response removed by poster
We should stay only if we are going to fight to WIN. Otherwise, it is time to pull out. But I think it has to do more with our policy over there than it does body counts of our losses.
I am with you, varmit, both of these "wars" are turning into "Vietnam" all over again. We have the power to blow these people off the face of the earth. Barring the use of such power, we have the capability to find and kill these people-----more than we are doing now. For every cave, the U.S. should pull up in front and announce in the local language that the people inside that cave have 10 minutes to vacate before we start firing rockets into it. Eventually they are going to run out of places to hide. Politics are getting in the way---------AGAIN!!!! They say, "Hey, these people are non-combatants so we can't just shoot them." HELLO!!!!!!!!!!! Terrorists are not the army, terrorists are citizens, the guy with the bomb strapped to his chest is a citizen up to when he blows himself and many a few soldiers with him. The guy who made the IED designed to kill soldiers is just a citizen and you can't shoot him until he actually blows someone up. Give me a break!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's either get in and get the job done or get out and protect our own borders.
Larryj
Quote from: larryJ on October 04, 2009, 08:55:46 AM
It's either get in and get the job done or get out and protect our own borders.
Larryj
Amen and Amen. Unfortunately neither is going to happen. As for giving them 10 minutes to vacate, I say screw that. Just kill'em. As for the locals, and this is going to be harsh, they have been warned, and whats more they can't be trusted. Frankly, I am not interested in their opinion of the U.S. they have had roughly 8 years to show their cooperation and willingness to help. And yet we still have these rag-headed terrorists running around. And why? Because our politicians are too worried about colleratal damages and how the rest of the world views the U.S. I say turn our military lose and tell'em to go to work. Damn the torpedos and the U.N.
I have friends who just came from there and some who just went back again. One of the problems that they see is our determination that we pull up and train their own military to solve their own problems, yet most of them are totally illiterate. Stone age people, the peasants I mean, trying to be trained in sophisticated weaponry. Our officers are apparently very frustrated. My information is all second hand from them.
The whole thing is an exercise in futility IMHO. I still stand on what I said a year ago; we do not have any business in Afghanistan or Iraq.
We need to just get the hell out of there (Iraq and Afghanistan) and come home. The various factions have only one thing in common - they hate us.
If we would leave, they'll go back to killing each other instead of us. Then let the 'spooks' (CIA, counter-intelligence, etc) do what they do best, take out command and control from within, to keep them from bringing the war over here.
Instead we're reigning in the spooks, and sending our people over there to accomplish absolutely nothing except get killed.
Yea Flint, that's what I would do--cut and run. The pacifist said the same thing about Viet Nam. "Just bring our troops home and everything will be hunky dory". Tell that to the 1.4 - 2.2 million Cambodians that died at the hands of the Khmer Rouge regime. Right or wrong ,our troops were commited to fight these wars, then by God do whatever it takes to win. If Gen. McCrystal says he needs 40,000 or 200,000 more troops to win then why is the CiC sitting on his ----- where he should have gonads---planning his stratagy. Bull Crap !!!! That's what his field commanders are for. That is the exact reason every CiC should have been in the military instead of some spineless pretty-boy, that the only combat he knows is back in the hood in the streets of Chicago.
Quote from: jarhead on October 04, 2009, 07:34:13 PM
Yea Flint, that's what I would do--cut and run. The pacifist said the same thing about Viet Nam. "Just bring our troops home and everything will be hunky dory". Tell that to the 1.4 - 2.2 million Cambodians that died at the hands of the Khmer Rouge regime. Right or wrong ,our troops were commited to fight these wars, then by God do whatever it takes to win. If Gen. McCrystal says he needs 40,000 or 200,000 more troops to win then why is the CiC sitting on his ----- where he should have gonads---planning his stratagy. Bull Crap !!!! That's what his field commanders are for. That is the exact reason every CiC should have been in the military instead of some spineless pretty-boy, that the only combat he knows is back in the hood in the streets of Chicago.
What gives you the right to act as world police?
Why should every CiC be a former serviceman when the consitution does not specify that as a constitutional requirement?
Quote from: jerry wagner on October 04, 2009, 07:37:06 PM
What gives you the right to act as world police?
Lets see, the first amendment for starters, secondly he's done his time defending and that in itself earns him the right more than any of the rest of us that haven't served!
QuoteWhy should every CiC be a former serviceman when the consitution does not specify that as a constitutional requirement?
IF the CIC is going to send our sons and daughters into a hell hole, he ought to have some experience of being in a hell hole. You know those who can do, those who can't become senators.
Its funny we require our police force to go through training, we require our military men to go through training before sending them off into war, but we don't require the CIC to be trained before trying to act as a leader of these trained men!
Thanks SRK, Some people will never get it and I have neither the time nor patience to argue with Mr wagner. My time would be better spent going out and talking a hedge post
Quote from: srkruzich on October 04, 2009, 07:44:48 PM
Quote from: jerry wagner on October 04, 2009, 07:37:06 PM
What gives you the right to act as world police?
Lets see, the first amendment for starters, secondly he's done his time defending and that in itself earns him the right more than any of the rest of us that haven't served!
Allow me to rephrase since apparently the question was taken to refer directly to him in person as opposed to the country. Why does this country believe that they are singularly the world police? And correspondingly if so, why does it not subject itself to the same standards?
Quote from: jerry wagner on October 04, 2009, 08:23:03 PM
Quote from: srkruzich on October 04, 2009, 07:44:48 PM
Quote from: jerry wagner on October 04, 2009, 07:37:06 PM
What gives you the right to act as world police?
Lets see, the first amendment for starters, secondly he's done his time defending and that in itself earns him the right more than any of the rest of us that haven't served!
Allow me to rephrase since apparently the question was taken to refer directly to him in person as opposed to the country. Why does this country believe that they are singularly the world police? And correspondingly if so, why does it not subject itself to the same standards?
Because we are. When a country becomes the greatest one on earth, both economically and militarily, along with it comes the responsibility to utilize those resources to stop evil. Its morally and ethically right.
AS far as your second question i don't understand what your asking.
Quote from: jarhead on October 04, 2009, 07:34:13 PM
Yea Flint, that's what I would do--cut and run. The pacifist said the same thing about Viet Nam. "Just bring our troops home and everything will be hunky dory". Tell that to the 1.4 - 2.2 million Cambodians that died at the hands of the Khmer Rouge regime.
Jarhead you completely mistook my post. I'm not a pacifist! I believe in defending this country and it's national interests. What exactly is our national interest in the two current wars. In Vietnam we were trying to push back the advance of communism, a poli-economical system. Fundamentalist Jihad is not a political or economic system, it's the radical branch of a major world religion. Three hundred years of Crusades speak to the futility of fighting a war over religion. If we (the West) would leave, in ten years there will be a hell of a lot less of them around because they would kill each other off. Let the spooks take out command and control, which in this case is money and training bases.
As for the "Killing Fields" of the Khmer Rouge - There are 6-7 billion people on this Earth, the U.S. cannot continue to be the only "protector" nation for the Globe. We do not have the resources. We outspent the Evil Empire of the Soviet Union until they went bankrupt. It's time to start thinking about what's going to happen when China comes to collect on all the T-bills we've floated over the past 30 years that made that happen, and continue the spending orgy that has occurred over the past 20.
So do we re institute the draft to come up with enough trained qualified young men to go open a can of whoop ass on 'em? I don't see another 200,000 people lining up to go fight, if that's what it would take to get it done and get 'em home as winners.The National Guard is about done in as it is. Congress held things back during Viet Nam, would they do it again? How many fronts can we successfully fight on, pretty much alone. We don't seem to be getting a lot of support from other countries on this.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on October 04, 2009, 08:51:33 PM
So do we re institute the draft to come up with enough trained qualified young men to go open a can of whoop ass on 'em? I don't see another 200,000 people lining up to go fight, if that's what it would take to get it done and get 'em home as winners.The National Guard is about done in as it is. Congress held things back during Viet Nam, would they do it again? How many fronts can we successfully fight on, pretty much alone. We don't seem to be getting a lot of support from other countries on this.
LOL as good as a draft sounds, i don't think our servicemen would want draftees in there. Personally i think any able bodied man that is on welfare cause he can't or wont get a job should join up and serve. then they would have a job and get off the welfare. Problem solved. They also might learn the skills to keep em off welfare and again i said they might. No guarantees on that.
Quote from: srkruzich on October 04, 2009, 09:08:04 PM
LOL as good as a draft sounds, i don't think our servicemen would want draftees in there. Personally i think any able bodied man that is on welfare cause he can't or wont get a job should join up and serve. then they would have a job and get off the welfare. Problem solved. They also might learn the skills to keep em off welfare and again i said they might. No guarantees on that.
Amen to that Steve!! There's a lot of them able to get off welfare they just don't have the will to get off of welfare. They were probably raised that way and will live that way for the rest of their lives because they are lazy scum sucking bastards!!
I agree with this line of thought. Is that okay? Cause you know, since I'm out here in the Center, I'm supposed to be 'uber-liberal' and all. ;D ;)
The whole approach of "lets just let them kill themselves" really worked prior to 9/11 didn't it? As for the "natives" not wanting us there, try asking the women who are now allowed to go to school or who can now take their children to hospitals where they actually get treated. As for hospitals and schools and bridges being built that is something you won't see on the news. You have to remember the type of war that we are fighting, it is not a convential war. It will take years to complete. So long as there is a threat to our country it must be answered. Our CIC needs to grow a pair and quit worrying about the constitutional rights of our enemies and start worrying about the security of our nation.
Personally, I think that EVERY able-bodied man should serve, at least one tour in the military. Also, I think that the physical standards for the military should be lowered, at least for those who want to enlist.
As far as the U.S. being the "worlds police force" I don't see this war in that context. This isn't about bringing these radicals to justice in a court room, it is about finding the enemy and killing them.
Without the draft, how do you get them to join up? Ya can't shame 'em into it and speculation on the welfare rolls is just that, speculation. It's easy for all of us to sit here and talk about what "they" should do, but that doesn't actually solve the problem. As far as a" conventional war", none of them are any more and probably never will be again. Yes, we do hear about the infrastructure repairs and such that have been going on for some time.The guys coming home talk freely about it. We've had some really good discussions at the back table at the fire house. I've learned a lot from those guys. So what is it you want the Pres. to do that can actually be done."Grow a pair" translates to what?
Quote from: Diane Amberg on October 05, 2009, 09:56:01 AM
Without the draft, how do you get them to join up? Ya can't shame 'em into it and speculation on the welfare rolls is just that, speculation. It's easy for all of us to sit here and talk about what "they" should do, but that doesn't actually solve the problem. As far as a" conventional war", none of them are any more and probably never will be again. Yes, we do hear about the infrastructure repairs and such that have been going on for some time.The guys coming home talk freely about it. We've had some really good discussions at the back table at the fire house. I've learned a lot from those guys. So what is it you want the Pres. to do that can actually be done."Grow a pair" translates to what?
Growing a pair translates into 1. Unleash the Dogs of War. IF you do not understand this, back in fallujah in 2004, my son was in the 2nd scout platoon and the war started with his platoon. The terrorists holed up in the mosque started assaulting our men, and it was by the bridge that they had killed those contractors and hung their bodys from.
My sons commander got demoted for his decision but they were under heavy fire and he ordered them to return fire. That essentially started the war for the next 3 or 4 days. SHortly after that incident, the orders came down and gave rules of engagement. The rules of engagement were valid on the west of x street and below y street for example. ANYTHING IN THAT ZONE WAS A KILL ZONE. Nothing was sacred. IF it walked and looked like it was armed or was a threat it was shot. Thats unleashing the dogs of war. More specifically it refers to sending in the Marines with a kill order. I can attest to the fact their very good at breaking things!
Growing a pair also entails 2. No negotiations. They either do what we say or rule number 1 comes into play. Unleash the dogs of war.
Growing a pair also entails 3. telling the so called allies to lead follow or get the hell out of the way, and if they get in our way and try to sabotage our efforts, rule number 1 will apply to them also.
Last of all, growing a set for obama would be to stand up there and support our military 100% and tell congress get them the materials they need, the resources, they need and send in the marines to finish the job and get it over with. IF the generals need 100,000 men, send in 150,000 men and get it done quicker.
Last of all growing a set would entail him quitting his attempt to appease the enemy. The only solution to islamic terrorism is rule number 1!
As far as flintaqua says this will never be won, thats true if we appease. It won't. The ONLY WAY to win this, and we are doing it this way, is to teach the young. In iraq, our men were doing this. The young are the future and by spending time giving things to the kids, building schools for the kids, hospitals, and taking care of the people and treating the people there with respect, they will see that were not the evil enemy that the terrorists try to espouse that we are. By winning the kids hearts, we will defeat islamic terror in 20 years. We won't win by force unless we kill them all off. SO by using our military force to get a foothold in there and then educating the children, we have a chance to change things.
well said Steve. when Gen McCrystal went aboard the Air force One, in Denmark, to talk to Obama about the war in afghanistan, they said he was aboard a whopping 25 minutes. 25 minutes wouldn't be enough time to get done with the introductions, I would think. The week before ,McCrystal did some talking to the British press and I guess "the O man " didn't like his rehtoric so the 25 minutes was not about the war but was to rein the General in. Now I know that is a rumor but seems to come from a reliable soarce and it does sound like standard operational procedure for this administration. I guess in time we will know if it's true
WHITE HOUSE: NO AFGHANISTAN PULLOUT
By Ane Gearan and Lara Jakes
The Assoiciated Press
WASINGTON-----President Barack Obama won't walk away from the flagging war in Afghanistan, the White House declared Monday as Obama faced tough decisions - and intense administration debate - over choices that could help define his presidency in his first year as Commander in Chief.
The fierce Taliban attack that killed eight American soldiers over the weekend added to the pressure. The assault overwhelmed a remote U.S. outpost where American forces have been stretched thin in battling insurgents, underscoring an appeal from Obama's top Afghanistan commander for as many as 40,000 additional forces - and at the same time reminding the nation of the cost of war.
Obama's defense secretary, Robert Gates, appealed Monday for calm - and for time and privacy for the president to come to a decision.
Last week, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, called publicly for the administration to add more resources which prompted a mild rebuke from Obama's national security adviser, James Jones, for lobbying in public.
Obama may take weeks to decide whether to add more troops, but the idea of pulling out isn't on the table as a way to deal with a war nearing its ninth year, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said.
The question of whether to further escalate the conflict after adding 21,000 U.S. troops earlier this year is a major decision facing Obama and senior administration policy advisers this week.
Obama also invited a bipartisan group of congressional leaders to the White House on Tuesday to confer about the war. And Obama will meet twice this week with his top national security advisers.
Divided on Afghanistan, Congress takes up a massive defense spending bill this week even before the president settles on a direction for the war.
unquote------
I personally think it is time for all Americans to call, write, e-mail their Congressmen and tell them to S--- or get off the pot. Either finish it for good and/or bring them home. The Russians couldn't beat them and we aren't going to beat them either unless we go all out and leave the politics out of it. IMHO
Larryj
I agree Larry. The only way to weed out the rats there is in superior numbers to hunt them down and exterminate them.
Obama Moves to Muzzle Top Military Commanders
Monday, October 5, 2009 7:42 PM
By: David A. Patten
Sources tell Newsmax the Obama administration is muzzling its top military leaders, and keeping them from publicly airing their views on how to fight the war in Afghanistan.
The administration's primary target: top Afghanistan commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal, whose speech in London last week apparently caught administration officials off guard.
In fact, The Daily Telegraph reported that Obama's advisers were "shocked and angered" by McChrystal's speech.
"This is a food fight in the war room, and it's getting ugly," observed Pulitzer Prize winning correspondent and Manhattan Institute scholar Judith Miller, regarding the sharply contrasting views being aired within the administration over how to fight the war.
In his speech, McChrystal defended his request for 40,000 more soldiers to wage a counter-insurgency campaign in Afghanistan, warning "a strategy that does not leave Afghanistan in a stable position is probably a shortsighted strategy."
Without mentioning Vice President Joe Biden by name, McChrystal said the vice president's proposal to scale back the objectives for the war would lead to "chaos-istan."
Shortly after those remarks, McChrystal was summoned to a face-to-face meeting with President Obama aboard Air Force One in Copenhagen, where Obama was making his ill-fated attempt to support Chicago's bid to host the 2016 summer Olympic games. Obama's National Security Adviser, Jim Jones, described their discussion as an exchange of "very direct views."
On Monday, in an obvious reference to McChrystal, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told the Association of the U.S. Army that "It is imperative that all of us taking part in these deliberations -- civilian and military alike -- provide our best advice to the president candidly but privately."
That statement appeared to echo remarks on Sunday from Jones, a retired Marine general. He told CNN, "Ideally, it's best for military advice to come up through the chain of command."
The none-too-subtle message to America's top military leaders: Don't share your candid views on the war in public. It appears McChrystal received the message loud and clear. According to The Washington Independent, McChrystal spokesperson and Air Force Lt. Col. Tadd Sholtis stated: "General McChrystal concurs with the secretary and shares his perspective that the president's military and civilian policy advisers need to provide candid but private advice."
Sholtis also said that McChrystal has no current plans for additional public appearances, The Washington Independent reported.
McChrystal became the top U.S. general in Afghanistan after Gates fired Gen. David D. McKiernan in May. McKiernan, who was criticized in some circles as insufficiently innovative, presided over a troop-strength increase of 21,000 soldiers. He had filed a request with the Pentagon for 10,000 more at the time he was replaced.
At the time, Gates ordered McChrystal to provide "fresh thinking" and "fresh eyes" on Afghanistan. But apparently it was McChrystal's fresh tongue that got him in trouble.
The New York Times reported Monday that Gen. David H. Petraeus, who was widely credited with carrying out the successful surge in Iraq, has already toned down his remarks since Obama attained the presidency.
"General Petraeus's aides now privately call him 'David the Dull,'" the Times reports, "and say he has largely muzzled himself from the fierce public debate about the war to avoid antagonizing the White House, which does not want pressure from military superstars and is wary of the general's ambitions in particular."
The concern among some experts is that President Obama's effort to tone down his military leaders may indicate he wants to triangulate a more politically palatable approach to fighting the war that may fall short of being militarily decisive.
"The president won't get honest opinions from his military advisers," warns Dr. James Jay Carafano, a former Army lieutenant colonel who serves as a leading Heritage Foundation expert on defense and homeland security. "He has to trust people who work for him. And when you've muzzled the people who work for you, you can't turn around and trust them to give you honest, candid guidance."
Carafano sharply criticized what he sees as Obama's "committee" approach to Afghanistan.
"This is not how wars get fought," Carafano tells Newsmax. "You don't fight wars by committee. Because now he's turned this into a political debate, and you're going to end up with a sub-optimal outcome."
Carafano says Obama appears to be "replaying all the worst decision making of McNamara and Johnson in Vietnam."
"This is the classic prescription for failure," Carafano says of the administration's indecisive approach. "And the military guy is sort of caught in the middle, because when the president doesn't want to fight the war the right way, you have three options: You can salute and drive on, or you can resign, or you can stay but play politics and leak things. None of those are good outcomes; none of them are the way to win a war."
Carafano says: "I think this is a case where the generals are dead right and the politicians are dead wrong. And we're going to choose a strategy based on what's politically convenient."
Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., issued the following statement to Newsmax on Monday evening: "As we near the 8th anniversary of sustained combat in Afghanistan, it is important to reaffirm our commitment to victory there. At a time when record numbers of American and allied troops are losing their lives during combat in Afghanistan, we should give the utmost priority to listening to our commanders on the ground. We owe it to the troops who have already lost their lives to provide our forces with the adequate number of troops to accomplish the mission that they set out to do.
"After the release of General McChrystal's assessment, some Obama administration officials have gone so far as to minimize the value of the Commanding General's assessment.
"Instead, President Obama should be predominantly relying on the advice of his two senior commanders for the region, General Petraeus and General McChrystal."
Petraeus and Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Admiral Michael Mullen have voiced support for deploying additional troops, but Petraeus has stopped short of endorsing McChrystal's specific report. As Gen. Jones' comments indicate, the military is far from united over how best to prosecute the war, however.
Inhofe also stated Monday: "Politics, indecision, or ambivalence have no place in this process when we are clearly at a crucial stage of the war. Time and decisiveness are critical. As many have said, time may not be on our side in Afghanistan. With the winter approaching and the time to allocate additional forces dwindling, it is imperative that we enable our military leaders and the troops on the ground with all the resources and tools they require to make inroads against the insurgency.
"While I agree that the Afghan Security Forces (ASF) also need to be dramatically increased to adequately protect the Afghan people and fight the Taliban, those efforts should happen in conjunction with an allied troop increase, not in place of such an increase. 'Wait and see' is not a war strategy and certainly not an approach that our military commanders are recommending," he stated.
While Miller believes McChrystal's statements about Biden's ideas went too far, she says she understands the frustration of some military leaders with an extended policy review that, in some ways, actually began even before Obama assumed office. She says Obama's policy reversals on a host of issues – military tribunals, CIA torture investigations, and support for a shield law to protect reporters' sources are but three examples – have left onlookers both at home and abroad wary of the direction Obama's new Afghan strategy may take.
"It's been a series of flip-flops, and they have people very nervous," she says.
Obama also finds himself under serious pressure from the left wing of his party. Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., has proposed legislation that would halt sending any additional troops to Afghanistan. Lee enlisted 21 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus as co-sponsors.
Ok now, who put this clown up there. Correct me if i am wrong, wasn't it the damn democrats that were crucifying President Bush for not Sending enough troops into iraq to begin with, and now when their faced with the SAME S*** Different Day, they say ohh noooo, we can't send in troops we have to scale back.
COME ON GIVE ME a freaking break. Sheesh. THis is a PRIMARY REASON you want the CIC to have military experience and preferrably combat experience.
(I am so going to get slammed for this:)
We managed to win WWI and WWII with CICs that had no military service!
How did we manage to do that?
If the CIC doesn't have any experience, then he has to rely on the appropriate Cabinet secretaries, the Joint Chiefs, and theater CIC's. This is where Obama is failing, IMHO.
Quote from: flintauqua on October 06, 2009, 10:09:15 PM
(I am so going to get slammed for this:)
We managed to win WWI and WWII with CICs that had no military service!
How did we manage to do that?
If the CIC doesn't have any experience, then he has to rely on the appropriate Cabinet secretaries, the Joint Chiefs, and theater CIC's. This is where Obama is failing, IMHO.
And thats why wilson and fdr was able to win the wars because they did rely on those with experience.
:(
We can't afford to lose this one, or pull out before something has been stablized there.
Is there anything to what I've heard speculation on about the main Taliband organizers having moved into Pakistan and are no longer in Afghanistan?