Obama's Rules of Engagement Kills 4 Marines

[742]

Originally Posted by shpirate87

...
He takes ownership of the war.

He rejects the idea that it is still LBJ's war.

Then why does he start with a "woo is me" laundry list of what LBJ left him with? The rest, if read in your manner, sounds like little more than a child's blame game. Which was classic Nixon, come to think of it.

[shpirate87]

Originally Posted by 742

Then why does he start with a "woo is me" laundry list of what LBJ left him with? The rest, if read in your manner, sounds like little more than a child's blame game. Which was classic Nixon, come to think of it.

Did you actually read the speech? Nixon set out the questions he was going to answer in the speech and one of them was how he had changed policy in Vietnam. That would be difficult to do without stating how things were when he took office.

The speech goes through the entire history of US involvement from Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, and himself and lays out his case for why the plans he has are best for the nation.

It would be a breath of fress air for our current President to make a similar speech but he is obviously to busy bowing to foreign leaders to make a decision regarding Afghanistan nevermind explain his decision to the American people.

[BKsBimmer]

Originally Posted by UltimateBMW

I feel that this post is a bit short sighted. How soon you forget how the entire nation demanded just action taken in response for 9/11. There was full support for it, then when the public grew tired of hearing about it, they wanted out. Things aren't always that easy, so perhaps because they aren't easy neglecting them was the best option. I'm not advocating the neglect, but you can't deny that the public demanded some sort of retribution.

Also, don't forget that GWB's father had his hand in wars with Iraq as well. But he never sealed the deal and took out Saddam. Most people don't see that GWB finished what his father did not.

Interesting you admit the Iraq war was about settling a family score and had nothing to do with WMD as claimed by Bush. You call that ethical???

Bush and company seem to be the only ones who forgot the mission and reason for the war in Afghanistan. They neglected the Afghanistan war well before public support for it waned. It's the president's responsibility to make clear the mission and keep the country focused on it. Instead Bush started a poorly planned, horribly mismanaged war in Iraq based on the lie of WMD. After things quickly went south it became his focus and obsession and Afghanistan fell off the Bush radar. It's that simple.

Now that Obama is doing what Bush should have done in the first place; taking the time to fully evaluate the strategy and the mission in a very difficult high stakes situation before committing any more soldiers lives he's being criticized for "dithering". We sure could have used some "dithering" back in 2003.

[Zell]

Originally Posted by Septro

Instead of carpet bombing a whole city and the enemy to the stoneage like we did with Berlin, we have to put a gps-guided missile in someone's 4x6 window and have it only explode in the room the target is in and not make the boom loud enough to burst the next door neighbors eardrums because they might sue us.

Ask Germany and Japan if they will ever attack the U.S. again.. Don't ask the Taliban or Al Qeida, they're laughing at us while they shoot rockets from civilian's homes due to their ability to exploit our weakness.

The entire city is not the enemy. The civilians are not the enemy. Why should we just ignore that and allow them to be killed for simply being in the wrong place? Carpet bombing everything will just make other countries hate us more.

You act like when we're at war with someone, every single person in that country is the enemy. You know how many German citizens are happy for our involvement in stopping the Nazi regime?

[j0hn]

Originally Posted by DaveO

Absolutly rediculous. If we have soldiers on the ground in a war, there should be absolutly no 'gloves' on. Soliders should obviously not be allowed to purposely kill civilians or commit war crimes, but short of that there should be no restrictions in a time of war. Noone wins when you make artificial rules, and as someone above said, all it does is help the enemy.

I don't agree with the war on many levels and think we should withdraw all soldiers (combat and non-combat) from the middle east. But as long as they are there, these rules that help the enemy and kill american soldiers are absolutly rediculous and I hope the Sec. Defense is reviewing this incident and going over this with the President.

This sounds like a plan to keep a war going but avoid the bad press of having killed civilians, which sounds good in theory but when the cost is dead American soldiers, forget it. War is hell. Deal with it. If the administration can't deal with that, then they should do the right thing and withdraw the troops. If they do intend to fight, then they must bring the fight 110%.

.

[pdjafari]

regardless of his new rules of engagement, I lost all respect for obama when he bowed to the saudi arabian king..... he never even bowed to the queen when he met her...

[shpirate87]

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer

Interesting you admit the Iraq war was about settling a family score and had nothing to do with WMD as claimed by Bush. You call that ethical???

Bush and company seem to be the only ones who forgot the mission and reason for the war in Afghanistan. They neglected the Afghanistan war well before public support for it waned. It's the president's responsibility to make clear the mission and keep the country focused on it. Instead Bush started a poorly planned, horribly mismanaged war in Iraq based on the lie of WMD. After things quickly went south it became his focus and obsession and Afghanistan fell off the Bush radar. It's that simple.

Now that Obama is doing what Bush should have done in the first place; taking the time to fully evaluate the strategy and the mission in a very difficult high stakes situation before committing any more soldiers lives he's being criticized for "dithering". We sure could have used some "dithering" back in 2003.

1. No one lied about WMD. The issue has investigated repeatedly. The only people who lied are those who accuse Bush of lying.

2. Afghanistan was not ignored. Bush, mistakenly, listened to those who advocated relying on the 'international community' to keep the Taliban out after we removed them. NATO has shown itself to be useless. The Canadians, Brits, & Dutch are the only NATO members who actually know how to and are allowed to fight.

3. Obama announced over 8 months ago that he had decided on a new strategy after a thorough review. He said he had already taken 'the time to fully evaluate the strategy' so that excuse doesn't fly now. He is dithering. He has soldiers in harms way, his hand picked commander has requested reinforcements, and he has refused to give his commander what is needed to execute his strategy.

That is inexcusable.

[UltimateBMW]

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer

Interesting you admit the Iraq war was about settling a family score and had nothing to do with WMD as claimed by Bush. You call that ethical???

Bush and company seem to be the only ones who forgot the mission and reason for the war in Afghanistan. They neglected the Afghanistan war well before public support for it waned. It's the president's responsibility to make clear the mission and keep the country focused on it. Instead Bush started a poorly planned, horribly mismanaged war in Iraq based on the lie of WMD. After things quickly went south it became his focus and obsession and Afghanistan fell off the Bush radar. It's that simple.

Now that Obama is doing what Bush should have done in the first place; taking the time to fully evaluate the strategy and the mission in a very difficult high stakes situation before committing any more soldiers lives he's being criticized for "dithering". We sure could have used some "dithering" back in 2003.

No, I don't recall ever calling it ethical. Since when is history ethical? Ever?

In regard to your last paragraph, hindsight is always 20/20.

[EDK99]

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer

Now that Obama is doing what Bush should have done in the first place; taking the time to fully evaluate the strategy and the mission in a very difficult high stakes situation before committing any more soldiers lives he's being criticized for "dithering". We sure could have used some "dithering" back in 2003.

This guy has had a year (ok 10 months) to make a decision on what to do with Afghanistan. He had a plan earlier this year I thought when he brought in McCrystal. Now that McCrystal needs more people and he is re-reviewing his plan because bringing in more troops rubs the far left the wrong way and now that he is a Nobel Peace Prize winner he doesn't upset the international community. The hell with our troops it is all about appeasing the international community and his political backers. I guess if he stalls long enough in 3 years he can hand it off to the next president. Sorry big O you can't vote "present" on this one.

[Kroy]

Great! We're strangling our troops with red tape (literally). If they're so keen on preserving civilian lives, they should just pull out. As callous as it is to say, American lives should be on top of their priorities; I don't recall foreigners paying the US government taxes or volunteer for service. It's ish like this that makes me fear for my friends in the military. Rant done. RIP.

[BKsBimmer]

Originally Posted by shpirate87

1. No one lied about WMD. The issue has investigated repeatedly. The only people who lied are those who accuse Bush of lying.

2. Afghanistan was not ignored. Bush, mistakenly, listened to those who advocated relying on the 'international community' to keep the Taliban out after we removed them. NATO has shown itself to be useless. The Canadians, Brits, & Dutch are the only NATO members who actually know how to and are allowed to fight.

3. Obama announced over 8 months ago that he had decided on a new strategy after a thorough review. He said he had already taken 'the time to fully evaluate the strategy' so that excuse doesn't fly now. He is dithering. He has soldiers in harms way, his hand picked commander has requested reinforcements, and he has refused to give his commander what is needed to execute his strategy.

That is inexcusable.

Somehow I missed the news of the discovery of WMD in Iraq. Must have been a FOX news exclusive, I'm not a regular viewer.

NATO is a convenient Repuplican whipping boy, and can be a topic for another discussion, but this is not about NATO. This is about a war the previous administration started with full support of the American people and later neglected after starting an unpopular ill conceived and poorly managed war in Iraq.

True, Obama and his military advisors have been evaluating the situation in Afghanistan for a few months. It's a fluid situation. Conditions on the ground are continually changing. The political landscape there has changed. I'm glad Obama and his military advisors are taking the time to thoughtfully evaluate the mission and find the correct strategy. A lot is riding on getting it right. You and others on the right may call that dithering, but I call it being smart and responsible.

It would be inexcusable to give in to pressure from the right to rush the decision and execute a poorly planned military strategy. That's what the previous administration did with disasterous results. That was inexcusable.

Obama hasn't refused anything to his General. Obama asked for General McChrystal's recommendations for acheiving success in Afghanistan and received them. McChrystal's reccommendation for a troop buildup will be considered by Obama and his military advisors. They will decide what the strategy will be and General McChrystal will execute the strategy. Intrestingly I've heard some polls show 68 % of Replicans support the President's handling of Afghanistan. We all know some on the right will not approve of anything this President does.

[shpirate87]

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer

Somehow I missed the news of the discovery of WMD in Iraq. Must have been a FOX news exclusive, I'm not a regular viewer....

What you obviously missed was the report from the Democrat controlled Senate Inelligence Cmte that concluded that all the President's & senior administration official's statements regarding Iraq's WMD & ties to terror groups were 'substantiated by the available intelligence.' Maybe you can't distinguish between being incorrect and lying but most of us can.

Whether you want to admit it or not, ISAF is a NATO led organization. If you recall, that was the left's preferred solution for both Afghanistan & Iraq. Clearly, the international community has not succeeded where given the opportunity. Compare that to Iraq where we were accused of 'going it alone.' Last I checked, President Obama has declared Iraq successful enough to withdraw our forces. So much for, what did you call it? Oh yeah, a poorly managed war.

Now back to Afghanistan. Were you in a coma in March or had your inauguration euphoria not ebbed sufficiently to notice Pres Obama, flanked by his Defense Secretary announce his new strategy for Afghanistan. What you are claiming he has been doing in the months since GEN McCrystal made his request is exactly what he said he was doing for the 5 months prior to his March announcement. It has been a year since Obama was elected. He announced his strategy 8 months ago. His hand picked commander told him what he needs to execute that strategy two months ago. The soldiers fighting and dying in Afghanistan deserve an answer. The fact that you find this delay acceptable is sad and a reflection of never serving a day in uniform.

[xbook]

Originally Posted by shpirate87

blah blah blah, I hate Obama and everything he does....blah blah blah.... The fact that you find this delay acceptable is sad and a reflection of never serving a day in uniform.

Ok scooter, I'll bite. How about you give us YOUR service history in detail, please.

[shpirate87]

Originally Posted by xbook

Ok scooter, I'll bite. How about you give us YOUR service history in detail, please.

How detailed would you like? Would you like my PEPD? Date of graaduation from basic training? Graduation from the 96B (now 35F) course? How about the dates of my Afghanistan deployment? My Iraq deployment? The day I pinned on E-6? List of my current awards? My expected commissioning date? Exactly how detailed do you want?

I have a better idea. Why don't you kiss my a**.

[xbook]

Originally Posted by shpirate87

How detailed would you like? Would you like my PEPD? Date of graaduation from basic training? Graduation from the 96B (now 35F) course? How about the dates of my Afghanistan deployment? My Iraq deployment? The day I pinned on E-6? List of my current awards? My expected commissioning date? Exactly how detailed do you want?

I have a better idea. Why don't you kiss my a**.

[ragingclue]

Originally Posted by xbook

You're the one who asked for it.

[UncleWede]

ragingclue, THANK YOU for your selfless service to America!!!

Best regards,
Wede

[xbook]

Originally Posted by ragingclue

You're the one who asked for it.

Yeah but I didn't ask for you to say kiss my a** ... I was being as childish as you were young jedi...

[ragingclue]

Originally Posted by xbook

Yeah but I didn't ask for you to say kiss my a** ... I was being as childish as you were young jedi...

wat

I didn't tell you to kiss my ass. I just thought that it was a little uncalled for, considering you asked for his contribution to serving, and when he went into detail, you bring out the wambulance.... You shouldn't have called him out if you couldn't handle his potential response.

That's all I'm saying.

[ragingclue]

Originally Posted by UncleWede

ragingclue, THANK YOU for your selfless service to America!!!

Best regards,
Wede

Well thank you once again Uncle Wede. Although the post above is not reflective of my own service. There are a couple similarities, but I think shpirate has got me beat with his expected commissioning date. Lowly former enlisted only here....

[xbook]

Originally Posted by ragingclue

wat

I didn't tell you to kiss my ass. I just thought that it was a little uncalled for, considering you asked for his contribution to serving, and when he went into detail, you bring out the wambulance.... You shouldn't have called him out if you couldn't handle his potential response.

That's all I'm saying.

I apologize Ragingclue, I thought it was shpirate that said that. I am sorry.

[ragingclue]

Originally Posted by xbook

I apologize Ragingclue, I thought it was shpirate that said that. I am sorry.

It's all good.