Thats inevitable, so why continue there?
Thats inevitable, so why continue there?
Why is it that you people ignore the fact that political solutions failed us into war as you seek the same rabble to get us out? The military already has the politicial solutions. Suits are not required. They can busy themselves talking us into another war somewhere else into fruition. "Politicial Solutions" to get out of wars that they put us in has been a public fad and a means to cling to a false illusion of ourselves since 1945. It's not the military that create these wars. Nor has been the military that have screwed them up by looking for ways out of them rather than winning them.
Well since you are making an assumption about me, because I don't cower behind false illusions, I shall make a general assumption of you. I believe that is what is considered fair, right?.....
You, like so many, are simply full of ****. I don't believe you care about any of them. How many have you met? Shook an Afghani hand lately? You care more about your illusion of yourself than what is actually going on. You believe that seeking other means to get out of war will some how save lives, but all you really guarantee is a lingering occupation that causes more aggravation, politicial mess, and death over an extended period of time. It's the fear of conducting war that makes them last. It's the fear of what we might look like that strips our commanders of the ability to win them quickly and decisively, which actually delivers less civilian death. "Other means" merely offers our enemy breathing space and the ability to adapt to our tactics, which inturn makes us shift gears, which inturn causes more death.
You preach that you value the lives of the Afghani people. You would care less about them if 9/11 hadn't happened and directed your focus on the Tali-ban, where they had already been suffering for well over a decade (when it wasn't supposed to "be our problem"). The same is true over in Iraq when President Clinton and the UN bombed it four separate times and helped Saddam Hussein starve them for 13 years. But after we invade...we care about their lives, right? You only care about keeping your illusions intact. If anybody cares, it's the military personel who are actively over there sweating and bleeding to secure them a chance to progress and move on so that we can be safer in the region by preventing the one chance Al-Queda has for a base of operations.
I truly care. And this is why I seek perfect understanding about all the issues rather than cling to media headlines and reporter wisdom. Most of which even the Afghani people laugh at. While I believe that you are well intentioned, I don't believe it is grounded in some personal care about them. It makes me think of the protests people had over Vietnam as they professed to care about their lives, but looked quickly away as the Cambodians slaughytered them after we left. I guess they no longer cared.
Last edited by MSgt; 06-27-10 at 03:16 PM.
Don't ask me where it is. READ....YOUR.....OWN...DAMN....ARTICLE...AND YOUR...OWN...POSTS. You expressly offered up "how it is" by stating that McChrystal developed his own ROEs, handed them to the Canadian government, so that it could hand them to Canadian commanders for approval. You then offered up that the McChrystal did so haviong already the approval of the White House. First you offered up an article that contradicted your "lone gunman" theory, then you chose to ignore the part of it that showed otherwise, then you chose to throw the White House is there as "approving," then you asked where all of this is. I agree that you didn't stretch anything. You outright ignored everything in the article beyond a single sentence and then tried to imply that none ofthat really mattered.
Every President since WWII has had a hand in military affairs and ROEs except President Obama's White House? He is the one lone exception and McChrystal was dictating policy with no political rules placed before him as he sought foriegn approval for what was solely his demands? This is where you are stretching.
Last edited by MSgt; 06-27-10 at 03:32 PM.
Just because something happened in the past doesn't mean that it's the same this time. Just because it happened in WWII or Vietnam doesn't mean it happened in Afghanistan.
This is not me saying this....
Retired Gen. James Jones - National Security Adviser
Obama Adviser: Afghanistan Gov't Must Do Better - WCBS NEWSRADIO 880"The al-Qaida presence is very diminished,'' he said. "The maximum estimate is less than 100 operating in the country, no bases, no ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies.''
When we first went in, we could have clearly stated "We are only here as long as there are AQ to kill, but where we ****ed up went in promising to fix everything.
Nation building is screwing us over and over
Last edited by ric27; 06-27-10 at 03:42 PM.
Yeah, I don't understand closing the fast food chains and first-run theaters because "this is a warzone, not an amusement park".
I mean, we allegedly "won" in Iraq, and bases there are a lot larger and more like "an amusement park" than Bagram or any other base in Afghanistan.
On the other hand, my friend recently returned from Afghanistan, and she told me that obesity among soldiers is becoming a major problem over there. Maybe McCrystal just wants them in top physical condition, for their own safety. Top fighting form.
McCrystal himself is a rather spartan individual; one doubts he eats much Burger King.
He allegedly gets up and jogs like ten miles every morning at 5 am, and that's his recreation for the day.
I've heard Petraeus is somewhat similar in his habits, although he is talking about possibly bringing Burger King back... or at least saying he won't rule it out.
Gen. Petraeus Not Ruling Out Bringing Burger King Back To Afghanistan - The Consumerist
Today I feel more optimistic; I think things might get a little better for our troops in Afghanistan under Petraeus.
Several enlisted folks I've talked to are optimistic about the change.
Last edited by 1069; 06-27-10 at 03:42 PM.
New Rules of Engagement issued to NATO Forces by Gen McChrystal | NowPublic News Coverage
How in the world does the article contradict the "lone gunman" theory??? The entire article supports everything I have said. You're trying to spin it that somehow the article contradicts itself, wow. And you're trying to spin that because the Canadian commander has to approve the ROE, somehow all ROE are products of their political leaders? You're wrong.