Page 19 of 21 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 206

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

  1. #181
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    07-10-10 @ 10:05 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    143

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Opteron View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PubliusInfinitum
    Your argument is fallacious. It assumes that McCrystal is authorized to simply determine such legalities; and it is absurd. You're claiming that because McCrystal replaced his predecessor, on the premise that the replacement was due to the number of civilians being killed, that McCrystal himself constructed the modified ROEs... ROEs are determined by the COMMANDER IN CHIEF... That's a fundamental function of American governance. And one which CAN produce unlimited warfare, or the sort of mamby pamby, psycho-absurdities of trying to win the hearts and minds of the enemy.
    Uh, you're totally wrong on this point. The president is not a military expert, he is not able to create rules of engagement, he doesn't know about the military formalities of rules of engagement.
    The President, at least, this President, is not an expert on anything except anti-American, socialist dogma. Yet there he is the President of the United States, who swore an oathe to uphold the US Constitution; to which he is fundamentally opposed.

    The Commander in Chief is however, despite your protestation, responsible for and in total command of the actions of the US Military and as such determines the rules by which they will engage the enemy, which he sends to contest.

    As such, it is the CinC which retains the final authority for all matters regarding the US Military, which decidedly includes the rules of engagement by which the US Military operates. PERIOD!



    I hope you don't mind bashing General McChrystal when you talk of "mamby pamby, psycho-absudities of trying to win the hearts and minds of the enemy" because that is his strategy, and even that phrasing of "win the hearts and minds of the enemy" is his.

    Nope... 'Hearts and Minds' is a force multiplying tenet of guerilla warfare which goes back to Sun Tsu. The phrase "Winning the hearts and minds of the Local Indigenous People" is rooted in the mamby pamby bowels of the Johnson Administration and one General Westmoreland; Commanding General of US Forces in South East Asia. Circa 1964-ish.

    Of course, Hearts and Minds only works when the player seeking to win the hearts and mind are sincere and virtuous. LBJ was not, Hussein is not and no Progressive is capable of such; thus the reason for Chronic Progressive failure in such matters; they're inherently corrupt; and the people attached to those hearts and minds, not being FOOLS, soon recognize that they're being played and turn to the highly dedicated, sincere INSURGENCY!

    Nothing particularly complex about this... It's human nature and there's no mystery left in such matters.

  2. #182
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:50 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,268
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ptif219 View Post
    Read this was done to appease the afghans that is being politcally correct. It is politics.
    Actually, it's called being diplomatic. We need the Afghanistan people and government on our side to win, so trying to not piss them off too much is simply sensible.
    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.

  3. #183
    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 Redress View Post
    Actually, it's called being diplomatic. We need the Afghanistan people and government on our side to win, so trying to not piss them off too much is simply sensible.
    The people aren't on the government's side.
    Why should they be?
    Everyone knows it's a corrupt puppet government.

  4. #184
    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 PubliusInfinitu View Post
    The President, at least, this President, is not an expert on anything except anti-American, socialist dogma.
    Just as your conservative wing is an expert on making facts up where none exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by PubliusInfinitu View Post
    The Commander in Chief is however, despite your protestation, responsible for and in total command of the actions of the US Military and as such determines the rules by which they will engage the enemy, which he sends to contest.

    As such, it is the CinC which retains the final authority for all matters regarding the US Military, which decidedly includes the rules of engagement by which the US Military operates. PERIOD!
    Apparently, you aren't familiar with civilian control of the military. As Commander in Chief, its the President's responsibility to give the orders to the military on what mission they are to carry out, not micromanage the day-to-day affairs of the military. As a civilian, the President or Commander in Chief would be detrimental to the mission if he were manage the affairs of the military and override the orders of professional generals lest he is a military expert. The President is the Executive of the United States, does that give him the power to manage things at the city and state level? No it doesn't, its not his place to do so. Again, read the analogy of the CEO posted previously. While a CEO is responsible for the end result of a product, he is not responsible to make that product.

    Apparently, you also are not familiar with Vietnam, when Presidents did put restrictive ROE in place, such as not to bomb or fight above a certain parallel or not to bomb N. Vietnamese airbases. Their interference was detrimental to the mission. President Obama is doing what a proper civilian Commander in Chief should be doing.

    Quote Originally Posted by PubliusInfinitu View Post
    LBJ was not, Hussein is not
    Are you talking about Saddam Hussein? I don't know of anyone who goes by that name.

    Quote Originally Posted by PubliusInfinitu View Post
    Nope... 'Hearts and Minds' is a force multiplying tenet of guerilla warfare which goes back to Sun Tsu. The phrase "Winning the hearts and minds of the Local Indigenous People" is rooted in the mamby pamby bowels of the Johnson Administration and one General Westmoreland; Commanding General of US Forces in South East Asia. Circa 1964-ish.

    Of course, Hearts and Minds only works when the player seeking to win the hearts and mind are sincere and virtuous. LBJ was not, Hussein is not and no Progressive is capable of such; thus the reason for Chronic Progressive failure in such matters; they're inherently corrupt; and the people attached to those hearts and minds, not being FOOLS, soon recognize that they're being played and turn to the highly dedicated, sincere INSURGENCY!
    Are you calling General McChrystal "mamby pamby" and a fool, and accuse him of playing into the insurgency? Because that is his strategy and those are his orders.

    And I am still waiting for you to admit that the President did not create these restrictive ROEs and that they were in fact created by General McChrystal, or do you refuse to believe this?

  5. #185
    Student LowRevs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Downeast in NC
    Last Seen
    07-12-12 @ 04:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    272

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

    So O is elected and appoints a liberal General McCrystal to run Afghan war.

    Because of all the administration limitations and interference in Afghan., things are not working out well there (or anywhere else in administration) so O decides he must make a PURELY POLITICAL move and actually try to win the war and improve his plumeting ratings. To do this he wants a sure thing and therefore has to appoint the BETRAYER Petraeus who's Iraq surge he still doesn't admit worked.

    To cover up his gross hypocricy and blithering incompetence he get's his liberal General to commit military chain of command hari kari by saying some not so bad but bad enough things to get called on the carpet.

    He provides a far left naive liberal shill at Rolling Stone (not there's a serious political rag) to be the fall guy. Nobody really blames McCrystal. The reasons the Afghan war is failing are shrouded by the controversy. The rest of the far left naive liveral shills think or are told to say (think) that the move is "brilliant" by O.

    Presumably our greatest general of the time wins the war and O get's all the credit.
    I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.--Thomas Jefferson

  6. #186
    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

    who's Iraq surge he still doesn't admit worked.
    Oh - Omaba admitted it worked, alright - his words were "better than anyone ever dared to DREAM it would" . . . . but it worked for all teh wrong reasons.
    (during his interview with Bill O'Reilly during the election)

    Obama can only say "it's Bush's War . .. it's Bush's Fault" for so long before he actually bites himself in the ass with that.
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

  7. #187
    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 LowRevs View Post
    To do this he wants a sure thing and therefore has to appoint the BETRAYER Petraeus who's Iraq surge he still doesn't admit worked.
    Actually, it was liberals like John Kerry who introduced Petraeus' name first on the Sunday talk shows and their calling for a change in command in Iraq, which probably led to Petraeus being appointed as commander in Iraq in the first place.

  8. #188
    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 LowRevs View Post
    So O is elected and appoints a liberal General McCrystal to run Afghan war.

    Because of all the administration limitations and interference in Afghan., things are not working out well there (or anywhere else in administration) so O decides he must make a PURELY POLITICAL move and actually try to win the war and improve his plumeting ratings. To do this he wants a sure thing and therefore has to appoint the BETRAYER Petraeus who's Iraq surge he still doesn't admit worked.

    To cover up his gross hypocricy and blithering incompetence he get's his liberal General to commit military chain of command hari kari by saying some not so bad but bad enough things to get called on the carpet.

    He provides a far left naive liberal shill at Rolling Stone (not there's a serious political rag) to be the fall guy. Nobody really blames McCrystal. The reasons the Afghan war is failing are shrouded by the controversy. The rest of the far left naive liveral shills think or are told to say (think) that the move is "brilliant" by O.

    Presumably our greatest general of the time wins the war and O get's all the credit.
    Oh - how did he betray everyone?

    Every tosses that insult around purely because it rhymes with his name but I've found that FEW people actually believe it or know where it comes from.

    Just what did he do that was so WRONG and horrible?
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

  9. #189
    Guru
    deltabtry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    MA.
    Last Seen
    11-26-16 @ 03:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    4,021

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Aunt Spiker View Post
    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.
    I can agree with this, serving in the Marine Corps I do understand that your husband or you can not speak in detail about your husbands duties, as it was with me. Now my brother who served ten years in the Army Green Berets back in the eighties, to this day he will not discuss what he did. Today he works for Raytheon and again he will not discuss what he does there in detail.

  10. #190
    Guru
    deltabtry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    MA.
    Last Seen
    11-26-16 @ 03:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    4,021

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Aunt Spiker View Post
    Oh - Omaba admitted it worked, alright - his words were "better than anyone ever dared to DREAM it would" . . . . but it worked for all teh wrong reasons.
    (during his interview with Bill O'Reilly during the election)

    Obama can only say "it's Bush's War . .. it's Bush's Fault" for so long before he actually bites himself in the ass with that.
    At one point Obama will have to command and take full responsibility, just imagine a Commanding general parroting what Obama keeps advocating...it's Bush's fault. Adm. Nimitz was said, "when in Command...command", that said Obama best get a feeling for what this nations wants and that would be...LISTEN.

Page 19 of 21 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 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
  •