Jump to content

Obama's military


PhatMack19

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, westend1 said:

president?   So you blame Trump personally for the kid killed in Yemen?

That is a very evasive answer and you know it. It is obvious that Obama had final say in the rules of engagement that were used in Afghanistan. To argue otherwise is stupid. 

The real debate is whether these rules resulted in the deaths of these Americans in this instance. I would tend to believe that if Bush's rules were in place, the situation possibly could have ended differently. That is Monday morning quarterbacking, but I believe we have the best military in the world and if they were allowed to fight, they would have most likely not lost that chopper.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, texanabroad said:

That is a very evasive answer and you know it. It is obvious that Obama had final say in the rules of engagement that were used in Afghanistan. To argue otherwise is stupid. 

The real debate is whether these rules resulted in the deaths of these Americans in this instance. I would tend to believe that if Bush's rules were in place, the situation possibly could have ended differently. That is Monday morning quarterbacking, but I believe we have the best military in the world and if they were allowed to fight, they would have most likely not lost that chopper.

 

But the truth is, you really don't know anything at all.  You don't know what the rules of engagement were.  You don't know if they were followed.  You don't know if they were properly related to the crews.   Bottom line, if anybody was at fault, if this could have been prevented, which is a big assumption, you don't know who to blame.   But go ahead with the narrative that you prefer.    But, if you show me somewhere where Obama told the military to let combatants who were a threat to our forces go free, I'll be happy to look at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, westend1 said:

But the truth is, you really don't know anything at all.  You don't know what the rules of engagement were.  You don't know if they were followed.  You don't know if they were properly related to the crews.   Bottom line, if anybody was at fault, if this could have been prevented, which is a big assumption, you don't know who to blame.   But go ahead with the narrative that you prefer.    But, if you show me somewhere where Obama told the military to let combatants who were a threat to our forces go free, I'll be happy to look at it.

I know what the rules of engagement were and according to the article, forces were told not to fire. According to the rules of engagement quoted in the article, the commanders were in the right telling them not to fire. Now, if this had been during the Bush era, the commanding officers would have told them to fire based on those rules of engagement  The rules of engagement enacted by the Obama administration led to this decision. I don't think it is a far stretch to say that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, texanabroad said:

I know what the rules of engagement were and according to the article, forces were told not to fire. According to the rules of engagement quoted in the article, the commanders were in the right telling them not to fire. Now, if this had been during the Bush era, the commanding officers would have told them to fire based on those rules of engagement  The rules of engagement enacted by the Obama administration led to this decision. I don't think it is a far stretch to say that.

It's not...you can't let an idiot pacifist run the military...bad things happen, obama proved that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,977
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined


  • Posts

    • We'll see. I don't trust us. 
    • Starting pitching has been shaky the last few weeks due to some injuries outside of Hagen Smith.  He goes tomorrow, so y’all should be fine 
    • Manchin may get it but any mention of the radical left that wanted to get rid of the filibuster and end almost 220 years of history because the Democrats are mad?  The House and Senate are obviously different legislative bodies with entirely different election processes and rules for a reason. The House can vote on laws with a simple majority vote. The Senate put rules in place that it would make it much tougher to pass laws. Laws should be difficult to pass. The Senate is often the holdup of the right and left. It takes 60 votes to break the filibuster so any law will almost certainly require agreement at least in part, from opposing sides of an issue. Because they can’t get laws passed, the radical left is like a baby having a tantrum and wants to change over 200 years of history and make it potentially ridiculously easy to pass laws. I have seen current poll maps and it is possible for the Republicans to sweep into complete power in November but by the tiniest margin. That would possibly mean that a single vote margin in both houses could enact what you might call the radical right laws. There would be nothing that the Democrats could do to stop any legislation whatsoever if the left (they are all radical, minus Manchin) got their filibuster rule changed.  That is where the current filibuster comes into play as any new law would require several Democrats to agree with the majority Republicans and vice versa.  Do you want the potential for your radical right to have free rein as the radical left wants by killing the filibuster or is the radical left just as (if not more) dangerous? Let’s see if we have a history in this area? Oh yeah, the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate to allow federal judges to not have to overcome the filibuster. Obama was not getting his federal judge nominations passed and being angry, they changed the rules instead of nominating more moderate justices. They were warned that it would come back to bite them. They didn’t care and chose the nuclear option to change the rules. Oops! Any guess how Trump got all of his Supreme Court nominees passed against strong Democrat opposition? The Democrats got rid of the filibuster for federal judges after another tantrum   So when you are so worried about the radical right, are you equally concerned in what the radical left is always doing by changing rules and history which were put into place just for situations like we are in? So while Manchin gets it, what about his other 50 colleagues (49 + Harris)?  What concerns you more, Abbott and Paxton or the Democrats who want to make it to where if the Republicans do take over, they can go wild… at least in your mind? 
    • MODS please remove that ISD twitter link! I had no idea it would copy the whole posting. I only highlighted the portion about the venue change. Sorry about that!
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...