Hanging out troops out to dry.
91- ledefensetech
- 2876 posts
- Joined: 8 months ago
- Hubs: 16
- Fans: 106
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091112/ap_ … fghanistan
Nice to see the reincarnation of Napoleon is doing so well concerning the course of the war. As much as I dislike FDR, at least he was smart enough to listen to his commanders in the field and let them run the war. FDR's job was to make sure they had what they needed to fight the war.
All this President wants to do is ignore the problem and hope it goes away. That's what all this talk about a weak corruption tainted government is really about. Bush got slammed for his decision to increase troop levels in Iraq. His State department, the American people, hell even the Joint Chiefs were against it. But it worked and he won. At least he cleaned that mess up before he left office.
Afghanistan was put on the back burner for years. If anything we have more of a moral duty to end this war than the Iraq war. I shouldn't be so surprised, this is what happens when you elect a freshman Senator to the Presidency.
85- A Texan
- 3227 posts
- Joined: 5 months ago
- Hubs: 42
- Fans: 147
The weak leading the weak minded.
- 91
- ledefensetech
- 2876 posts
- Joined: 8 months ago
- Hubs: 16
- Fans: 106
I'm really trying not to start up a polemic over the whole situation. Did you see the "shoutout" he gave before talking about the Fort Hood thing?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0hiw8iXdMM
Sun Tzu this guy is not. 
91- readytoescape
- 585 posts
- Joined: 4 months ago
- Hubs: 34
- Fans: 73
War should be left to warriors.
When the politicians decide to enter into war, they then need to get out of the way and let the Warriors do their jobs, you cannot fight a war while counting the polls.
The Politicians can outline the objectives of that war, but should not in anyway try to manage it. Politicians interfering with the execution of that war should be prosecuted as Traitors.
Further no person should be elected to the Presidency of the United States without first having served. I don’t believe anyone can properly perform the duties of Commander and Chief without this experience.- 91
- ledefensetech
- 2876 posts
- Joined: 8 months ago
- Hubs: 16
- Fans: 106
readytoescape wrote:
War should be left to warriors.
When the politicians decide to enter into war, they then need to get out of the way and let the Warriors do their jobs, you cannot fight a war while counting the polls.
The Politicians can outline the objectives of that war, but should not in anyway try to manage it. Politicians interfering with the execution of that war should be prosecuted as Traitors.
Further no person should be elected to the Presidency of the United States without first having served. I don’t believe anyone can properly perform the duties of Commander and Chief without this experience.I don't think that's necessarily true. FDR never served and he, for the most part, let his generals fight the war. Unconditional Surrender being an exception, of course.
- 91
- readytoescape
- 585 posts
- Joined: 4 months ago
- Hubs: 34
- Fans: 73
he wasn't exactly the greatest president either, he did however have some of the greatest Generals in History, and certainly the greatest military to ever stand on the face of the earth
- 91
- ledefensetech
- 2876 posts
- Joined: 8 months ago
- Hubs: 16
- Fans: 106
readytoescape wrote:
he wasn't exactly the greatest president either, he did however have some of the greatest Generals in History, and certainly the greatest military to ever stand on the face of the earth
Oh believe me, I don't think he was in any way responsible for the quality of generals. Most of the outstanding generals of the War were proteges of Marshall, who himself was a protege of Pershing. Those men were responsible for the quality of our military leadership in World War II.
- 91
- readytoescape
- 585 posts
- Joined: 4 months ago
- Hubs: 34
- Fans: 73
Agreed, he performed best during the war by keeping congress at bay
93- Scott.Life
- 1102 posts
- Joined: 3 months ago
- Hubs: 30
- Fans: 230
The politicians are not the ones who have lost the stomach for war and are interfering but the American people who abhor seeing their sons dying in combat and plead for the politicians to bring them home. It is by and large the American people who expect war to be a sanitary affair and over quickly. If you want to point a finger point one at all those who voted those politicians in and continue to leave them there, then we'll see who's hung the troops out to dry.
ledefensetech wrote:
I'm really trying not to start up a polemic over the whole situation. Did you see the "shoutout" he gave before talking about the Fort Hood thing?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0hiw8iXdMM
Sun Tzu this guy is not.I remember watching this live and not understanding what the hell Obama was doing. He was all giddy and cracking jokes before he talked about the tragedy.
I was soooo surprised that no media outlets gave him hell for that.
I don't feel confident having this clown leading our military or making military decisions.
If it was a public speaking competition, I would want Obama on my side anyway (as long as there was a teleprompter), but not running this country.
His Afghanistan decision has less to do with the safety of our troops and our military goals and more with how to make sure the Democrats don't get slaughtered in the 2010 elections.- 91
- ledefensetech
- 2876 posts
- Joined: 8 months ago
- Hubs: 16
- Fans: 106
Scott.Life wrote:
I think you should do some more research on this topic as I can assure you that FDR was directly involved in much of the planning of many major operations during WW2, from the invasion of Africa,Sicily, D-day, and operation Market Garden in Europe to the battle of Midway,Okinawa, Iwo Jima, the invasion of the Philippines and finally the dropping of the A-Bomb, so much so that the VP was left completely in the dark until FDR's death. He personally picked commanders set time frames and targets, among other duties, keeping in line with Churchill and Stalin who were also heavily involved in their nations strategic and tactical planning.The war was very much ran according to FDR's prerogative and he frequently met with regional commanders across the world to set strategy, and chastise those who did not see eye to eye. Bush Jr., continued on in this tradition throughout his presidency often speeding up time-frames and resetting targets at whim. You seem a little naive of what has happened behind closed doors in the military. Perhaps you should spend some time there before deciding what works and doesn't and who's being hung out to dry by whom.
Um FDR died before the bomb was tested, he could not have made any plans to drop it, that was left to Truman. He met with Churchill and Stalin to coordinate overall strategy, but he did not countermand his commanders. Stalin, for example, pushed for a Second Front in Europe pretty much from 1942 onwards. FDR didn't even consider a Second Front until his commanders told him they were ready.
I'd check my sources if I were you. Obviously you've not read much on WW II. Midway was Nimitz baby, and he kicked Jap tail. Operation Torch was Eisenhower. Market-Garden was Montgomery, I think, not an American operation except that we provided troops. - 91
- ledefensetech
- 2876 posts
- Joined: 8 months ago
- Hubs: 16
- Fans: 106
TimTurner wrote:
I remember watching this live and not understanding what the hell Obama was doing. He was all giddy and cracking jokes before he talked about the tragedy.
I was soooo surprised that no media outlets gave him hell for that.
I don't feel confident having this clown leading our military or making military decisions.
If it was a public speaking competition, I would want Obama on my side anyway (as long as there was a teleprompter), but not running this country.
His Afghanistan decision has less to do with the safety of our troops and our military goals and more with how to make sure the Democrats don't get slaughtered in the 2010 elections.It's funny how people gave Bush crap for stuttering when he spoke, but unless Obama has a prepared speech in front of him, he doesn't do too well either. Especially when it's about a topic he cares nothing about.
68- rhamson
- 1290 posts
- Joined: 2 months ago
- Hubs: 1
- Fans: 15
ledefensetech wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091112/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_us_afghanistan
Nice to see the reincarnation of Napoleon is doing so well concerning the course of the war. As much as I dislike FDR, at least he was smart enough to listen to his commanders in the field and let them run the war. FDR's job was to make sure they had what they needed to fight the war.
All this President wants to do is ignore the problem and hope it goes away. That's what all this talk about a weak corruption tainted government is really about. Bush got slammed for his decision to increase troop levels in Iraq. His State department, the American people, hell even the Joint Chiefs were against it. But it worked and he won. At least he cleaned that mess up before he left office.
Afghanistan was put on the back burner for years. If anything we have more of a moral duty to end this war than the Iraq war. I shouldn't be so surprised, this is what happens when you elect a freshman Senator to the Presidency.Your take on the troop build up in Iraq is interesting. There is still hostilities going on and you think that works. What you fail to notice in your comments is that there were a lot of pay offs to the warlords that came with the build up and that had the desired effect.
Committing to a corrupt government such as is the case in Afganistan with more troops and money is a disaster in the making. Perhaps we should learn what came about in Iraq and for go the troops.ledefensetech wrote:
TimTurner wrote:
I remember watching this live and not understanding what the hell Obama was doing. He was all giddy and cracking jokes before he talked about the tragedy.
I was soooo surprised that no media outlets gave him hell for that.
I don't feel confident having this clown leading our military or making military decisions.
If it was a public speaking competition, I would want Obama on my side anyway (as long as there was a teleprompter), but not running this country.
His Afghanistan decision has less to do with the safety of our troops and our military goals and more with how to make sure the Democrats don't get slaughtered in the 2010 elections.It's funny how people gave Bush crap for stuttering when he spoke, but unless Obama has a prepared speech in front of him, he doesn't do too well either. Especially when it's about a topic he cares nothing about.
Yeah, CNN even pointed out he's the first president to bring a teleprompter everywhere, including giving 2 or 3 minute speeches in an old folks home.
And we've seen on the late night talk shows how poorly he does without guidance or a teleprompter.- 68
- rhamson
- 1290 posts
- Joined: 2 months ago
- Hubs: 1
- Fans: 15
TimTurner wrote:
ledefensetech wrote:
I'm really trying not to start up a polemic over the whole situation. Did you see the "shoutout" he gave before talking about the Fort Hood thing?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0hiw8iXdMM
Sun Tzu this guy is not.I remember watching this live and not understanding what the hell Obama was doing. He was all giddy and cracking jokes before he talked about the tragedy.
I was soooo surprised that no media outlets gave him hell for that.
I don't feel confident having this clown leading our military or making military decisions.
If it was a public speaking competition, I would want Obama on my side anyway (as long as there was a teleprompter), but not running this country.
His Afghanistan decision has less to do with the safety of our troops and our military goals and more with how to make sure the Democrats don't get slaughtered in the 2010 elections.I like the way Fox showed the lead in to his remarks of a totally unrelated story. The twist was good enough to manipulate you. How many others were led down this path? If the Obama gets slaughtered as you say it will be because of the distortions and crap that we were led astray with. We really are lemmings.
rhamson wrote:
TimTurner wrote:
ledefensetech wrote:
I'm really trying not to start up a polemic over the whole situation. Did you see the "shoutout" he gave before talking about the Fort Hood thing?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0hiw8iXdMM
Sun Tzu this guy is not.I remember watching this live and not understanding what the hell Obama was doing. He was all giddy and cracking jokes before he talked about the tragedy.
I was soooo surprised that no media outlets gave him hell for that.
I don't feel confident having this clown leading our military or making military decisions.
If it was a public speaking competition, I would want Obama on my side anyway (as long as there was a teleprompter), but not running this country.
His Afghanistan decision has less to do with the safety of our troops and our military goals and more with how to make sure the Democrats don't get slaughtered in the 2010 elections.I like the way Fox showed the lead in to his remarks of a totally unrelated story. The twist was good enough to manipulate you. How many others were led down this path? If the Obama gets slaughtered as you say it will be because of the distortions and crap that we were led astray with. We really are lemmings.
I watched it live on CNN. I don't watch FOX.
His actions before the speech were very weird.All I can say about the indecision of BO is that at least he can't blame this one on Bush. During the campaign, candidate Obama obviously LIED when he said Afghanistan was a war of necessity or he would have already decided how to help our troops. I heard the soundbite with my own ears where Barry said this war wasn't a football game and he wasn't interested in winning! Then WHY are we still there if the commander-in-chief isn't interested in a victory! BO CHOSE this General to lead over there---why doesn't he listen to the man?
- 68
- rhamson
- 1290 posts
- Joined: 2 months ago
- Hubs: 1
- Fans: 15
SheriSapp wrote:
All I can say about the indecision of BO is that at least he can't blame this one on Bush. During the campaign, candidate Obama obviously LIED when he said Afghanistan was a war of necessity or he would have already decided how to help our troops. I heard the soundbite with my own ears where Barry said this war wasn't a football game and he wasn't interested in winning! Then WHY are we still there if the commander-in-chief isn't interested in a victory! BO CHOSE this General to lead over there---why doesn't he listen to the man?
Yeah go figure. Another countries corrupt election got in the way. Oh well lets just escalate another unwarranted war.
- 68
- rhamson
- 1290 posts
- Joined: 2 months ago
- Hubs: 1
- Fans: 15
TimTurner wrote:
rhamson wrote:
TimTurner wrote:
I remember watching this live and not understanding what the hell Obama was doing. He was all giddy and cracking jokes before he talked about the tragedy.
I was soooo surprised that no media outlets gave him hell for that.
I don't feel confident having this clown leading our military or making military decisions.
If it was a public speaking competition, I would want Obama on my side anyway (as long as there was a teleprompter), but not running this country.
His Afghanistan decision has less to do with the safety of our troops and our military goals and more with how to make sure the Democrats don't get slaughtered in the 2010 elections.I like the way Fox showed the lead in to his remarks of a totally unrelated story. The twist was good enough to manipulate you. How many others were led down this path? If the Obama gets slaughtered as you say it will be because of the distortions and crap that we were led astray with. We really are lemmings.
I watched it live on CNN. I don't watch FOX.
His actions before the speech were very weird.Then you could not distinguish the two. The reference and link was to Fox. I did not take it the way you did. I separated the two different topics.
rhamsom--BO needs to remind himself that he WON!!! He is the president and as such, he must make difficult decisions that will always make some of the people unhappy. If he doesn't want a victory, then he should bring the troops home and not leave them over there with our increasingly worried allies because nobody truly knows what this administration is doing. Sorry if you feel the war is unwarrented, but Al Quaeda is headquartered in that country and THEY ATTACKED US! Let me guess, it was all OUR fault that 9-11 happened?
