reply to post by MajKarma
MajKarma, the opportunity to come on a future show is open to every member, and we want members to come on the show and talk about their views.
Please u2u either Justin or me.
And if the post meets the T&Cs, I would be interested to see your views on what Johnny Utah had to say.
ATS.MIX: Above Politics Show 10, page 2
privacy
reply posted on 6-4-2008 @ 12:10 PM by jackinthebox
reply to post by Martin Bain
I really should take the time to review the show once again, and comment more specifically on the topics raised. I hope to do so soon. I would also like to thank you for the invitation, and will try to make some arrangements to follow up on it.
All members are welcome to comment, agree or disagree with the members we have on the show.
I really should take the time to review the show once again, and comment more specifically on the topics raised. I hope to do so soon. I would also like to thank you for the invitation, and will try to make some arrangements to follow up on it.
reply posted on 6-4-2008 @ 12:55 PM by _Johnny_Utah_
Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by xpert11
I will say though, that he should get the facts before discussing things he doesn't really know about, such as combat rules of engagement for example.
www.keepingapace.com...
reply posted on 6-4-2008 @ 01:05 PM by jackinthebox
reply to post by _Johnny_Utah_
In the show you stated, incorrectly, that if troops were fired upon, they could not return fire until a fifteen point checklist was completed.
EDIT to add: The link you provided does not substantiate your claims.
[edit on 4/6/0808 by jackinthebox]
In the show you stated, incorrectly, that if troops were fired upon, they could not return fire until a fifteen point checklist was completed.
EDIT to add: The link you provided does not substantiate your claims.
[edit on 4/6/0808 by jackinthebox]
reply posted on 6-4-2008 @ 05:53 PM by _Johnny_Utah_
reply to post by jackinthebox
You correct...I did say that...but i also said it had gone down since the troop surge and was more on the order of 7. I was slightly exaggerating the first number in order to make my point, because on different days or different circumstance they would change....but it does not take away from the fact soldiers are under ridiculous restrictions. Seven is still too high.
I have also been told by friends who served there how ridiculous the restrictions are. The article, while it states the number is not 15...it does exemplify how dangerous these ROE are for American troops.
I hope you would agree that if a soldier is fired upon, he should be able to return fire...it is not the case in Iraq....that is my point and the point I believe most people understood.
You correct...I did say that...but i also said it had gone down since the troop surge and was more on the order of 7. I was slightly exaggerating the first number in order to make my point, because on different days or different circumstance they would change....but it does not take away from the fact soldiers are under ridiculous restrictions. Seven is still too high.
I have also been told by friends who served there how ridiculous the restrictions are. The article, while it states the number is not 15...it does exemplify how dangerous these ROE are for American troops.
I hope you would agree that if a soldier is fired upon, he should be able to return fire...it is not the case in Iraq....that is my point and the point I believe most people understood.
reply posted on 6-4-2008 @ 06:10 PM by jackinthebox
reply to post by _Johnny_Utah_
I do agree that the soldier should be able to return fire, and this is in fact the case, as it was for my brother who did two tours with the 4th Infantry Division, and is now in Iraq for the third time.
Rules of engagement are a part of the order of battle in any engagement, and subject to be changed in accordance with the mission.
I will say however, that the "shades of gray" regarding military rules have been detrimental to US credibility, in particular when it comes to the treatment of detainees. It is my opinion that the lack of clarity in these rules was deliberately perpetrated at worst, but at the very least was knowingly exploited by the highest levels of US leadership.
[edit on 4/6/0808 by jackinthebox]
I hope you would agree that if a soldier is fired upon, he should be able to return fire...it is not the case in Iraq....that is my point and the point I believe most people understood.
I do agree that the soldier should be able to return fire, and this is in fact the case, as it was for my brother who did two tours with the 4th Infantry Division, and is now in Iraq for the third time.
Rules of engagement are a part of the order of battle in any engagement, and subject to be changed in accordance with the mission.
I will say however, that the "shades of gray" regarding military rules have been detrimental to US credibility, in particular when it comes to the treatment of detainees. It is my opinion that the lack of clarity in these rules was deliberately perpetrated at worst, but at the very least was knowingly exploited by the highest levels of US leadership.
[edit on 4/6/0808 by jackinthebox]
reply posted on 7-4-2008 @ 07:02 AM by _Johnny_Utah_
reply to post by Justin_Case
I would like you to ask xpert11...from what I have seen, New Zealand only has non-combat troops in Iraq. Does being so close to Australia (a very strong US ally) and with NZ troops on the ground there in a limited role, does he believe it puts NZ at a greater threat to terrorists? If so, what are they doing to combat the risks?
I also think it is very interesting to know the Queen of England is also the Queen of New Zealand. What is her role in the country's government?
I love hearing the views of people from other parts of the world....good job guys!
I would like you to ask xpert11...from what I have seen, New Zealand only has non-combat troops in Iraq. Does being so close to Australia (a very strong US ally) and with NZ troops on the ground there in a limited role, does he believe it puts NZ at a greater threat to terrorists? If so, what are they doing to combat the risks?
I also think it is very interesting to know the Queen of England is also the Queen of New Zealand. What is her role in the country's government?
I love hearing the views of people from other parts of the world....good job guys!
reply posted on 7-4-2008 @ 03:55 PM by Tuning Spork
reply to post by Justin_Case
Well, I don't have a question for expert11, yet. But I will repeat my question for Justin: Did I correctly answer the trivia question or what?
Well, I don't have a question for expert11, yet. But I will repeat my question for Justin: Did I correctly answer the trivia question or what?
Lots going on behind
the scenes. 
reply posted on 7-4-2008 @ 09:52 PM by _Johnny_Utah_
reply to post by xpert11
I'm sorry xpert...i thought i read there were NZDF troops in Iraq to help rebuild...sorry, man!
[edit on 7-4-2008 by _Johnny_Utah_]
I'm sorry xpert...i thought i read there were NZDF troops in Iraq to help rebuild...sorry, man!
[edit on 7-4-2008 by _Johnny_Utah_]
reply posted on 8-4-2008 @ 07:05 PM by Justin_Case
by now, you've all heard the big news. The Above Politics site is going to be
merged with Above Top Secret dot-com.
None of you hard core political junkies will be losing anything by this. If anything, you'll be gaining a higher quality of product. SO plans to set up an Above Politics forum, which will be your own little oasis of positive political postulation and pragmatism.
None of this is going to impact the AP Show...at this time. Remember that all of this is a shot in the dark. A gamble. As special as our effort is, we have to be ready for change when its needed.
None of you hard core political junkies will be losing anything by this. If anything, you'll be gaining a higher quality of product. SO plans to set up an Above Politics forum, which will be your own little oasis of positive political postulation and pragmatism.
None of this is going to impact the AP Show...at this time. Remember that all of this is a shot in the dark. A gamble. As special as our effort is, we have to be ready for change when its needed.
