Oh Magoo, GWB&co does it again.

[Lemon law]

It looks like Obama's first foreign policy challenge may be to give GWB a dope slap.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/200..._nm/us_afghan_violence

And right after Gen. Petraeus visited both Afghanistan and Pakistan to mend fences
regarding these kinds of blind air strikes, we see that the US army speaks with a forked tongue.

In related news, the Iraqi Parliament has already thrown GWB a curve ball, stating publically that they would refuse to ratify his unilateral GWB's my way or the highway
security agreement that would pave the way to renewing the UN mandate past 12/31/08. And instead, the Iraqi parliament will include the US President elect in any negotiations. Basically reducing GWB to the role of the errand boy, bringing the two together, and then being kicked to the lame duck role of watching the Iraqis talk to Obama.

 

[alchemize]

Get em in while you can, you only have a couple more months before you (fully) become a hypocrite (or stop posting on it).

Oh wait, I'm sure the military under obama will become 100% accurate.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Obama has a more aggressive stance on Afghanistan and Pakistan than either Bush or McCain. Do you really think the military will instantly become perfect once he takes over?

 

[CanOWorms]

Obama already bitchslapped the Europeans by stating that we only have one president at a time. You think that he'll suddenly change his mind about waiting until he's in office for these things?

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Obama already bitchslapped the Europeans by stating that we only have one president at a time. You think that he'll suddenly change his mind about waiting until he's in office for these things?

How do you rationalize Obama's successful tour through Europe during the campaign. I didn't hear him echoing any of your nutty views.

 

[alien42]

Originally posted by: joshsquall
Obama has a more aggressive stance on Afghanistan and Pakistan than either Bush or McCain. Do you really think the military will instantly become perfect once he takes over?

no one would expect an instant fix but the reality is that Obama will run a more efficient and smarter military. mistakes happen in war and the best you can do is to make them as insignificant as possible.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Obama already bitchslapped the Europeans by stating that we only have one president at a time. You think that he'll suddenly change his mind about waiting until he's in office for these things?

How do you rationalize Obama's successful tour through Europe during the campaign. I didn't hear him echoing any of your nutty views.

He would lose the white vote.

As the demographics of this country change though, you will be hearing this more and more. You will not be able to antagonize them to stop. You will be in the minority.

 

[OCGuy]

I wont miss these threads.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Get em in while you can, you only have a couple more months before you (fully) become a hypocrite (or stop posting on it).

Oh wait, I'm sure the military under obama will become 100% accurate.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am merely implying this will likely be the first set of Obama foreign policy challenges,
and in terms of being a hypocrite, you will have to wait to see how critical I become of Obama if he tries the same failed tactics of GWB in Afghanistan.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: alien42

Originally posted by: joshsquall
Obama has a more aggressive stance on Afghanistan and Pakistan than either Bush or McCain. Do you really think the military will instantly become perfect once he takes over?

no one would expect an instant fix but the reality is that Obama will run a more efficient and smarter military. mistakes happen in war and the best you can do is to make them as insignificant as possible.

How would he run a more efficient and smarter military? The people with their fingers on the triggers making these mistakes are the grunts and pilots whom the President with never even once meet or communicate with.

There's only two scenarios in which President-elect Obama could improve the military in this situation:

1. Exit Iraq ASAP and allow for more troop availability in Afghanistan/Pakistan. This should allow for more troop rotation and alleviate some of the mental exhaustion currently occurring.

2. Order stricter rules of engagement. I doubt this would be very realistic or useful, though.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: alchemize
Get em in while you can, you only have a couple more months before you (fully) become a hypocrite (or stop posting on it).

Oh wait, I'm sure the military under obama will become 100% accurate.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am merely implying this will likely be the first set of Obama foreign policy challenges,
and in terms of being a hypocrite, you will have to wait to see how critical I become of Obama if he tries the same failed tactics of GWB in Afghanistan.

The president generally has no impact on military tactics.

 

[JS80]

Who will you blame when these accidents happen starting Jan 1, 2009?

 

[blackangst1]

How the fuck is Bush responsible for this? JHC

And we take the word of Rhamhalamadingdong? Good God. Dont worry Lemon. Obama will killing people very soon

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: alchemize
Get em in while you can, you only have a couple more months before you (fully) become a hypocrite (or stop posting on it).

Oh wait, I'm sure the military under obama will become 100% accurate.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am merely implying this will likely be the first set of Obama foreign policy challenges,
and in terms of being a hypocrite, you will have to wait to see how critical I become of Obama if he tries the same failed tactics of GWB in Afghanistan.

The president generally has no impact on military tactics.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pardon me, I believe the President has a great deal of impact on permitted military tactics. Able to rewrite torture policies and rules of engagement in a single bound.
The actual dirty work may be done at the sec of defense level, but when three heads of State and various other entities publically state there are abuses, the buck stops at the US President. And you are fooling only yourself if everyone else in the world understands that point in international law. This is not just random abuse, its US policy set by the President. Once those policies are set, illegal abuses and stupidity are on autopilot.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: JS80
Who will you blame when these accidents happen starting Jan 1, 2009?

you fail at inauguration day

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: JS80
Who will you blame when these accidents happen starting Jan 1, 2009?

you fail at inauguration day

indeed...

Who will you blame when these accidents happen starting Jan 20, 2009?

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
It looks like Obama's first foreign policy challenge may be to give GWB a dope slap.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/200..._nm/us_afghan_violence

And right after Gen. Petraeus visited both Afghanistan and Pakistan to mend fences
regarding these kinds of blind air strikes, we see that the US army speaks with a forked tongue.

In related news, the Iraqi Parliament has already thrown GWB a curve ball, stating publically that they would refuse to ratify his unilateral GWB's my way or the highway
security agreement that would pave the way to renewing the UN mandate past 12/31/08. And instead, the Iraqi parliament will include the US President elect in any negotiations. Basically reducing GWB to the role of the errand boy, bringing the two together, and then being kicked to the lame duck role of watching the Iraqis talk to Obama.

So, if there were taliban in the wediing party,,,say some high value targets,,,would they be considered civillians if they were participating in the wedding party?

 

[AFMatt]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
So, if there were taliban in the wediing party,,,say some high value targets,,,would they be considered civillians if they were participating in the wedding party?

No, they are still considered lawfull targets. The decision to attack such a location is based on military necessity and whether or not the gain will outweigh the collateral damage/civilian harm.
I obviously do not know all the details of this case, but one thing people need to keep in mind is it is not uncommon for groups like the Taliban and Al Qaeda to put themselves in a position that will result in civilian harm when attacked. It's free and easy propaganda that adds ammo to the cause to get us out of there. Again, I am not saying this applies completely to this event, but it does happen.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: AFMatt

Originally posted by: Ozoned
So, if there were taliban in the wediing party,,,say some high value targets,,,would they be considered civillians if they were participating in the wedding party?

No, they are still considered lawfull targets. The decision to attack such a location is based on military necessity and whether or not the gain will outweigh the collateral damage/civilian harm.
I obviously do not know all the details of this case, but one thing people need to keep in mind is it is not uncommon for groups like the Taliban and Al Qaeda to put themselves in a position that will result in civilian harm when attacked. It's free and easy propaganda that adds ammo to the cause to get us out of there. Again, I am not saying this applies completely to this event, but it does happen.

That's a lot like blaming the 3,000 people in the World Trade Center for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. After all, the real target was the buildings themselves, and they were just collateral damage, right?

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: JS80
Who will you blame when these accidents happen starting Jan 1, 2009?

you fail at inauguration day

indeed...

Who will you blame when these accidents happen starting Jan 20, 2009?

Clearly it's up to the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and moderate elements of the Taliban to step it up.

They are faced with the certain escalation of US and UN forces - if they want those force levels reduced in the not-to-distant future they better get to work.

The way to win this battle is infiltration and destruction from the inside. The indigenous people (who don't want us there for the most part) hold the key. Firing Hellfires into villages with 10:1 collateral 'civilian' damage does not win 'hearts and minds'.

It creates more enemies.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: AFMatt

Originally posted by: Ozoned
So, if there were taliban in the wediing party,,,say some high value targets,,,would they be considered civillians if they were participating in the wedding party?

No, they are still considered lawfull targets. The decision to attack such a location is based on military necessity and whether or not the gain will outweigh the collateral damage/civilian harm.
I obviously do not know all the details of this case, but one thing people need to keep in mind is it is not uncommon for groups like the Taliban and Al Qaeda to put themselves in a position that will result in civilian harm when attacked. It's free and easy propaganda that adds ammo to the cause to get us out of there. Again, I am not saying this applies completely to this event, but it does happen.

That's a lot like blaming the 3,000 people in the World Trade Center for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. After all, the real target was the buildings themselves, and they were just collateral damage, right?

How the fuck do you tell them apart? (The taliban and the (Taliban) civillians.)

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: AFMatt

Originally posted by: Ozoned
So, if there were taliban in the wediing party,,,say some high value targets,,,would they be considered civillians if they were participating in the wedding party?

No, they are still considered lawfull targets. The decision to attack such a location is based on military necessity and whether or not the gain will outweigh the collateral damage/civilian harm.
I obviously do not know all the details of this case, but one thing people need to keep in mind is it is not uncommon for groups like the Taliban and Al Qaeda to put themselves in a position that will result in civilian harm when attacked. It's free and easy propaganda that adds ammo to the cause to get us out of there. Again, I am not saying this applies completely to this event, but it does happen.

That's a lot like blaming the 3,000 people in the World Trade Center for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. After all, the real target was the buildings themselves, and they were just collateral damage, right?

How the fuck do you tell them apart?

I don't know! All those white folks in suits and briefcases look alike, don't they?

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: AFMatt

Originally posted by: Ozoned
So, if there were taliban in the wediing party,,,say some high value targets,,,would they be considered civillians if they were participating in the wedding party?

No, they are still considered lawfull targets. The decision to attack such a location is based on military necessity and whether or not the gain will outweigh the collateral damage/civilian harm.
I obviously do not know all the details of this case, but one thing people need to keep in mind is it is not uncommon for groups like the Taliban and Al Qaeda to put themselves in a position that will result in civilian harm when attacked. It's free and easy propaganda that adds ammo to the cause to get us out of there. Again, I am not saying this applies completely to this event, but it does happen.

That's a lot like blaming the 3,000 people in the World Trade Center for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. After all, the real target was the buildings themselves, and they were just collateral damage, right?

How the fuck do you tell them apart?

I don't know! All those white folks in suits and briefcases look alike, don't they?

I guess you didn't see my edit.