How to Avoid Another Tour of Afghanistan

Discussion in 'Politics' started by righteousdude2, Jun 25, 2010.

  1. righteousdude2

    righteousdude2
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    10,468
    Likes Received:
    138
    For those men and women in the military who are about to be deployed for the second, third, fourth, or, even the fifth time, McChrystal has provided you with an excellent way to get out of another deployment, and even your commitment to serve another four years in the military.

    Just contact one of the local journalist in your camp, and tell them what you think of Obama and how he is mishandling this war. How, by pulling out of Afghanistan next year (at this time) will make the death of a fellow soldier worth next to nothing. How he promised to win the war, no matter how long it took, because he said it was the "One true war on terror!" How you are tired of the ridiculous Rules of Engagement and how the current ROE does more to put you in Harm''s way than being in Afghanistan itself. How you are tired of fighting this war under the direction of political leaders sitting in their beautiful, air conditioned offices half way around the world, while you live in, fight in, and avoid dying in the elements of a country that is as rugged as any other you've ever seen.

    If criticism of Obama, his Hench men, and his policies was the reason behind McChrystal's resignation and removal from the war, just think what your comments can do for you. You'll be on your way home within 48 hours, and no longer under the marionette strings of the DC puppeteers who are mishandling this war, and behind the upswing in deaths and injuries to your fellow comrades in arms.

    Of course I am being sarcastic, and wouldn't expect any of our brave fighting women and men to do anything I noted above; nor, would I encourage them to tell the truth about how badly this war is being managed from the safe confines of the suits in DC.

    The truth is, McChrystal's comments may be enough to bring the truth about the mismanagement of the war directives that our fighting men and women are beholden to, as they are severely limited in going after the enemy and winning this war.

    Hopefully, Obama will see that bringing home the troops before this thing is won, will be a more monumental mistake than his Health-care bill.

    The military wasn't trained to be an army of Community Organizers. This expectation is ridiculous, and it won't work among a group of many factions and tribes who know nothing but civil war. Our military was taught to win with the "shock and awe" of their weapons :tonofbricks:, not their ability to go into a village and organize the same communities that house the very terrorists that build and explode those deadly IED's and are looking forward to July 2011 so they can go in and take back Afghanistan in the name of Allah.

    McChrystal was wrong in what he did, but, at least he had the guts to bring to light what is wrong with this war. I don't know if he had any other choice available to get the message out. Now it's up to the media to grab hold of the truth he revealed, and run with it in order to get DC to stop their attempts to micromanage a war that needs all the shock and awe we can throw at them.

    If America had tried to win the war with Germany and Japan with an army of community organizers, we'd be speaking German, and working in Japanese factories today.

    Shalom,

    Pastor Paul :type:
     
  2. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    A war that we need to get out of. Pronto! It is well known that Afghanistan is a place where empires go to die.
     
  3. windcatcher

    windcatcher
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually I've wondered about this.

    A general did rise to his rank by flapping his lips loosely. He knows and has the discipline to know when and when not to speak and to whom about what.

    Some are reporting that his remarks were made 'off the record' and therefore it was a breech of trust by the reporter on his confident. However, another pov is that the general probably had things he wished to get off his chest and the MSM wouldn't have obliged him the time of day to publish his disappointment with his superior and their darling, the O administration. Who could he go to and get world review? Why not a renegade paper like the Rolling Stone..... popular reading among so-called-sophisticates, with plenty of exposure.... but not reputable enough not to withstand a claim of reporting 'off record', should it appear that the severity of discipline that might be forth coming be too punitive w/o sufficient 'explanation' or excuse. The Rolling Stone is such a rag without loyalty to anyone except its own tendency for outrageous causes, that it could almost with certainty be counted on to publish a report and disclosure which MSM would refuse (being the politically correct loyalist that they are).

    Would this same work for another soldier?

    Not likely and certainly not as rewardingly.

    Rewardingly? How? The General wasn't court martialed. His rank was not reduced. He is able to draw his retirement and benefits...... and likely to profit, as others have, from contacts he made during service which will promote him into better employment than the service could ever promise.

    An enlisted man would likely be court martialed. A man of lesser rank (or who had not 'patsied' to previous assignments like 'covering the bodies') would probably have his rank reduced with discipline continuing into duty.

    That McChrystal has openly supported this current administration and participated in covering fratracide investigation is indicative that he had plenty to be dissatisfied: Whether he was disgusted with his having to 'play clean' while being the top guy responsible for covering the militarys dirty secrets, or disgusted that he couldn't get his way??? Who knows? An excuse to 'retire' probably serves his best interest regardless of his motives for positioning himself in this manner. No doubt, for those who have opinions (and who have followed or explored his career), he will stand out enough to polarize.... some considering him a hero standing for the soldier in arms..... and others looking over his record and considering him as one of 'the bad boys'.
     
    #3 windcatcher, Jun 25, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 25, 2010
  4. Don

    Don
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    10,550
    Likes Received:
    213
    Actually, RighteousDude, I'm not sure this is the outcome McChrystal wanted.

    You see, Afghanistan was McChrystal's Counter-Insurgency (COIN) "experiment." McChrystal had a point of view about how to run COIN operations; he had mixed support, ranging from those that completely agreed with him to those that completely disagreed with him. Obama agreed with his strategies; that's why McChrystal was named to head up Afghanistan. In fact, Obama said "get to work," and left him alone to make it happen--something that very rarely happens with a presidential administration, and was complained about by everyone as keeping McChrystal at arm's length.

    Now, his experiment is over, unless any of his stalwart supporters can continue the methods. Afghanistan is (now, was) crucial to McChrystal proving that his methods for COIN were the right path. So either the administration was actually hindering McChrystal's efforts--for which I'm not sure I actually see any evidence; or McChrystal's experiment wasn't drawing the results he had hoped for--in which case, blaming the administration is a good way to draw attention away from your (potential) failure.

    So those that are holding McChrystal up as some sort of hero for speaking out--well, I'm not sure I'm buying it.
     
  5. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,181
    Likes Received:
    326
    How about he is a realist who is/was convinced that you can't win a blood and guts war with after-shave and deodorant (as well as "one hand tied behind you back and an ROE rule book in the other").

    HankD
     
    #5 HankD, Jun 26, 2010
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2010
  6. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    We have had a volunteer army since those of draft age were born thus those who volunteer must want to go to foreign countries to kill people and break things or at least had no moral principles against killing and breaking when they signed on. Better these people should get it out of their systems while in Afghanistan than in the lower 48.

    When the Vietnam War was winding down (the first of many wars we lost since we invaded Canada) police administrations were their officers about the "dope crazed killers" who would be returning to their home towns. Didn't happen, did it? Combat changes people. I was never in the military but would be happy if voting was restricted to military vets. It would be a more peaceful world.
     
  7. Don

    Don
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    10,550
    Likes Received:
    213
    Hank,
    "One hand tied behind your back and an ROE rule book in the other" -- that was McChrystal's strategy. That was his COIN experiment that I was talking about. He was the one that elevated the status of preventing civilian casualties above the safety of our troops. Don't try to lay that strategy on Obama or anyone else, or as McChrystal following orders.
     
  8. Tom Bryant

    Tom Bryant
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    4,439
    Likes Received:
    0
    So people who volunteer for the movie do so because they want to kill people? So is the same true about police officers? Or do people volunteer to be fire fighters because they like to set fires?

    Frankly, every once in a while you get something right, but it's more like the busted watches I have in a drawer that tell the right time twice a day by accident. But you have this so wrong. You ought to be ashamed, but you won't be.
     
  9. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,181
    Likes Received:
    326
    I have my opinion, you have yours.

    HankD
     
  10. Robert Snow

    Robert Snow
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    Messages:
    4,466
    Likes Received:
    0
    It appears you opinion isn't based in facts.

    The blow out preventer failed, that is hardly President Obama's fault. BP decided to switch pods instead of fixing a faulty BOP and it failed.

    Regardless of how unsafe a government will allow a company to operate, it is the companies responsibility to drill safely and not put their employees at undue risk.
     
  11. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,386
    Likes Received:
    790

    Apparently you do not have the facts. This admin gave wavers to by pass several safety checks in advance of their drilling . He should be impeached.
     
    #11 Revmitchell, Jun 26, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 26, 2010
  12. Don

    Don
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    10,550
    Likes Received:
    213
    Okay; if you'll show me the substantiation for your opinion, that indicates McChrystal was following Obama's strategy and was therefore simply following orders, and therefore was only "blowing the whistle" now, I'll be more than happy to publicly admit my error here on the board.
     
  13. Robert Snow

    Robert Snow
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    Messages:
    4,466
    Likes Received:
    0
    Whether or not President Obama did anything impeachable, I will leave that decision up to future debates as the facts come in.

    Do you think a company has the right to drill an oil well in an unsafe manner if the government says they can?
     
  14. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,181
    Likes Received:
    326
    No, I'm not going to do that. It's my opinion and I am only stating it. I don't have to defend it.

    Even at that it's not about your "error" and having to admit it or my error and having to admit it, but the sacrifice of both American and innocent collateral lives and who is ultimately responsible.

    For one thing I would have to say some things and make accusations about certain individuals that my conscience won't let me do.

    Let people read the Rolling Stones article for themselves (caution, very coarse GI talk).

    google "rolling stones mcchrystal". It's several pages.

    Then after you read it all (if you - plural- haven't already), I'll only say this and then I won't "engage" anyone any further.

    IMO, if McChrystal had gotten the 60-80,000 troops he asked for, when he asked for them in 2009 (while we had 120,000 combat ready troops deployed in Iraq), we wouldn't be having this conversation.

    Afghanistan is from whence the terrorism strategy and tactics of 9/11 originated with OBL, not SH in Iraq.


    HankD
     
  15. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    So the standard that you are proposing is that if a company operates within the guidelines of a government regulatory agency and something goes wrong the company is at fault and the government is held harmless?
     
  16. Don

    Don
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    10,550
    Likes Received:
    213
    Fair enough.
     
  17. Robert Snow

    Robert Snow
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    Messages:
    4,466
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you do ask these redundant questions on purpose, or do you really not realize what you are asking?

    I said:

    We need to stop the spill and start the clean up, something the federal government was slow to start, and then find out what went wrong and who said and allowed what.

    If it is proven that President Obama personally told BP to ignore laws, and to ignore common safety procedures, I will support impeachment.

    If it is discovered, as I said, that BP deliberately violated common safety rules, by not repairing the BOP, what do you think should happen to the company?
     
  18. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,386
    Likes Received:
    790

    Nope, but if the admin is culpable then every instance of blame needs to include it. Each and every time.
     
  19. righteousdude2

    righteousdude2
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    10,468
    Likes Received:
    138
    Please NOTE: This Post Is Not About BP and the Oil Spill

    Please, try to get back on track. :wavey: I don't know how some of you ended up over on this post, but, this post has nothing to do with the oil spill, BP, or, Obama being to blame.

    Thanks, Pastor Paul
     

Share This Page

Loading...