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.
I think what most of you don't understand is that we won't win the war by just killing bad guys. We can kill 100, and 100 more will pop up. What General McChrystal was attempting to do is protect the civilian population and hope they don't support the Taliban, in addition to killing the Taliban. Gen McChrystal's ROE were only implemented in 2009 and we needed some new thinking to hopefully get us out of Afghanistan.
I know, and you know, but even the boy's parents in the OP article blame Obama. I understand they're distraught, but the article doesn't correct the mistaken inference.
What has this to do with the discussion? If you think it is pertinent, then let's discuss instead our community organizer turned Commander in Chief. Tell us what is his military background?
Under obama's leadership (not really), more troops have died under his watch than all the years before combined.
If your going to provide your opinion or make it appear as if you know what your talking about, make sure you know what your talking about. Obama has been in office for 18 months. Now unless my television set can not access the channel to your news station, I do not recall the body count totalling 3K + which was the total before Bush left office.
What has this to do with the discussion? If you think it is pertinent, then let's discuss instead our community organizer turned Commander in Chief. Tell us what is his military background?
So taking precautions to protect innocent civilians is wrong?
If we want to protect innocent civilians, we shouldn't be there at all.
The poster is 100% correct: it is INSANE to send our servicemen and women to a hostile foreign country with no orders other than to drive around and wait to be shot at or blown up.
What do our leaders hope to accomplish? What can possibly be accomplished by sending our troops into hostile foreign lands with no objectives to accomplish other than the undefinable and unachievable political ideal of "nation-building"?
Yes, after murdering innocent civilians with drone strikes called by obama,
My how those who used to be called collateral damage when killed alongside terrorist and Taliban insurgents have miraculously been transformed formed into innocent civilians as the result of a U.S. election.
Or have you just recently joined the left wing of the peace movement? When can we start referring to you as a terrorist sympathizer?
Quote:
I would imagine things would tighten up, as far a drone strikes and making sure the bombs are landing on bad guys, but NOT when our men have to hold their fire when getting mowed down by the enemy.
As I pointed out previously, perhaps you should take that question up with Gen McChrystal?
Quote:
Under obama's leadership (not really), more troops have died under his watch than all the years before combined.
I know you aren't in the habit of reading your links, but please if you are going to refer to something that I wrote, read it first.
As I pointed out, casualties are mounting because for perhaps the first time in 9 years we are actually fighting a war!
Quote:
Ummm...in case you haven't noticed, the surge worked in Iraq, exactly opposite of what biden and obama said it would do.
Perhaps you can learn something from Biden and Obama, admitting when you have been wrong.
Quote:
And it definitely makes a difference what kind of CiC you have behind the generals, a strong leader like Bush or a weak lamb like obama.
So, Obama should be like Bush... perhaps he should start a war with Somalia, then promptly forget about it and go off and expend 4,000 lives invading... a country like Paraguay.
Quote:
Bush was looking to win.
Well that being the case, one would think a discussion about what to do in Afghanistan would be moot.
Bush starting a phony war with the wrong country cost a lot of lives, too and YOU didn't care.....why are you so concerned NOW?
The Bush administration starting a war with no planning cost a lot of lives.
The Bush administration said it would be a "three week cake walk"........their lies, thier mismanagement cost many lives, many maimed ....and YOU DIDN'T CARE THEN so you do NOT care now.
clinton too not many of our POTUS have had military exp.
Neither have a lot of the posters. I didn't realize that military experience is a prerequisite for participating in these topics. (Note the comment: before you criticize the Commander in Chief, until that time, you're just a sorry loser that happened to watch the movie "Green Berets"). In other words, if you don't have experience, you don't have a right to speak here.
So, like I said, why is a poster required to have extensive military experience?
And if they don't have the required credentials, we're now calling those we disagree with "sore losers"?
Obviously, the "rule" was in place - our soldier's lives come LAST in the list of people to protect.
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.
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.
