'over there' is the lives of our soldiers, which I feel, are being layed on the line for the sake of an appearance of strength. A fact that is not lost on our enemy. But hey! The place is a great proving ground for new battlefield technology to let the rabbit breed place new ROE's on.
Since the onset of our most recent two wars and occupations, I have since changed my position from one of anti-war to that of pro-peace and contrary to what some might think, there is a distinct difference.

While I vie for peaceful solutions and rational well reasoned actions, I also understand that there will be times in which war is inevitable. In the case of Afghanistan, I believe there an appropriate and harsh response that was warranted. What it has become now is not that far from a watered down Vietnam, where leadership is looking for reasons to continue in order to save face. The war in Afghanistan today is not the same as it was in 2001 and the way war is waged today isn't the same as the way people waged war in ancient times.



Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
[/i]If people can't handle effects of war, and the toll it takes, they should refrain from supporting its initiation to begin with. I was wary about it in 2001, and said it in 2002-2003... don't go war mongering. But we did, and must pay for our stupidity.
I have opposed the Iraqi campaign from day one, and in doing so, I have had death threats over articles I have had published. In 2002, anyone who even suggested that Iraq was a misadventure was demonized, condemned as anti-American and a terrorist sympathizer, and scorned by the great majority, both left and right. Even our President at the time suggested that either you agreed with the US position or you were a terrorist and that kind of language resonated like a symphony in a Sydney.

As I posted in the thread Infinite regress, a political rant on discourse in America Sen. Byrd of West Virgina was the lone voice who stated, "A pall has fallen over the Senate Chamber. We avoid our solemn duty to debate the one topic on the minds of all Americans, even while scores of thousands of our sons and daughters faithfully do their duty in Iraq. "

There was no real debate on Iraq, ever.

As we start racking up the years in these campaigns, here we sit today watching more troops and contractors being put in country and yet the country is nearly silent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2009, 04:52 PM
 
Location: South Fla
9,644 posts, read 8,585,158 times
Reputation: 1942
About 1,000 such troops also will deploy to Iraq, the official said, adding that both groups are being sent in response to existing requests by the theater commanders in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The so-called “request for forces” was approved two weeks ago by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the official said.

More ‘combat enablers’ Afghan-bound - Army News, news from Iraq, - Army Times
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2009, 04:59 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,777 posts, read 24,824,895 times
Reputation: 12162
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper View Post
I have opposed the Iraqi campaign from day one, and in doing so, I have had death threats over articles I have had published. In 2002, anyone who even suggested that Iraq was a misadventure was demonized, condemned as anti-American and a terrorist sympathizer, and scorned by the great majority...
I'm with you on that. While many of the great majority seem to be doing a 180-degree turn around on the issue, we did (unfortunately) end up going to war as a nation. I opposed going to war, but since we went for it anyway, a responsible ending is something I expect. This is why I said:
"I was wary about it in 2001, and said it in 2002-2003... don't go war mongering. But we did, and must pay for our stupidity."

Being irresponsible in the past has backfired on us. Think Al Qaeda, Afghanistan (and even Iraq) in the 1980s.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2009, 05:06 PM
 
Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
14,095 posts, read 23,620,022 times
Reputation: 7981
Several of these jobs will be targets for the insurgents. All of those jobs that require leaving the base will have to be armed or have an armed escort and so combat could be likely. Navy hospital corpsman are trained in combat along side the marines because they will have to fight along side the marines until their medical duties are called upon. There are enlisted men who serve in the chaplin corps. Their job is to assist the chaplin in their duties and to protect them when under attack.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Knowing that we're talking about non-combat troops, I wouldn't make a bigger deal out of this than it is:
"The troops are what the military calls “combat enablers” — noncombat troops who specialize in areas such as intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; explosives ordnance disposal; medical and mental health; and personnel administration. They will deploy in team-sized elements as opposed to larger units, according to the official, who asked not to be identified." (Link)

If people can't handle effects of war, and the toll it takes, they should refrain from supporting its initiation to begin with. I was wary about it in 2001, and said it in 2002-2003... don't go war mongering. But we did, and must pay for our stupidity.
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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - 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 - Top