Page 12 of 21 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 206

Thread: Petraeus to Modify Afghanistan Rules of Engagement, Source Says

  1. #111
    Sage
    ric27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    06-15-17 @ 02:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,539

    Re: Petraeus to Modify Afghanistan Rules of Engagement, Source Says

    Quote Originally Posted by Aunt Spiker View Post
    Oh, Ric - further my point in my previous post . . . It's absurd to suggest that our situation in Iraq isn't related in any way to our situation in Afghanistan when Petreus played *the* most critical role in Iraq - and now plays the most critical role in Afghanistan.

    If you don't' think he won't use what he learned and knows via Al Qaeda issue and apply it to the Taliban you're fooling yourself.
    You do realize that not letting them (Taliban) participate in elections and declaring them unrepresentative is an age-old tactic in the strategy of de-legitimatizing the the government right? We did not let them participate and another point....How many of the elected are working behind the scenes on things that favor the Taliban? We will leave, the government will collapse and they or somebody else will fill the void.

    Thats inevitable, so why continue there?

  2. #112
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,051

    Re: Petraeus to Modify Afghanistan Rules of Engagement, Source Says

    Quote Originally Posted by alexa View Post
    You have been playing footbal with the lives of Afghani's up until McChrysler started seeing them as human beings whose lives should be respected with the hope of gaining their trust so that a political solution could be found.
    We have largely ignored Afghanistan for whatever reason up until 18 months ago. McChrystal is just the name people know when focus went back. He looked at Afghanistan the same way Patraeus and Mattis looked at Iraq. What are you expecting to change other than a quicker end?

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by alexa View Post
    For the rest if the intention is what I replied too and as the article seemed to suggest that you are again going to have no respect for the lives of Afghan people then enjoy your killing alone.
    You assume an extreme intention for nothing. I have stated enough times that McChrystal, Patraeus, and Mattis come from the same pool of cultural understanding in this region.
    Quote Originally Posted by alexa View Post
    You may not care for the lives of Afghan people but unlike yourself I believe every life is as valuable as every other.


    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 05:16 PM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  3. #113
    Educator
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    01-17-15 @ 02:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    629

    Re: Petraeus to Modify Afghanistan Rules of Engagement, Source Says

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    You showed an article that contradicted your desires that ROEs come from solo individuals in dark rooms without any political oversight. You chose to ignore the part that obviously suggests political oversight. I don't need to have "evidence" into the world I have belonged to for the last 18 years. What I have is common sense and an ability to not produce articles that contradict me. Your article is my "evidence." Commanders develop ROEs that reflect White House political guidance. This is fact.
    Uhh ... no, I showed an article that says the ROEs came from McChrystal. I'm not ignoring any part of the article. I don't stretch part of the article to try to become part of the spin you want it to be. Great, you don't need to have evidence or facts for a debate, wow. So you don't rely on facts, you just pull stuff from a hat, you're obviously wrong then, not much point arguing with you any further.

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    No you are not understanding. You are now agreeing with me without even knowing it. You were trying to pass off that American Generals develop ROEs while ignoring any White House guidance, only to seek the approval of foriegn governments. But right here, you state that he already has the approval of the White House. YOu think he was written a blank check? And then sought foriegn governments approval to give to their commanders to approve? Contrary to your belief, American Generals aren't loose cannons. They must weigh military tactics with government political policies. It's the political policy that equates to White House interjection.

    You may as well state that if a General wants the ROEs to reflect the use of nuclear weapons, that the White House has nothing to do with it.
    When did I say American generals develop ROEs without any guidance? I'm saying McChrystal was responsible for the ROEs he created. Where does it say he sought approval of foreign governments when the ROE were issued? You're making stuff up. It simply says they have to be cleared first before they go into effect for Canada and in all likelihood there will be no problem.

  4. #114
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,051

    Re: Petraeus to Modify Afghanistan Rules of Engagement, Source Says

    Quote Originally Posted by Opteron View Post
    There is a base level of ROEs that are done by the Pentagon, such as don't shoot civilians, but these ROEs that you need a placard for were done by McChrystal. Don't forget, McChrystal closed Burger King too, are you going to blame that on politicians, Obama, pentagon too?
    Well, what does closing a Burger King have to do with Rules of Engagment? I'm not in the habit of placing, nor relieving, blame no matter who sits on the White House throne. It is what it is. Rules of Engagment in every war since WWII have come from much higher than one General's ideas. Once again, Obama's White House is not an exception.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  5. #115
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,051

    Re: Petraeus to Modify Afghanistan Rules of Engagement, Source Says

    Quote Originally Posted by Opteron View Post
    Uhh ... no, I showed an article that says the ROEs came from McChrystal. I'm not ignoring any part of the article. I don't stretch part of the article to try to become part of the spin you want it to be. Great, you don't need to have evidence or facts for a debate, wow. So you don't rely on facts, you just pull stuff from a hat, you're obviously wrong then, not much point arguing with you any further.


    When did I say American generals develop ROEs without any guidance? I'm saying McChrystal was responsible for the ROEs he created. Where does it say he sought approval of foreign governments when the ROE were issued? You're making stuff up. It simply says they have to be cleared first before they go into effect for Canada and in all likelihood there will be no problem.

    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 05:32 PM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  6. #116
    Educator
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    01-17-15 @ 02:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    629

    Re: Petraeus to Modify Afghanistan Rules of Engagement, Source Says

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    Well, what does closing a Burger King have to do with Rules of Engagment? I'm not in the habit of placing, nor relieving, blame no matter who sits on the White House throne. It is what it is. Rules of Engagment in every war since WWII have come from much higher than one General's ideas. Once again, Obama's White House is not an exception.
    Closing Burger King shows that this general makes somewhat brash decisions or is wrong, including the ROE that he made. And it also shows that this general has significant autonomy over his mission.

    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.

  7. #117
    Sage
    ric27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    06-15-17 @ 02:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,539

    Re: Petraeus to Modify Afghanistan Rules of Engagement, Source Says

    This is not me saying this....

    Retired Gen. James Jones - National Security Adviser

    "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.''
    Obama Adviser: Afghanistan Gov't Must Do Better - WCBS NEWSRADIO 880


    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 05:42 PM.

  8. #118
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    10-26-10 @ 06:34 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,978

    Re: Petraeus to Modify Afghanistan Rules of Engagement, Source Says

    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 05:42 PM.

  9. #119
    Educator
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    01-17-15 @ 02:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    629

    Re: Petraeus to Modify Afghanistan Rules of Engagement, Source Says

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    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.
    WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?? YOU'RE NOT MAKING ANY SENSE AT ALL. READ THE ARTICLE AGAIN IT'S POSTED HERE: 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.

  10. #120
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    07-01-10 @ 02:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    157

    Re: Petraeus to Modify Afghanistan Rules of Engagement, Source Says

    Quote Originally Posted by 1069 View Post
    Yeah, I don't understand closing the fast food chains and first-run theaters because "this is a warzone, not an amusement park".
    No offense, but of course you don't understand it. How could you possibly understand something that you have no experience in? People who've never been in the military (myself included) should stick to what we know instead of trying to second guess the experts.

Page 12 of 21 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •