It's not about having confidence or thinking through the problem, it's about a bunch of people running around with hammers. They don't know how to do anything other than hammer on nails, so when confronted a problem that can't be solved that way, their only solution is that they must not be hammering HARD enough...
It's not about having confidence or thinking through the problem, it's about a bunch of people running around with hammers. They don't know how to do anything other than hammer on nails, so when confronted a problem that can't be solved that way, their only solution is that they must not be hammering HARD enough...
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 61
I'd bet the photo and story were not only leaked on purpose, but probably fake as well.
In the military, especially for those high up in the ranks, high enough to have the photo and the story, you follow orders. You don't leak information. That is unless you are ordered to do so.
In the military, especially for those high up in the ranks, high enough to have the photo and the story, you follow orders. You don't leak information. That is unless you are ordered to do so.
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
Why? What purpose is served by doing this? In order to change the rules of engagement so we can shot at people in cemeteries?
BTW: you are wrong about the "high ranks" comment. A lot of the people in intelligence are enlisted personnel. Could have been some Sergeant who saw the tape and got pissed and e-mailed the story to friend at home.
I have a brother in the Navy and saw "top secret" photos of the Cole after the attack that some enlisted photographer took and e-mailed to some friends and ended up being forwarded to just about every military person in the Norfolk Va area.
The fact that you are only considering Al Qaeda is your first problem. Take a look at the attempt in Syria. It was not orchestrated by Al Qaeda, but by some Middle Easterners who were not happy with our current presence in the region. I don't believe our invasion into Iraq has improved our status in the hearts and minds of people living in the Middle East, with the exception perhaps of some Israelis. If you'd like to argue that we are making more friends in that area, I'd love to hear how you came to that conclusion.
The second problem is that you and Bush assume that you can 'win' the War on Terror, when you yourself just admitted you have no way of measuring the current level of terrorists in the world. If we were to judge it on the scale of people killed by acts of terrorism and include local civilians, I'd say it looks pretty bad.
The technology needs to be moved into satelite so that somebody who doesn't pay a ticket can be vaporized from space.
Do unto others...................cause you know they're gonna do you.
Do unto others...................cause you know they're gonna do you.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Well.. how do they know they were who the military said they were...
Are these the same drones that were used to spot all the WMD in Iraq.. and if so... well ... no telling who or what those depicted people are..
But ROE's are in place for a reason and in this case and even IF they were correctly identified I'd not want to interupt a burial service ala the IRA and the Paislyites might have done a few times in Ireland.... Ya need the good folks on your side no matter the cost.. and a few "see.. I told ya so"'s will lose the war...
Are these the same drones that were used to spot all the WMD in Iraq.. and if so... well ... no telling who or what those depicted people are..
But ROE's are in place for a reason and in this case and even IF they were correctly identified I'd not want to interupt a burial service ala the IRA and the Paislyites might have done a few times in Ireland.... Ya need the good folks on your side no matter the cost.. and a few "see.. I told ya so"'s will lose the war...
America has become a nation of morally bankrupt goons who think the answer to every pimple they get is nuclear weapons. Most Americans have never heard of the moral high ground, much less what it is. They go to the polls and cast their oink for safety. 'Kill anything that threatens me.'
Don Vito Corleone
Elite
- Feb 10, 2000
- 30,029
- 66
- 91
ROEs have, at least occasionally, created an impediment to our legitimate prosecution of war. They are not, however, the reason we are "loosing."
The larger reason is that the "war on terror" is being run by civilian leadership who aren't fundamentally interested in fighting terror. Accordingly, their effort in Afghanistan (the ACTUAL host of bin Ladan) has been so half-hearted that the country is now a more prolific hotbed for drug production that it has ever been in history, and Taliban activity is once again on the increase. Meanwhile, we have dedicated hundreds of thousands of troops, and hundreds of billions of dollars, fighting a war against the largest secular nation in the Middle East, not because of their support of terrorism (an area in which Iraq was far less involved than any of several other ME nations), but because PNAC said we should.
The greater irony is that we are also losing the war on Iraq (which is, IMO, clearly separate from the "war on terror"), because the same civilian leadership who green-lighted the war have consistently refused to authorize the troop numbers it would take to win, and, indeed, have threatened and even fired military leadership who dared to say they needed it.
So, to circle back to the OP, yes, ROEs have sometimes created problems for us, but no, they are not the reason we're "loosing" the "war on terror."
The larger reason is that the "war on terror" is being run by civilian leadership who aren't fundamentally interested in fighting terror. Accordingly, their effort in Afghanistan (the ACTUAL host of bin Ladan) has been so half-hearted that the country is now a more prolific hotbed for drug production that it has ever been in history, and Taliban activity is once again on the increase. Meanwhile, we have dedicated hundreds of thousands of troops, and hundreds of billions of dollars, fighting a war against the largest secular nation in the Middle East, not because of their support of terrorism (an area in which Iraq was far less involved than any of several other ME nations), but because PNAC said we should.
The greater irony is that we are also losing the war on Iraq (which is, IMO, clearly separate from the "war on terror"), because the same civilian leadership who green-lighted the war have consistently refused to authorize the troop numbers it would take to win, and, indeed, have threatened and even fired military leadership who dared to say they needed it.
So, to circle back to the OP, yes, ROEs have sometimes created problems for us, but no, they are not the reason we're "loosing" the "war on terror."
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
If the political desire to win by committing all required resources does not exist, then one can not win effectively.
It will become a conflict of attrition and those that want it most will then win because of the cost of losing.
It will become a conflict of attrition and those that want it most will then win because of the cost of losing.
The phrase I bolded above is a lot more applicable to Bush and Rumsfeld's refusal to commit the necessary troops to Iraq than it is to the desire to have our forces operate under reasonable ROEs. I would suggest that the ROEs are perfectly acceptable, any problems we have "winning effectively" come from another source...
You're wrong we have State Dept statistics that show terrorist attacks are decreas . . . oh, nevermind . . . nothing to see here . . .
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 12K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter