US anti-terror efforts still too risk averse

Discussion in 'Politics' started by countezero, Sep 27, 2007.

  1. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    No its the politicians, they will crucify any Military who is to hard core, and does the nessary thing to really do the job, the liberals have this problem of believing, that if we only give them a chance, and understand them they will love us, now just check SAM out, we let her into the finest schools in the Country and she has such a great love for the U.S. we educated her here because she couldn't make it in a school in her own country, she received grants to go to school, and she really loves us now don't she.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Nickelodeon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,581
    Wow, this thread became about SAM pretty quick.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    I think it's more than the politicians, Buffalo. The politicians aren't the people who initiated the idea of force protection and they aren't the ones who consistently throw more and more troops into operations. It's the generals bucking for promotion who do that. They don't want to be the guy who orders the next Blackhawk Down, a battle which we won by the way...
     
  8. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    Really? who authorizes troop levels? who authorizes the money? who make the rules by which the Military has to operate? the Politicians, here in America the Military is suborned to the Civilian Government, it take the politicians to authorize any military action, and they set the rules of combat, and every thing else, and if the military leadership doesn't follow orders, they end up being fired, just like General Macarthur, Korea, Comments about bombing China, Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, Abu Ghrieb, because they were to hard on the prisoners, Maj. Gen. George Weightman, because of Walter Reed, and that is the worst of all, Congress is the one who provides the funds to run Walter Reed, they oversee every aspect and contract of Walter Reed, it is they who failed to provide the necessary moneys to keep Walter Reed in top condition, an I know this from personnel experience, I have some long term medical problems, and there are time because congress fails to provide proper funding that my treatments are delayed or even canceled for lack of funding, so it is the Politicians, our Military can only run if the Politicians provide the moneys for them to do so, and we are subject to the rules by law that the congress set forth on how we are authorized to operate.
     
  9. Neildo Gone Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,306
    Ahem, that's the fault of this neocon administration. They tied their own hands behind their backs when they decided to try and promote democracy in a place like Iraq where Saddam is such an oh-so-bad person that tortures his own people only for us to go around and do the same. You can't promote democracy and be a nice guy while blowing shit to kingdom kum. Perhaps if we didn't use the excuse of spreading democracy, we could have just used total force without worrying about any dead civilians or other outcomes, we would have already won the war (which we already did, this is now an occupation, which further restricts our actions). Such are the rules of war trying to be the nice guy.

    - N
     

Share This Page