Page 15 of 21 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 206

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

  1. #141
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by PubliusInfinitu View Post
    That was the entire hide.
    What does this mean?

  2. #142
    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
    I think I'm done with you. It is you that is suggesting the "lone gunman theory" by suggesting that he alone, without White House political guidance, developed the ROEs. It is you that stated that he alone, issued them to the Canadian government for approval. It has been you that have suggested the he alone is to blame. He issued them as the commander in the field. He did not sit in a dark room allalone and develop ROEs with the White House completely in the dark and without addressed concerns.
    Uh, you have no idea what you're talking about.

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    I think I'm done with you. It is you that is suggesting the "lone gunman theory" by suggesting that he alone, without White House political guidance, developed the ROEs. It is you that stated that he alone, issued them to the Canadian government for approval. It has been you that have suggested the he alone is to blame.
    That's exactly what I'm saying and that's how it is. Again, how does my own article contradict the "lone gunman theory"? It doesn't. He issued the orders. What part of that don't you get that they are his orders?

    General Stanley McChrystal was appointed to replace General Kearney, amids criticism of too many civilians being killed in Afghanistan.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    From your own damn article, it is clear that his arrival had to deal with the image of civilian deaths as well as win this war. Image is a politician's concern and it made its way from the White House into the ROEs. Patraeus will have the same concerns pressuring him from the White House. But Patraeus will not sacrifice troop security or the turn out of this war to a politician's need for image. He will work around it like he did in Iraq.

    You do not know what you are talking about.
    So from this quote somehow you're getting the White House made the ROEs? That's your own "interpretation" of it. It's a simple sentence stating that there was criticism for civilian deaths. It has nothing to do with "White House", ROEs, image, or anything that you are again trying to spin from it.

    From the article it's also clear that McChrystal created the ROEs, you just are denying it. Even if he didn't write them, which he did, he is responsible for them because he issued them. If he felt they were going to hurt the troops or if they were wrong, he should have objected or resigned as commander, that's the proper thing for him to do. Clearly he didn't, so he did support the ROEs.

  3. #143
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    melbourne florida
    Last Seen
    09-24-15 @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,156

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Opteron View Post
    These are his ROE's not anyone else's. If they were developed by the Pentagon, they would be issued by the Pentagon, not by General McChrystal. No one handed these down to him, this is his strategy and his rules. He didn't have to issue these ROE's, but he did. To say that he issued them, but they weren't his, is stretching it.


    This is just background info of the article, it doesn't work to prove any point. Of course they have to be approved by the Canadian government, because it's a different country. They have to make sure any orders that are given to them are legal first. And when they mean Canadian government they mean the proper military channels, whatever they have.
    So these are NATO roe and the countries of NATO do not know what they are and approve them before their soldiers obey them?

  4. #144
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    melbourne florida
    Last Seen
    09-24-15 @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,156

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    In the modern wars(say from 2000 on, possibly longer), politics is a part of the overall strategy to win. Yes, RoEs serve a political purpose, but that purpose is to help win the war. Now, as I said earlier, I am not nearly knowledgeable or experienced enough to know if they are the best choice to win the war, but it's not to be a treehugger or such ****.
    Not to win the war to be politically correct

  5. #145
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:24 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,324
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ptif219 View Post
    Not to win the war to be politically correct
    And you have zero evidence of this.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  6. #146
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    09-10-16 @ 06:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,433

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

    Quote Originally Posted by alms View Post
    I never said you weren't committed, or that I was more committed than you. My point was that no matter how committed you may be, you can never obtain an understanding of the military that is anything but superficial.

    And just out of curiosity, what does your son do in the Army?
    It is against OPSECto discuss one's activities in the military - sometimes including rank, name, location, deployment details (including exact arrival time/location - etc) and so on.

    I do discuss some things concerning the semi-nature of my husband's job but nothing that denotes where he works, how long he's been there or exactly who he is and what he does - things of that nature. (Which is annoying to me at some times - he's been on TV, you all have probably seen him - but I can't brag about that, now can I )

    It's purely a safety issue. You'd be surprised how many brainless idiots leak out detailed and personal info about their loved ones via net - only for that information to easily fall into the hands of the enemy and be used against everyone.

    Which is why some people become sensitive and unhinged when questioned in that way.
    Last edited by Aunt Spiker; 06-28-10 at 12:13 AM.
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

  7. #147
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    melbourne florida
    Last Seen
    09-24-15 @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,156

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    And you have zero evidence of this.
    Really? Read the op these rules where put in place to appease the Afghan people and government

  8. #148
    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 ptif219 View Post
    So these are NATO roe and the countries of NATO do not know what they are and approve them before their soldiers obey them?
    These are not NATO ROEs but ISAF ROEs, ISAF is made up of mostly NATO countries though. I wonder who would be in a position to make new ROEs for the mission in Afghanistan, probably the ISAF commander.

  9. #149
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:24 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,324
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ptif219 View Post
    Really? Read the op these rules where put in place to appease the Afghan people and government
    Which is part of the strategy to win in Afghanistan, which is a far cry from being politically correct.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  10. #150
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    09-10-16 @ 06:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,433

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Which is part of the strategy to win in Afghanistan, which is a far cry from being politically correct.
    What's a far cry from being PC?
    The rules that were put in place?
    Or the strategy to win in Afghanistan?
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

Page 15 of 21 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... 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
  •