McChrystal betrays us, (not Petraeus!)

[Feanor]

Obama was right to accept McChrystal's resignation. Distainful public remarks about the Commander in Chief and his advisors are insubordination ipso facto. He's luck not to be courtmartialed.

The remarks go beyond "poor judgement" coming from a person of McChrystal's undoubted abilities: they show contempt for the legitimate role of a high military commander in a democratic system where civilian leadership sets policy. If McChrystal didn't feel he could follow the CiC's lead capably and with good conscience then he should have quietly resigned for "personal reasons", not publically bad-mouthed the President and his advisors.

[bobsticks]

Yeah, because your right to free speach ends with a career in the military and Obama's experience as Commander and Chief of the Illinois National Guard makes him infallible.

[Hyfi]

Yeah, because your right to free speach ends with a career in the military and Obama's experience as Commander and Chief of the Illinois National Guard makes him infallible.

No, because there should not be a different code of conduct for the grunts and tops dogs. It would have sent a bad message to the enlisted and everyone else.

[bobsticks]

No, because there should not be a different code of conduct for the grunts and tops dogs. It would have sent a bad message to the enlisted and everyone else.

I doubt Bill considered this when crafting his missive. His hatred for the U.S. Military Industrial Complex seems all-encompassing and pervasive.

[Rich-n-Texas]

I doubt Bill considered this when crafting his missive. His hatred for the U.S. Military Industrial Complex seems all-encompassing and pervasive.
Doesn't stop with the military 'sticks, but we already knew that.

Whatever. He's just trolling anyway.

[bobsticks]

Doesn't stop with the military 'sticks, but we already knew that.

Whatever. He's just trolling anyway.

Whoah there nelly furtado...I don't share the same wholesale view of Feanor's posts that you do. I don't think as you do that he hates Americans or America. I take most of his posts as a cautionary tale and fully respect his right to disagree with me or rail against perceived inequities. He's lived alot of years and has some wisdom and his concepts are based on facts as he understands them. The same cannot be said for many of the rabble-rousers of AR.

That said, this particular posts raises my guile because I think our President has done far more to endanger our troops and negate our intents in that critical part of the world than a few mean words from a decorated soldier.

I also don't understand what he means when he scribes "betrays us".

[Feanor]

I doubt Bill considered this when crafting his missive. His hatred for the U.S. Military Industrial Complex seems all-encompassing and pervasive.
Au contraire, 'Sticks. I was very much thinking of the effect on the troops and still more so of the encouragement to our mutual enemies, the Taliban and El Qaeda. Let's not forget that Canadian troops are fighting in Afganistan and that the US commander on the ground is effectively the overall commander of Canadian and other NATO troops in that country -- hence the "us", ma'man.

By the way, these rules aren't just for the military. Publically bad-mouthing the company would have been grounds for dismissal in any organization I've worked for.

[bobsticks]

Au contraire, 'Sticks. I was very much thinking of the effect on the troops and still more so of the encouragement to our mutual enemies, the Taliban and El Qaeda. Let's not forget that Canadian troops are fighting in Afganistan and that the US commander on the ground is effectively the overall commander of Canadian and other NATO troops in that country -- hence the "us", ma'man. .

I think the President did far graver damage to the cause when he announced on television his optimal timetable for withdrawal. Nothing like tipping the enemy off, eh?


By the way, these rules aren't just for the military. Publically bad-mouthing the company would have been grounds for dismissal in any organization I've worked for.

True, so true...I doubt McChrystal planned on furthering his career. I strongly suspect that he felt he was departing with a "shot over the bow"....

[Feanor]

I think the President did far graver damage to the cause when he announced on television his optimal timetable for withdrawal. Nothing like tipping the enemy off, eh?
....
Possibly, but that isn't the issue at hand. Plus, be that as it may, it doesn't give McChrystal to publicly disparage his CiC while still retaining his command.

[markw]

What you mean "us", kemosabe?

How many years did McChrystal spend in the Military?

How many did Obama serve?

The troops respected McChrystal because of his experience in military matters. And, he pulled no punches when giving advice on what he spent his life doing. I wonder how many felt the same way as he did.

Anyhow, now we get to see the great military strategist that's in charge of the armed forces. Sometimes, one cuts off ones nose to spite their face.

Did he make the right move? Time will tell. Ask Harry Truman.

But, Obama promising the enemy that we'll be out in a year surely was not a wise move. We're all lame ducks over there.

[markw]

No, because there should not be a different code of conduct for the grunts and tops dogs. It would have sent a bad message to the enlisted and everyone else.No offense, but you have no idea what you're talking about here. The military has different rules than civilian life, particularly for those high ranking individuals in the public spotlight.

As much as I agree with what the guy said, he was not allowed to make it public, or so the laws go.

But, Obama should realize that he had the perfect man in there for that job. The locals respected him. Getting rid of him may come back to haunt him.

[Feanor]

What you mean "us", kemosabe?
...
I adequately explained the "us" a little earlier.

As Bobsticks so kindly and accurately pointed out I don't hate America or Americans, but there are times American egocentricism pisses me off.


...
How many years did McChrystal spend in the Military?

How many did Obama serve?

The troops respected McChrystal because of his experience in military matters. And, he pulled no punches when giving advice on what he spent his life doing. I wonder how many felt the same way as he did.

Anyhow, now we get to see the great military strategist that's in charge of the armed forces. Sometimes, one cuts off ones nose to spite their face.

Did he make the right move? Time will tell. Ask Harry Truman.
....
What is your point? Mine is mostly that we, (the world and not the least Americans), will be in deep trouble were the US military to become the main agenda setters. That would be called military dictatorship.

I'm not necessarily defending Obama's strategy in Afganistan, but even the US military admits that "victory", (a successful outcome), does not depend soley or even mainly on military measures.

[Hyfi]

No offense, but you have no idea what you're talking about here. The military has different rules than civilian life, particularly for those high ranking individuals in the public spotlight.

As much as I agree with what the guy said, he was not allowed to make it public, or so the laws go.

But, Obama should realize that he had the perfect man in there for that job. The locals respected him. Getting rid of him may come back to haunt him.

I know you are having fun taking shots at me lately but go back and re-read what I wrote.

The word civilian was not there.

What I was trying to say was, and I paraphrased a recent interview I heard on NPR, was that when a lower level military individual does something similar, he gets reprimanded. If a high ranking officer does the same thing, he should face the EXACT same consequences.

[markw]

I know you are having fun taking shots at me lately but go back and re-read what I wrote.

The word civilian was not there.

What I was trying to say was, and I paraphrased a recent interview I heard on NPR, was that when a lower level military individual does something similar, he gets reprimanded. If a high ranking officer does the same thing, he should face the EXACT same consequences.No offense, but you have no idea what you're talking about here. The military has different rules for low-ranking enlisted personel and high ranking officers in leadrship position, particularly those individuals in the public spotlight.

As much as I agree with what the guy said, he was not allowed to make it public, or so the laws go.

But, Obama should realize that he had the perfect man in there for that job. Getting rid of him may come back to haunt him. The locals respected him and he did look out for the men underneath him as best that he was allowed.

Now, to add a little forward motion to this thread, for a bit of what they were probably biitching about, click here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/18/AR2010061803760.html).

Remember, LBJ looked at soldiers in Viet-nam as if they were those little plastic soldires we played with when we were young.

[bobsticks]

Petraeus! rhymes with "Betray Us"...

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I think the President did far graver damage to the cause when he announced on television his optimal timetable for withdrawal. Nothing like tipping the enemy off, eh?

I don't think our enemy is the Taliban, I think Karzai is our enemy. I think Obama was right for letting Karzai know that this is not an open ended engagement, and he needs to get his government in order(get rid of the corruption), so his own people can trust in it(at least as much as we trust ours, which isn't much). The Afghan people are a stronger army than ours in this case. The west cannot look at Afghanistan they way it does. It is not a country per se, but a series of providences run by locals. Trying to establish a central government in a country that has been run by providential government is not easy. When you have a government in place that the people have no faith in, it becomes impossible. The Taliban are harsh people, but if non Taliban Afghani's are not willing to fight them, then why should we?

We need to get out of there ASAP. We should have learned from our Iraq debacle that the people in Afghanistan do not appreciate our sacrifice of blood and resources. And we should not be there trying to muscle our way in on their minerals.




True, so true...I doubt McChrystal planned on furthering his career. I strongly suspect that he felt he was departing with a "shot over the bow"....

That was some shot. It caused him to lose his job in disgrace. Sticks, you know free speech is a two edged sword. McChrystal got cut big time.

MarkW, Obama not firing him could also come back to haunt him. This was definately a lose lose situation. You have to figure out what was the biggest loss, respect for the CiC, or the locals respect for McChrystal.

That link you provided is the perfect reason why we should be out of there pronto. I have never cared for G Will's opinion, but he is certainly right in that editorial.

[3LB]

Mark, if the next lowest ranking officer under McChrystal had publically scoffed at any decisions made by McChrystal, then that guy would have been reprimanded harshly and prolly transfered immediately. I served 6 years in the military and one of the first things I learned, there is no right or wrong, only rank. The sanctity of rank has always been upheld despite even the most dire of acts. I am not surprised that McChrystal was relieved of his command. No one who has ever served should be surprised. This incident shows very poor decision making on the part of McChrystal. He definitely knew better. He left Obama no choice but to do what he did.

[markw]

I adequately explained the "us" a little earlier.To some degree. If "youse" were in on the planning stages, then you might have a point but, as far as I can tell, much like fleas on a dog, you're just along for the ride. You don't have much say in where he goes.


As Bobsticks so kindly and accurately pointed out I don't hate America or Americans, but there are times American egocentricism pisses me off.Well, to be honest, I've seen more "egocentricim" on this board being flung from the North, not the other way around.


What is your point? Mine is mostly that we, (the world and not the least Americans), will be in deep trouble were the US military to become the main agenda setters. That would be called military dictatorship.

I'm not necessarily defending Obama's strategy in Afganistan, but even the US military admits that "victory", (a successful outcome), does not depend soley or even mainly on military measures.Again, when the "civilian authorities" become cavalier with the lives of the soldiers, someone has to speak for them. As I said earlier, LBJ played with his soldiers in Nam like they came in a plastic bag from the toy store.

If you read that link I posted in my reply to hyfi, you'll see some examples of what I'm talking about. You'll see the same pattern being repeated. We're not ther to win anything. We are so hobbled by our "civilian oversight" that we are simply targets that cannot retaliate.

So, either unleash the dogs of war or get the fluck outta there.. now!

I do relaize the political imperative that Obama had to "save face" but it's a shame that he, and his "civilian advisors" put the General in such a position with their poor decisions that the complaints were valid. It's too bad Obama didn't listen to him sooner.

And, 3LB, I was in the service from '68 to '72.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

To some degree. If "youse" were in on the planning stages, then you might have a point but, as far as I can tell, much like fleas on a dog, you're just along for the ride. You don't have much say in where he goes.

Well, to be honest, I've seen more "egocentricim" on this board beilg flung from the Notrh, not the other way around.

Again, when the "civilian authorities" become cavalier with the lives of the soldiers, someone has to speak for them. As I said earlier, LBJ played with his soldiers in Nam like they came in a plastic bag from the toy store.

If you read that link I posted in my reply to hyfi, you'll see some examples of what I'm talking about.

I do relaize the political imperative that Obama had to "save face" but it's a shame that he put himself in such a position with poor decisions that the complaints were valid.

Mark, I am a little confused with your angle here. Are you saying it is Obama decision that the rules of engagement are constricting?

I am thinking it is more the cries of the Afghani people that have done this. You can't win the hearts and minds if the people have complaints about your tactics. What the Afghani people want is a war with no civilian blood spilled. That is impossible if the enemy looks like a civilian, and runs into crowds of civilians after he has done his deed. This is not the fault of Obama, we had the same problems when Bush was President.

The bottom line is Afghanistan is an unwinnable war. We are wasting soldiers and money fighting it just to save our face, a face that will not be saved when all is said and done.

Osama is not in Afghanistan(at least that is what the reports say) so we have no business there, we have essentially done what we were supposed to do. Nation building was not on the to do list.

[markw]

Mark, I am a little confused with your angle here. Are you saying it is Obama decision that the rules of engagement are constricting?

I am thinking it is more the cries of the Afghani people that have done this. You can't win the hearts and minds if the people have complaints about your tactics. What the Afghani people want is a war with no civilian blood spilled. That is impossible if the enemy looks like a civilian, and runs into crowds of civilians after he has done his deed. This is not the fault of Obama, we had the same problems when Bush was President.

The bottom line is Afghanistan is an unwinnable war. We are wasting soldiers and money fighting it just to save our face, a face that will not be saved when all is said and done.

Osama is not in Afghanistan(at least that is what the reports say) so we have no business there, we have essentially done what we were supposed to do. Nation building was not on the to do list.We'll never win the "hearts and minds" of these creatures. As far as I'm concerned they are simply living proof that Iranians mated with goats eons ago.

When we went in it should have been to destroy in retaliation for their harboring Bin LAden and the Taliban. W's plan to win their "hearts and minds" was hogwash. They exist in some by-gone century where warlords rule and bend to whoever pays them the most. Bush should have learned after what Russia went through with them.

I'll restate two lines from my previous post. Please note the referenced link.

"If you read that link I posted in my reply to hyfi, you'll see some examples of what I'm talking about. You'll see the same pattern being repeated. We're not there to win anything. We are so hobbled by our "civilian oversight" that we are simply targets that cannot retaliate.

So, either unleash the dogs of war or get the fluck outta there.. now!"

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

We'll never win the "hearts and minds" of these creatures. As far as I'm concerned they are simply living proof that Iranians mated with goats eons ago.

When we went in it should have been to destroy in retaliation for their harboring Bin LAden and the Taliban. W's plan to win their "hearts and minds" was hogwash. They exist in some by-gone century where warlords rule and bend to whoever pays them the most. Bush should have learned after what Russia went through with them.

I'll restate two lines from my previous post. Please note the referenced link.

"If you read that link I posted in my reply to hyfi, you'll see some examples of what I'm talking about. You'll see the same pattern being repeated. We're not there to win anything. We are so hobbled by our "civilian oversight" that we are simply targets that cannot retaliate.

So, either unleash the dogs of war or get the fluck outta there.. now!"

Gotcha.

I totally agree with your last statement, but lean towards the last six words. Unleashing the dogs of war is fruitless in this case.

[Geoffcin]

I've moved this tread to the "Steel Cage". From now on please use this for all the politics/religion threads. Thanks guys!

[Feanor]

I don't think our enemy is the Taliban, I think Karzai is our enemy. I think Obama was right for letting Karzai know that this is not an open ended engagement, and he needs to get his government in order(get rid of the corruption), so his own people can trust in it(at least as much as we trust ours, which isn't much). The Afghan people are a stronger army than ours in this case. The west cannot look at Afghanistan they way it does. It is not a country per se, but a series of providences run by locals. Trying to establish a central government in a country that has been run by providential government is not easy. When you have a government in place that the people have no faith in, it becomes impossible. The Taliban are harsh people, but if non Taliban Afghani's are not willing to fight them, then why should we?

We need to get out of there ASAP. We should have learned from our Iraq debacle that the people in Afghanistan do not appreciate our sacrifice of blood and resources. And we should not be there trying to muscle our way in on their minerals.
....
Indeed I think all Afganis are our enemies. All regions and tribes fundamentaly disrespect us. And this is nothing new, it goes back to British attempts to subdue the region in the 19th century. We'll never win their hearts & minds.

I would ordinarily say that when you invade somebody's country you owe it to them to leave in a peaceful and reasonably stable state. Maybe we can do that in Iraq, but I really doubt it's possible in the Afgan case. Too big a proportion of the population there really just want to get back to killing each other.

Biden has more discretion than McChrystal, but I recall at one point he said the most we should and can do is punish El Qaeda and others whose main intent is to attach western nations, but leave the Afgans to fight their own civil war. That was fundamentally good advice

[3LB]

I've moved this tread to the "Steel Cage". From now on please use this for all the politics/religion threads. Thanks guys!

why? this is one of the few times that we're all, for the most part, in agreement.

Get us out of Afghanistan now.



either unleash the dogs of war or get the fluck outta there.. now!"



The bottom line is Afghanistan is an unwinnable war. We are wasting soldiers and money fighting it just to save our face, a face that will not be saved when all is said and done.



thing is, Americans always want to be perceived as the "good guys" and win the war. This is another instance where we can't have our cake and eat it too. We aren't really willing to do what it would take to win there. Sometimes you just gotta cut your losses.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Indeed I think all Afganis are our enemies. All regions and tribes fundamentaly disrespect us. And this is nothing new, it goes back to British attempts to subdue the region in the 19th century. We'll never win their hearts & minds.

And we won't because they remember the Brits and Russians quite well. Chased them both out in shame, and we are next. You cannot change hundreds of years of indoctrination in one war, and when the people don't really want the change. However, I would not go as far as saying all Afghani's are our enemies. I think their mentality is our enemy, not they as people. Wars are always going to have civilian causalities, and any idea that you can fight one without it happening is ludicrous. We are trying to accommodate a request that is impossible, and it is endangering our troops. It's not their troops, it OUR troops, and they don't give a damn about OUR troops.


I would ordinarily say that when you invade somebody's country you owe it to them to leave in a peaceful and reasonably stable state. Maybe we can do that in Iraq, but I really doubt it's possible in the Afgan case. Too big a proportion of the population there really just want to get back to killing each other.

I don't think it is going to happen in either country. The poor in both countries want more power, and the people in power are determined to keep it. The common thread I see in both countries that really hamper any kind of success is the lack of drive of its people for fighting for their own freedom. Nobody can fight for your freedom, you have to.


Biden has more discretion than McChrystal, but I recall at one point he said the most we should and can do is punish El Qaeda and others whose main intent is to attach western nations, but leave the Afgans to fight their own civil war. That was fundamentally good advice

It is excellent advice!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

why? this is one of the few times that we're all, for the most part, in agreement.

Get us out of Afghanistan now.

+1 on this comment, I was completely baffled at the move.





thing is, Americans always want to be perceived as the "good guys" and win the war. This is another instance where we can't have our cake and eat it too. We aren't really willing to do what it would take to win there. Sometimes you just gotta cut your losses.

We are also dead afraid of being seen as weak in front of our enemies. It is this kind of pride that always gets our fanny in a crack. Sometimes it is better to be looked at as wise and smart, than just a prideful bully with very large guns.

[markw]

"Eight Arab, five Pakistani and two Afghan militants were killed when bombs they were making exploded prematurely inside a mosque in eastern Afghanistan, the interior ministry said on Sunday."

Click here (http://www.hindustantimes.com/Insurgents-killed-by-own-bombs-in-mosque/H1-Article1-563889.aspx) for more details.

Boy, talk about being hoisted by ones own petard. Now, I really don't have problems with suicide bombers. I just don't like when they take others with them.

Remember, we have to give them two weeks notice before we raid a house...

[3LB]

We are also dead afraid of being seen as weak in front of our enemies. It is this kind of pride that always gets our fanny in a crack.
Vietnam kinda blew holes in the theory that we'd always win because our hearts were good and pure and God (the blonde one) was always on our side, and that we'd surgically invade your country, kill they bad guys and give your children leftover spam and chocolate bars on the way out... The backlash from losing gave us a complex for a decade and made Pres. Carter (a former US Navy officer) afraid to use it even when he needed to. The whole Iran hostage crisis was blamed on Vietnam failure, since we showed the willingness to back out in disgrace, we made ourselves vulnerable to third world terrorism (of course the part where we secretly backed ruthless blood-thirsty dictators in the Middle-East, not to mention the ones in Central and South America, had nothing to do the third world's growing hatred of us).

[Feanor]

...


The bottom line is Afghanistan is an unwinnable war. We are wasting soldiers and money fighting it just to save our face, a face that will not be saved when all is said and done.

thing is, Americans always want to be perceived as the "good guys" and win the war. This is another instance where we can't have our cake and eat it too. We aren't really willing to do what it would take to win there. Sometimes you just gotta cut your losses.
And the other thing is, to "win" the Afgan war in military terms would be to loose it, arguably.

There are 1.3 billion Muslims in the world and their problem with the West is that many of them perceive that we are waging a war on Islam. To conduct an unlimited military action in, say, Afganistan, would be to confirm this perception to the rest.

The biggest contributing factors have been past mistakes of American and British foreign relations. These mistakes go away back: they include the UK's Balfour Declaration, unconditonal support of Israel, the Suez invasion, support for the late Shaw of Iran, and more recently, the invasions of Afganistan and Iraq. Of course we can't make the past go away, however we need not only to not repeat past mistakes, but also to remedy them in some degree.

[Hyfi]

unconditonal support of Israel.


That's pretty much it in a nutshell. And all this crap will never end as long as the US remains firm on this issue.

And just exactly what does the US get in return from Israel? Nothing that I see. Enlighten me.

[Feanor]

That's pretty much it in a nutshell. And all this crap will never end as long as the US remains firm on this issue.

And just exactly what does the US get in return from Israel? Nothing that I see. Enlighten me.
The value of Israel as a Western ally has depreciated considerably since the end of the cold war -- in fact it's pretty close to zero.

[Hyfi]

The value of Israel as a Western ally has depreciated considerably since the end of the cold war -- in fact it's pretty close to zero.

Ally to do what? They can't defend themselves, how the hell would they ever help us out? We send all the money and weapons....they send us worldwide grief in return from all the Arab Nations. They would not exist if we were not there all the time to hold their little useless hands.

[3LB]

Ally to do what? They can't defend themselves, how the hell would they ever help us out? We send all the money and weapons....they send us worldwide grief in return from all the Arab Nations. They would not exist if we were not there all the time to hold their little useless hands. Unwaivering, unconditional support of Israel is rather Templar-esque, don't you think? Even contemporary conservative christians who claim no ties to the Masons still believe in a religious reverence for all things Israel (the chosen people), lest we fall out of favor with God (still, the blonde one). Even though the Jews railroaded and killed Jesus, many Christians still think they need to hedge their bets.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Ally to do what? They can't defend themselves, how the hell would they ever help us out? We send all the money and weapons....they send us worldwide grief in return from all the Arab Nations. They would not exist if we were not there all the time to hold their little useless hands.

Oh boy do I agree with you on this, and I even support Israel. However, their stance and action are becoming dangerous to our security. Being a supporters does not mean giving them a pass on everything they do. They really need to prove to me they want peace with the Palestinians, as I am not convinced up to this point.

What confuses me is how folks really think that we should support Israel without expecting anything in return from them. Their blatant disrespect of Obama and Biden is absolutely inexcuseable. I still support Israel, but it sure in the hell ain't unconditional.

[Feanor]

Oh boy do I agree with you on this, and I even support Israel. However, their stance and action are becoming dangerous to our security. Being a supporters does not mean giving them a pass on everything they do. They really need to prove to me they want peace with the Palestinians, as I am not convinced up to this point.

What confuses me is how folks really think that we should support Israel without expecting anything in return from them. Their blatant disrespect of Obama and Biden is absolutely inexcuseable. I still support Israel, but it sure in the hell ain't unconditional.
No reason for confusion: certain people, i.e. those running for Congress, get plenty from the pro-Israeli interest groups, e.g. AIPAC who fund ultra-Zionist lick-spittle and counter-fund any candidate who is the least critical of Israel. It cost a lot of money to get elected to Congress -- and they who pay the pipers call the tune.

[bobsticks]

Y'all would appreciate Israel more if'n y'all had some stock in General Dynamics... :yikes:

[3LB]

Y'all would appreciate Israel more if'n y'all had some stock in General Dynamics... :yikes:you might be onto something there...as always, follow the money

[Hyfi]

Y'all would appreciate Israel more if'n y'all had some stock in General Dynamics... :yikes:

Teva Pharmaceuticals is one of my customers, but then they also have an office nearby.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Y'all would appreciate Israel more if'n y'all had some stock in General Dynamics... :yikes:

I have divested stock from several very successful companies because I didn't like some of their practices. I could have made a ton of money, but that was not more important than my principles. I thank God I am not a whore for money, and cannot be played that way.

[bobsticks]

And just exactly what does the US get in return from Israel? Nothing that I see. Enlighten me.


I really enjoy Israeli couscous. It's a great alternative to heavy starches and can be flavored in many truly spectacular ways.

[Hyfi]

I really enjoy Israeli couscous. It's a great alternative to heavy starches and can be flavored in many truly spectacular ways.

Alrighty then, Unwavering Support it is!!

[bobsticks]

Well there's two sides to every story...I'm just sayin'...

[GMichael]

Well there's two sides to every story...I'm just sayin'...
I have tried that line on my wife to no avail.

[bobsticks]

I have tried that line on my wife to no avail.


Lol, yeah, it doesn't work real well in these parts either.

[Ajani]

Very interesting thread, Feanor. So here are my thoughts on a number of the points discussed so far:

1) McChrystal had to be fired. Obama would have zero credibility as Commander-In-Chief, if he allowed a subordinate to publicly disrespect his administration. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with the boss, but for McChrystal to allow his men to show such utter contempt for the Obama administration is absurd. The only reason to allow such contempt to breed is if you plan to overthrow your boss, and since I doubt that was McChrystal's intention, then I just don't see why he allowed it.

2) Afghanistan hates America (OK, that's a generalization but I think you all get the basic point): So there is no point hanging around and trying to be "heroes". Cut your losses and let them sort themselves out.

3) Historically, America has had way way way too much involvement in the affairs of foreign countries: Arming and training psychotic A$$-Clowns around the world, during the Cold War and then casually withdrawing from those regions when Russia stopped being a threat to America. So there are legitimate reasons why foreign countries have issues with America, but that does not excuse those countries for harboring terrorists intent on killing Americans...

To give you an example of how difficult it would be for America to win the "hearts and minds" of many foreigners, consider my humble little country: Jamaica. We just had a month long war in our capital city to capture and extradite our most dangerous drug kingpin to the US. The US wanted him, so we had to hand him over. Great. Here's the issue: Where do Jamaica's gangs and the Kingpin (Dudus) get their guns from? We don't make guns in Jamaica. Worse yet, examine the history of when the Kingpin's father rose to power in the 70's. During a period when our government was openly planning on turning Jamaica into a Democratic Socialist state and strengthening our relationship with Cuba, all of sudden the opposition gangs found an influx of US guns... hmmm...

There is no way for the US to suddenly win over hearts and minds of foreigners, when many of us are worse off for prior US involvement in our affairs. The best approach would be to focus on protecting US soil and leaving other countries the hell alone. Let the Afghans kill themselves in civil war, since that's what their people want to do...

[Feanor]

Very interesting thread, Feanor. So here are my thoughts on a number of the points discussed so far:

1) McChrystal had to be fired. Obama would have zero credibility as Commander-In-Chief, if he allowed a subordinate to publicly disrespect his administration. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with the boss, but for McChrystal to allow his men to show such utter contempt for the Obama administration is absurd. The only reason to allow such contempt to breed is if you plan to overthrow your boss, and since I doubt that was McChrystal's intention, then I just don't see why he allowed it.

2) Afghanistan hates America (OK, that's a generalization but I think you all get the basic point): So there is no point hanging around and trying to be "heroes". Cut your losses and let them sort themselves out.

3) Historically, America has had way way way too much involvement in the affairs of foreign countries: Arming and training psychotic A$$-Clowns around the world, during the Cold War and then casually withdrawing from those regions when Russia stopped being a threat to America. So there are legitimate reasons why foreign countries have issues with America, but that does not excuse those countries for harboring terrorists intent on killing Americans...

To give you an example of how difficult it would be for America to win the "hearts and minds" of many foreigners, consider my humble little country: Jamaica. We just had a month long war in our capital city to capture and extradite our most dangerous drug kingpin to the US. The US wanted him, so we had to hand him over. Great. Here's the issue: Where do Jamaica's gangs and the Kingpin (Dudus) get their guns from? We don't make guns in Jamaica. Worse yet, examine the history of when the Kingpin's father rose to power in the 70's. During a period when our government was openly planning on turning Jamaica into a Democratic Socialist state and strengthening our relationship with Cuba, all of sudden the opposition gangs found an influx of US guns... hmmm...

There is no way for the US to suddenly win over hearts and minds of foreigners, when many of us are worse off for prior US involvement in our affairs. The best approach would be to focus on protecting US soil and leaving other countries the hell alone. Let the Afghans kill themselves in civil war, since that's what their people want to do...
I think I agree with you basically on all points. Although I can't speak specifically to your suggestion that US operatives armed Jamaican gangs.

[Ajani]

I think I agree with you basically on all points. Although I can't speak specifically to your suggestion that US operatives armed Jamaican gangs.

The problem for the US is that whether they were directly involved or not, the guns still came from the US. So they will always be blamed by many persons for that. Afghans would have to resort to killing each other with sticks and stones, if they didn't have US and Soviet machine guns at their disposal.

[bobsticks]

The problem for the US is that whether they were directly involved or not, the guns still came from the US. So they will always be blamed by many persons for that. Afghans would have to resort to killing each other with sticks and stones, if they didn't have US and Soviet machine guns at their disposal.

Well, if those "many persons" insist on not blaming the people that use the guns at least they should be specific about blaming the U.S. weapons manufacturers of the weapons. Blaming all 308 million of us is stereotypical...and ignorant.

[Feanor]

Well, if those "many persons" insist on not blaming the people that use the guns at least they should be specific about blaming the U.S. weapons manufacturers of the weapons. Blaming all 308 million of us is stereotypical...and ignorant.
Indeed. US-made weapons are far too expensive to arm very many of the insurgents of the world. Why, even the Russian manufacturer of AK-47's is thinking of shutting down due to cheap foreign competition.

[Ajani]

Well, if those "many persons" insist on not blaming the people that use the guns at least they should be specific about blaming the U.S. weapons manufacturers of the weapons. Blaming all 308 million of us is stereotypical...and ignorant.

Agreed. Unfortunately in the real world, people make unfair generalizations. The same way that many persons just assume that every Jamaican smokes ganja. You might be surprised how many educated persons I came across in North America who just assumed that I must have a stash somewhere.

Guns are always going to be a difficult issue... I don't believe in banning guns, but I always support stricter gun control legislation. The same effort that the US makes to ensure that drugs don't enter their borders should be put into ensuring that guns don't exit them. The guns for drugs trade in many Caribbean and South American countries would be crippled if the access to guns was cut off.

Oh and just to be clear: I don't think that the US gun manufacturers should receive more blame than the psychos who kill people with those guns.