Page 7 of 21 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 206

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

  1. #61
    Educator TBone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Phoenix
    Last Seen
    04-01-15 @ 08:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    673

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ptif219 View Post
    It shows rules of engagement in 2007. This was a continuation of what started in Iraq. Finally Petraeus will untie the hands of our soldiers.
    Excuse my confusion, but what more do you want the troops to do? The list you gave looks good. I have issues with the collateral because the enemy uses this to their advantage, but I understand the rule. After all, if an enemy combatant shoots at us, and runs in the middle of a daycare or school, I do want the children blown up innocent victims.
    It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.
    Emiliano Zapata


  2. #62
    Educator TBone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Phoenix
    Last Seen
    04-01-15 @ 08:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    673

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

    Quote Originally Posted by deltabtry View Post
    TBone come on, ric27 does have a point, look at your own state and the border and immigration issue and what Obama is doing about it.
    I will give you that when discussing our border and immigration problem, BUT every previous president and congress (democrat and GOP) is responsible for what is happening on our border. I don't agree on the security in Iraq and Afghanistan. If I am wrong, I will apologize. All I want from ric27 is something that shows me I am wrong or he is right.
    It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.
    Emiliano Zapata


  3. #63
    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 TBone View Post
    Excuse my confusion, but what more do you want the troops to do? The list you gave looks good. I have issues with the collateral because the enemy uses this to their advantage, but I understand the rule. After all, if an enemy combatant shoots at us, and runs in the middle of a daycare or school, I do want the children blown up innocent victims.
    Now you also have a point but, wars are won by slaughter and maneuver no two ways around it. Now if this isn't a satisfactory condition for victory, I would say lets not engage in war. We have tried limited warfare since Korea and it has failed every time to achieve it's objective. Now noone wants collateral damage in regards to civilian lives but, we should do has we did in the 1940's and before, allow the civilians to leave in a certain period of time and those who remain will be considered combatants. That said, all wars that have been fought civilians will be the ones that pay the ultimate price and this is why we should fight by all means necessary and end it quickly, this way we are not dragging it out over decades where eventually more civilians will perish.

  4. #64
    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 TBone View Post
    I will give you that when discussing our border and immigration problem, BUT every previous president and congress (democrat and GOP) is responsible for what is happening on our border. I don't agree on the security in Iraq and Afghanistan. If I am wrong, I will apologize. All I want from ric27 is something that shows me I am wrong or he is right.
    I agree with you about past and present administration turning a blind eye in regards to immigration policy. I can't speak for ric27 but, to me it seems he is pointing out that Obama is more interested in flipping this country into a more socialistic style government than he is about winning the war in the M.E.

  5. #65
    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

    My son will be in Afghanistan in 2011.
    Whatever makes the troops safer, I'm all for.
    That said, an immediate announcement from Petraeus that he plans to make a change which might again result in the deaths of Afghan civilians will only make the mission that much more difficult, if the mission is truly "winning hearts and minds".
    I have to say, there seems to be little consensus on what the mission is these days, other than trying to force-feed a corrupt puppet government to an unwilling and terrorized populace.
    I honestly believe that the real "mission" is to subdue said populace to the point that we can credibly declare some sort of "victory" or at least "progress", and get the hell out while allowing Obama to save face.
    That is my belief today (I'm feeling a little dispirited and disillusioned today, frankly).
    So, in the interim, whatever keeps our troops safe(r).
    They're currently dying at a rate I'm not very comfortable with.
    On the other hand, most of them are dying from IEDs, against which weapons are useless anyway.
    So maybe these modified rules of engagement won't effect civilian casualties that much one way or the other, as long as the troops don't go hog wild.

    What I feel, today (my feelings change a lot from day to day, given my personal involvement), is that what we're doing there is pointless. It endangers innocent civilians as well as our own enlisted loved ones.
    We're "taking over" areas like Marja, and soon Kandahar, but the civilians are under siege from both sides. They cannot take advantage of what we wish to offer them, even if they wanted to, because the Taliban is still there amongst them- the Taliban is, in fact, their own neighbors, brothers, fathers, sons, and husbands- and is threatening to torture and murder anyone who cooperates in any way with the American troops, even to the extent of simply going about their daily lives while the American occupation lasts. And they're not only threatening it, they're actually doing it.
    The Afghan civilians aren't retards. They know we're leaving, if not tomorrow or next year then five or ten years from now; someday, at any rate. And they know that they'll still be there, and so will their children, and so will the Taliban. They're doing the only thing they can do: keeping their heads down, and trying to placate two opposing and potentially lethal forces.
    It's what any of us would do. it's all anybody could do, in their situation.

    Our focus should be on supporting whatever policy gets the least number of American troops and Afghan civilians killed- the least number of people, period- until Obama feels he can declare some marginal, face-saving "victory" and bring our soldiers home.
    This will probably not be for many years, but hopefully there will be a significantly lower casualty rate and a troop draw-down (back to pre-surge levels) in the near future. In the very near future, I devoutly hope.

    In the 2012 presidential election, I will be voting for whichever candidate seems most likely to end this hideous affair, and so will many other military families.
    Last edited by 1069; 06-26-10 at 03:06 PM.

  6. #66
    Advisor Iron Yank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Last Seen
    12-21-16 @ 09:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    317

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

    I find it very interesting that all of a sudden the rules of engagement are under review just after McChrystal resigns. The fact is it was Petraus who was McCrystals boss & who originally designed the counterinsurgency strategy that McChrystal was employing with much the same ROE. My theory is that McChyrstal never decided on the "rules of engagement" and that this was pushed on him by the Obama administration probably with pressure from the commie lawyers over at the ACLU, one of Obamas constituencies. McChystal over time probably saw that there was no way his plan would work with these kind of rules. His pleas to the president & his minions probably fell on deaf ears so he decided to change paths not wanting to preside over a lost war and in the process bring attention to the problem. Falling over the sword for the good of the country so to speak. How else do you explain the timing of the changes in ROE ?

    I doubt whether any serious military man (McChrystal or Petraus) would impose rules that would result in more of there own soldiers being killed (especially a special forces guru like McChrystal) so these incredibly restrictive rules must have come from the the civilian leadership & was imposed on the military by someone who knows very little about how to win a war. Have any guess's? Could it possibly be the same guy who wants to impose his will over the banking indusrty, the car companies, the energy sector, ect. ect. ect .

    The stench of Obama & the left are all over this one, they griped & griped & griped until they twisted Gates arm enough to impose them, then when they found the results to be not very good for them politically (losing a war) they did a 180. How Ironic how they scorned Petraus when he "Bushes" man but when Obama apponted his own guy and he supposedly failed now we have Bushes man (whom they hated before) replacing him. Anyone see the Irony in this?
    Last edited by Iron Yank; 06-26-10 at 03:26 PM.

  7. #67
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Iron Yank View Post
    I find it very interesting that all of a sudden the rules of engagement are under review just after McChrystal resigns. The fact is it was Petraus who was McCrystals boss & who originally designed the counterinsurgency strategy that McChrystal was employing with much the same ROE. My theory is that McChyrstal never decided on the "rules of engagement" and that this was pushed on him by the Obama administration probably with pressure from the commie lawyers over at the ACLU, one of Obamas constituencies. McChystal over time probably saw that there was no way his plan would work with these kind of rules. His pleas to the president & his minions probably fell on deaf ears so he decided to change paths not wanting to preside over a lost war and in the process bring attention to the problem. Falling over the sword for the good of the country so to speak. How else do you explain the timing of the changes in ROE ?

    I doubt whether any serious military man (McChrystal or Petraus) would impose rules that would result in more of there own soldiers being killed (especially a special forces guru like McChrystal) so these incredibly restrictive rules must have come from the the civilian leadership & was imposed on the military by someone who knows very little about how to win a war. Have any guess's? Could it p[ossibly be the same guy who wants to impose his will over the banking indusrty, mthe car companies, the energy sector ect ect ect

    The stench of Obama & the left are all over this one, they griped & griped & griped until they twisted Gates arm enough to impose them, then when they found the results to be not very good for them politically (losing a war) they did a 180. How Ironic how they scorned Petraus when he "Bushes" man but when Obama apponted his own guy and he supposedly failed now we have Bushes man (whom they hated before) replacing him. Anyone see the Irony in this?
    Have anything more than your theory?

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  8. #68
    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 TBone View Post
    Please provide a link from a media source that is not right or left.
    There is no such media source

  9. #69
    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 TBone View Post
    Excuse my confusion, but what more do you want the troops to do? The list you gave looks good. I have issues with the collateral because the enemy uses this to their advantage, but I understand the rule. After all, if an enemy combatant shoots at us, and runs in the middle of a daycare or school, I do want the children blown up innocent victims.
    By time the soldier does all this he is dead. War kills people some are innocent that is war. If the aghans want it stopped then all should go after the Taliban and kick them out.

    War needs to be run by soldiers and not politics.

  10. #70
    Advisor Iron Yank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Last Seen
    12-21-16 @ 09:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    317

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Have anything more than your theory?
    What? do I look like an insider? Whether or not my theory is correct or not what you are hearing out of the administration is not the whole story and my theory is as good & sound as any.

    I mean why the change in ROE so fast after McChyrstal leaves? Unless maybe this was the issue all along & not the Rolling stone article, maybe the article was just an excuse to cover the real motive.

Page 7 of 21 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... 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
  •