[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

The decision to bomb the tankers based largely on a single human
intelligence source appears to violate the spirit of a tactical
directive aimed at reducing civilian casualties that was recently
issued by U.S. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the new commander of the
NATO mission in Afghanistan. The directive states that NATO forces
cannot bomb residential buildings based on a sole source of
information and that troops must establish a "pattern of life" to
ensure that no civilians are in the target area. Although the
directive does not apply to airstrikes in the open, NATO officials
said it is McChrystal's intent for those standards to apply to all
uses of air power, except when troops are in imminent danger.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32711932...shington_post/

Questions:

Should the Americans who approved this mission be in trouble?

True or false: The commander on the ground requested AS so he should
get it no questions asked.

Nobody denies that several Taliban were killed. Was this mission
therefore a "success"?

True or false: this is all Obama's fault.

True of false: you 'think' you know as much about the military as any
soldier whose politics you happen to disagree with. LoL.

True or false: GEN McChrystal has it all wrong. We should just bomb
the snot out of them.

Your a ninny, 2pid. Your also a imbecile. LoL.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 6, 4:55*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Sep 5, 10:46*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
The decision to bomb the tankers based largely on a single human
intelligence source appears to violate the spirit of a tactical
directive aimed at reducing civilian casualties that was recently
issued by U.S. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the new commander of the
NATO mission in Afghanistan. The directive states that NATO forces
cannot bomb residential buildings based on a sole source of
information and that troops must establish a "pattern of life" to
ensure that no civilians are in the target area. Although the
directive does not apply to airstrikes in the open, NATO officials
said it is McChrystal's intent for those standards to apply to all
uses of air power, except when troops are in imminent danger.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32711932...shington_post/

Questions:

Should the Americans who approved this mission be in trouble?

*I think the commander who obviously can't put a command system
in place that will actually carry out and implement his command
strategy is in trouble.

"Obviously". LOL!

What 2pid knows about military leadership could be put on the head of
a pin with enough room left over for GOIA to dance on it. LoL.

*Instead he's on Afghan TV walking in Obama's footsteps...apologizing
for America.

http://www.examiner.com/x-2086-Forei...y2009m9d6-Afgh...

"An excellent piece in Kansas City Voices, titled 'Afghanistan: we're
on the exit ramp' gives the best argument for getting out.

The President does not have his attention upon this issue. It’s
glaringly clear. Health care, the economy, an address to America’s
youth. This President does not have the personal expertise, nor does
his staff, to develop and prosecute a strategy. If someone knows
someone on his staff with defense expertise of any credible note
focusing on this war keenly, please discuss below."

Gates, the JCoS, Petraeus, to name a few. Where do you want me to
start, 2pid? LoL.

You've successfully avoided answering every one of the questions. That
doesn't speak too well about your 'discussion' abilities. LoL.

What's it like to serve a CinC who doesn't have his attention on a war
he is committing more young men to die in?

What's it like building strawmen all day long? Does it ever make you
feel stupid? LoL.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 7, 11:24*am, ScottW2 wrote:
On Sep 6, 3:42*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Sep 6, 4:55*pm, ScottW2 wrote:

On Sep 5, 10:46*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
The decision to bomb the tankers based largely on a single human
intelligence source appears to violate the spirit of a tactical
directive aimed at reducing civilian casualties that was recently
issued by U.S. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the new commander of the
NATO mission in Afghanistan. The directive states that NATO forces
cannot bomb residential buildings based on a sole source of
information and that troops must establish a "pattern of life" to
ensure that no civilians are in the target area. Although the
directive does not apply to airstrikes in the open, NATO officials
said it is McChrystal's intent for those standards to apply to all
uses of air power, except when troops are in imminent danger.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32711932...shington_post/

Questions:

Should the Americans who approved this mission be in trouble?

*I think the commander who obviously can't put a command system
in place that will actually carry out and implement his command
strategy is in trouble.

"Obviously". LOL!

What 2pid knows about military leadership could be put on the head of
a pin with enough room left over for GOIA to dance on it. LoL.

* No answer. *Is McChrystal in command? *Apparently not.

You jump to stupid conclusions.

2pid, is it your belief that because the guy is a general that every
order or change in strategy he issues is immediately completely
understood by all subordinates and carried out with an equally
complete understanding of its intent? Especially when making a massive
paradigm shift that is not natural to the corporate culture?

Go ask your company president (or somebody else with actual leadership
experience, not some toe-tapping sideline whiner like you. Bonus if
the experience is in the military!) if that is realistic.

*Instead he's on Afghan TV walking in Obama's footsteps...apologizing
for America.

http://www.examiner.com/x-2086-Forei...y2009m9d6-Afgh....

"An excellent piece in Kansas City Voices, titled 'Afghanistan: we're
on the exit ramp' gives the best argument for getting out.

The President does not have his attention upon this issue. It’s
glaringly clear. Health care, the economy, an address to America’s
youth. This President does not have the personal expertise, nor does
his staff, to develop and prosecute a strategy. If someone knows
someone on his staff with defense expertise of any credible note
focusing on this war keenly, please discuss below."

Gates, the JCoS, Petraeus, to name a few. Where do you want me to
start, 2pid? LoL.

*Start with their strategy to win in Afghanistan. *While you're at
it...try to explain how Patraeus ended up on Obama's staff in your
confused view?

Commander-in-Chief
Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff
Army Chief of Staff
Theater Commander (Petraeus' position)
Corps Commander
Division Commander

That's number four in the Army chain-of-command.

Are you confusing "cabinet" with "staff"? Theater command is very
similar to a cabinet-level appointment. They even have to go through
the senate! And all commissioned officers work for the commander-in-
chief, 2pid. You'd need to understand the source of the commission
(but you'd need military experience for that. LOL!)

Are you "on staff" at your company, 2pid?

Duh.

You've successfully avoided answering every one of the questions. That
doesn't speak too well about your 'discussion' abilities. LoL.

*LoL. I actually answered the first question. You're just too dumb to
see it.

LoL. It was a dumb non-answer filled with stupid assumptions. LoL.

What's it like to serve a CinC who doesn't have his attention on a war
he is committing more young men to die in?

* Obama doesn't have a clue how to win in Afghanistan. *He pushed this
war
as a campaign tactic and now he doesn't know what to do to win it.

2pid, read up on military leadership. Your ignorance is showing. LoL.