RE: Obama on the Iraqi Withdrawal (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


myspace67 -> RE: Obama on the Iraqi Withdrawal (9/3/2010 4:23:49 PM)

Are you serious!!!!!! Im in 3ID 4th BGD and im in iraq second tour.  Just got here and will be here atleast a year. i patrol everyday.  There is still A LOT of fighting.  Truck got rgp'd last night.  OBAMAS LIED.   iraqi army doesnt do $hit.   FACT 50,000 combat arms in iraq right now, after obama said we were all gone.  LIES.




jlf1961 -> RE: Obama on the Iraqi Withdrawal (9/3/2010 4:36:43 PM)

1. Combat operations with US troops in the lead have ended.
2. President Obama did not say all the troops had been pulled out, he did say there were 50,000 US troops left in Iraq.
3. The Iraqi security forces have taken over operational command in Iraq.
4. US troops will accompany Iraqi forces on patrols.

That was all made clear in his speech.




myspace67 -> RE: Obama on the Iraqi Withdrawal (9/4/2010 1:35:41 AM)

LOL wow. I am here right now and that is not the case. NOTHING HAS CHANGED. there are no iraqi lead patrols.   Iraqi army doesnt do anything.   I patrol EVERYDAY.  americans are still getting hurt as we speak.  It is the same now in New Dawn as it has been since OIF5.  More combat troops are comming and some just got here a month ago to start a 12 month deployment.




tazzygirl -> RE: Obama on the Iraqi Withdrawal (9/4/2010 5:39:48 AM)

Wow. Im surprised the military has lightened up on their restrictions for blog sites.




mnottertail -> RE: Obama on the Iraqi Withdrawal (9/4/2010 6:16:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: myspace67

LOL wow. I am here right now and that is not the case. NOTHING HAS CHANGED. there are no iraqi lead patrols.   Iraqi army doesnt do anything.   I patrol EVERYDAY.  americans are still getting hurt as we speak.  It is the same now in New Dawn as it has been since OIF5.  More combat troops are comming and some just got here a month ago to start a 12 month deployment.


That's VietNam all over again.  We need to flush this toilet, impossible to fuck this up more badly, at this point.  We have created terrorists for generations hence.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Obama on the Iraqi Withdrawal (9/4/2010 12:20:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Wow. Im surprised the military has lightened up on their restrictions for blog sites.


the only restrictions are on posting critical or sensitive information. This wouldnt qualify as either. Even soldiers have 1st Amendment rights!




luckydawg -> RE: Obama on the Iraqi Withdrawal (9/4/2010 1:53:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pogo4pres

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg


quote:

ORIGINAL: pogo4pres

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

How many times does it need to be explained that the banner was put up by the SAILORS on that ship who HAD accomplished their mission?  Was Bush mistaken in standing before that banner for a photo op?  Yes.  Did he regret his spontaneous, poorly thought-out posturing in front of that banner once the press jumped on it?  I'm pretty sure he did.  But none of that has anything to do with the truth of the situation.



HOW MANY MOTHERFUCKING TIMES DOES THAT PIECE OF SHIT LIE NEED TO BE DEBUNKED?????

According to CBS News political analyst Dan Bartlett, a former senior adviser to Mr. Bush, when asked,  who was responsible for the banner - and it was pointed out that both the Navy and former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan have taken the blame in the past - Bartlett said that it was actually his call.  

In November 2008, Bush indicated that he regretted the use of the banner, stating in a CNN interview, "To some, it said, well, 'Bush thinks the war in Iraq is over,' when I didn't think that. It conveyed the wrong message."

In January 2009, Bush said that "Clearly, putting 'Mission Accomplished' on an aircraft carrier was a mistake"




Historically,
Some Knucklehead in NJ



Debunking it once would be nice, if that is what you want to do. "Some knucklehead" declaring it so, isn't a debunking.


Are you really this fucking disingenuous, those little things at either end of those sentences those are called QUOTATION MARKS FOR A FUCKING REASON.  I didn't bother to link to the articles they were from because I figured the fucktard brigade was smart enough to understand what a fucking quotation mark meant.   Apparently I was wrong!!


Factually,
Some Knucklehead in NJ






Its a prety common trick amongst some here to put up fake or edited quotes. So it is considered relevant to actually source them.

But nothing you "posted" debunked that the crew of the ship wanted it. Nor does Mc Cain saying he thought it was a bad idea.

But screaming Curses in a chatroom, says a lot about you, and your level of thought.




tazzygirl -> RE: Obama on the Iraqi Withdrawal (9/4/2010 10:20:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Wow. Im surprised the military has lightened up on their restrictions for blog sites.


the only restrictions are on posting critical or sensitive information. This wouldnt qualify as either. Even soldiers have 1st Amendment rights!


Hmmm

quote:

Yes, the Army has updated its operational security regulations and raised concerns about putting operational details onto the Internet. But it's doing so in a regulations manual that's been on the books forever, and only recently began to address the reality of protecting military information in an Internet world; a 2005 update included the first mention of e-mail and the Internet.

Look in the 79-page document and the word "blog" appears only 4 times. One of those updates makes it appear that bloggers must get approval from commanding officers for every web posting they make. Army Major Ray Ceralde, who updated the regulations, says that's not the case at all.

He says what's really happening is that a service member who wants to start a blog must first register with his or her commanding officer. After that, there are no restrictions on content whatsoever. If someone wants to rail against the war, etc., it's their choice. Ceralde says this requirement is nothing new because it's been taking place in Iraq since 2005. The new regulation will make the standard Army-wide.


http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2007/05/army_clamping_d.html

To a point, you are right. Freedom of speech, as long as the army knows where you are speaking.

Gotta wonder though. How many service men will admit they are blogging on a BDSM site to the CO's? Let alone one stating the service man is submissive.

Im hardly calling him a liar concerning what is going on over there. What i am questioning is his ability to post on this site from where he claims to be.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Obama on the Iraqi Withdrawal (9/5/2010 3:04:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Wow. Im surprised the military has lightened up on their restrictions for blog sites.


the only restrictions are on posting critical or sensitive information. This wouldnt qualify as either. Even soldiers have 1st Amendment rights!


Hmmm

quote:

Yes, the Army has updated its operational security regulations and raised concerns about putting operational details onto the Internet. But it's doing so in a regulations manual that's been on the books forever, and only recently began to address the reality of protecting military information in an Internet world; a 2005 update included the first mention of e-mail and the Internet.

Look in the 79-page document and the word "blog" appears only 4 times. One of those updates makes it appear that bloggers must get approval from commanding officers for every web posting they make. Army Major Ray Ceralde, who updated the regulations, says that's not the case at all.

He says what's really happening is that a service member who wants to start a blog must first register with his or her commanding officer. After that, there are no restrictions on content whatsoever. If someone wants to rail against the war, etc., it's their choice. Ceralde says this requirement is nothing new because it's been taking place in Iraq since 2005. The new regulation will make the standard Army-wide.


http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2007/05/army_clamping_d.html

To a point, you are right. Freedom of speech, as long as the army knows where you are speaking.

Gotta wonder though. How many service men will admit they are blogging on a BDSM site to the CO's? Let alone one stating the service man is submissive.

Im hardly calling him a liar concerning what is going on over there. What i am questioning is his ability to post on this site from where he claims to be.


This isnt a blog, this is an anonymous bulletin board and doesnt require any notification of anybody. Read 530-1




tazzygirl -> RE: Obama on the Iraqi Withdrawal (9/5/2010 4:11:57 AM)

I did, thank you.


quote:

g. Consult with their immediate supervisor and their OPSEC Officer for an OPSEC review prior to publishing or
posting information in a public forum.
(1) This includes, but is not limited to letters, resumes, articles for publication, electronic mail (e-mail), Web site
postings, web log (blog) postings, discussion in Internet information forums, discussion in Internet message boards or
other forms of dissemination or documentation


pg 12.

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/ar530-1.pdf




rulemylife -> RE: Obama on the Iraqi Withdrawal (9/5/2010 8:11:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg


The ever present "Liberal Confusion with Compound Nouns". Education in our liberal run schools just sucks.

RML couldn't possibly intentionally be changing what Bush said, that would be a Lie, or at least intellectually dishonest.

He must not be able to comprehend the words. Bush clearly said "Major Combat Operations" not "Combat Operations" as RML thinks (and has to think to maintain his ideological position). And the Major Combat was over.



Yes, I've seen you make this claim against other posters.

Before you continue to make this foolish claim you might want to do some research into what a compound noun is, because you clearly have no idea.

As far as your other ridiculous claim, explain the distinction when the vast majority of our losses and injuries occurred after Bush's premature pronouncement.

Was that only minor combat?





willbeurdaddy -> RE: Obama on the Iraqi Withdrawal (9/5/2010 8:16:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

I did, thank you.


quote:

g. Consult with their immediate supervisor and their OPSEC Officer for an OPSEC review prior to publishing or
posting information in a public forum.
(1) This includes, but is not limited to letters, resumes, articles for publication, electronic mail (e-mail), Web site
postings, web log (blog) postings, discussion in Internet information forums, discussion in Internet message boards or
other forms of dissemination or documentation


pg 12.

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/ar530-1.pdf



ROFL. Nice editing job. Why did you stop at (1)? Because (2) clearly states what I said earlier...sensitive and critical information is all they are concerned about.

"(2) Supervisors will advise personnel to ensure that sensitive and critical information is not to be disclosed. Each
unit or organization’s OPSEC Officer will advise supervisors on means to prevent the disclosure of sensitive and
critical information."

In fact you managed to parse out of that section at least 20 references to sensitve/critical/classfied information.

You've slipped back into your old ways.




tazzygirl -> RE: Obama on the Iraqi Withdrawal (9/5/2010 9:16:29 AM)

2–1. All Army personnel
Operations security is everyone’s responsibility. Failure to properly implement OPSEC measures can result in serious
injury or death to our personnel, damage to weapons systems, equipment and facilities, loss of sensitive technologies
and mission failure. OPSEC is a continuous process and an inherent part of military culture and as such, must be fully
integrated into the execution of all Army operations and supporting activities. All Department of the Army (DA)
personnel (active component, reserve component to include U.S. Army Reserve, Army National Guard, and DA
civilians), and DOD contractors will—
a. Know what their organization considers to be critical information, where it is located, who is responsible for it,
how to protect it, and why it needs to be protected.
b. Protect from disclosure any critical information and sensitive information to which they have personal access.
(1) Commanders will issue orders, directives, and policies for unit or organization personnel to protect critical and
sensitive information in order to clearly define the specific OPSEC measures that all personnel should practice.
(2) A failure to comply with these orders, directives, or policies may be punished as violations of a lawful order
under Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) or under other disciplinary, administrative, or other
actions as applicable.
(3) Personnel not subject to the UCMJ who fail to protect critical and sensitive information from unauthorized
disclosure may be subject to administrative, disciplinary, contractual, or criminal action.
c. Prevent disclosure of critical and sensitive information in any public domain to include but not limited to the
World Wide Web, open source publications, and the media.
(1) Do not publicly disseminate, or publish photographs displaying critical or sensitive information. Examples
include but are not limited to Improvised Explosive Device (IED) strikes, battle scenes, casualties, destroyed or
damaged equipment, personnel killed in action (KIA), both friendly and adversary, and the protective measures of
military facilities.
(2) Do not publicly reference, disseminate, or publish critical or sensitive information that has already been
compromised as this provides further unnecessary exposure of the compromised information and may serve to validate
it.
d. Implement OPSEC measures as ordered by the Commander, director, or an individual in an equivalent position.
e. Actively encourage others (including family members and family readiness groups (FRGs)) to protect critical and
sensitive information.
f. Know who their unit, activity, or installation OPSEC Officer is and contact them for questions, concerns, or
recommendations for OPSEC-related topics.
g. Consult with their immediate supervisor and their OPSEC Officer for an OPSEC review prior to publishing or
posting information in a public forum.
(1) This includes, but is not limited to letters, resumes, articles for publication, electronic mail (e-mail), Web site
postings, web log (blog) postings, discussion in Internet
(2) Supervisors will advise personnel to ensure that sensitive and critical information is not to be disclosed. Each
unit or organization’s OPSEC Officer will advise supervisors on means to prevent the disclosure of sensitive and
critical information.
h. Process, store, or transmit classified information no higher than the approved accreditation level of a DOD
computer system, including all related equipment, networks and network devices (including Internet access) and
removable media devices.
(1) DOD computer systems may be monitored for all lawful purposes, to ensure that their use is authorized, for
management of the system, to facilitate protection against unauthorized access, and to verify security procedures,
survivability, and operational security. Network monitoring is done in accordance with AR 25–2 and AR 380–53.
(2) Unauthorized use of a DOD computer system may subject the user to criminal prosecution. Evidence of
unauthorized use collected during monitoring may be used for administrative, criminal or other adverse action. Use of a
DOD computer system constitutes consent for all lawful purposes.

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/ar530-1.pdf

All Army personnel

g. Consult with their immediate supervisor and their OPSEC Officer for an OPSEC review prior to publishing or
posting information in a public forum.
(1) This includes, but is not limited to letters, resumes, articles for publication, electronic mail (e-mail), Web site
postings, web log (blog) postings, discussion in Internet information forums, discussion in Internet message boards or
other forms of dissemination or documentation.
(2) Supervisors will advise personnel to ensure that sensitive and critical information is not to be disclosed. Each
unit or organization’s OPSEC Officer will advise supervisors on means to prevent the disclosure of sensitive and
critical information.


You seem to think the second sub section comes before the first, which is never the case.

You may want to read this a little bit closer, willbe.




Charles6682 -> RE: Obama on the Iraqi Withdrawal (9/5/2010 9:40:05 AM)

The Iraq war was a mistake from the beginning.It is about time we get out of there.I do agree that it had to be a slow withdrawl that was based upon condition's on the ground.Well,now it's time.Still have 50,000 more troop's left,so we are not out of Iraq fully yet.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Obama on the Iraqi Withdrawal (9/5/2010 9:50:25 AM)

"Stunned by the response, Army public affairs issued a “fact sheet” countering Shachtman’s article and the blogosphere reaction. The statement reads that, “In no way will every blog post/update a Soldier makes on his or her blog need to be monitored or first approved by an immediate supervisor and OpSec officer” once the milblogger receives “guidance and awareness training” and can be “entrusted” to practice OpSec. "




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Obama on the Iraqi Withdrawal (9/5/2010 9:52:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl


You may want to read this a little bit closer, willbe.


You may want to stop embarassing yourself. The entire regulation is about sensitive/critical/classfied information. Order? Its a listed item in a subsection...it applies to that entire subsection. Order is irrelevant.




tazzygirl -> RE: Obama on the Iraqi Withdrawal (9/5/2010 10:40:45 AM)

In the ARMY, order is everything. Blog sites and message boards must be listed with the CO/OPSEC Officer . Not my fault you cant comprehend what they wrote. Its obvious you do 1, then 2. You can add any spin you wish, willbe. The order is very clear and concise... a real surprise for the military.




TheHeretic -> RE: Obama on the Iraqi Withdrawal (9/5/2010 10:43:32 AM)

It's always amusing when somebody with no practical experience or firsthand knowledge of how the military functions decides to set us straight by reading the regulations. You have given yourself a very incomplete picture.

During my brother's last deployment, we were able to stay in touch, even chat a few times, on Facebook. He wasn't checking in every time he hit a 'send' button. His commander had provided a security briefing to the unit and told them not to be stupid online.

Also, don't assume the rules don't get ignored and violated in the military. When the First Sergeant gives the newbie briefing, listing the local 'off-limits' establishments, those are the good ones.

What you are doing here, Tazzy, is similar to someone Googling up the 70 mph speed limit on the freeways to Vegas, and arguing driving times with somebody who knows that if you aren't running 80+, you're about to cause a crash.




tazzygirl -> RE: Obama on the Iraqi Withdrawal (9/5/2010 10:50:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

"Stunned by the response, Army public affairs issued a “fact sheet” countering Shachtman’s article and the blogosphere reaction. The statement reads that, “In no way will every blog post/update a Soldier makes on his or her blog need to be monitored or first approved by an immediate supervisor and OpSec officer” once the milblogger receives “guidance and awareness training” and can be “entrusted” to practice OpSec. "


quote:

Stunned by the response, Army public affairs issued a “fact sheet” countering Shachtman’s article and the blogosphere reaction. The statement reads that, “In no way will every blog post/update a Soldier makes on his or her blog need to be monitored or first approved by an immediate supervisor and OpSec officer” once the milblogger receives “guidance and awareness training” and can be “entrusted” to practice OpSec. The fact sheet further clarifies that “soldiers do not have to seek permission from a supervisor to send personal e-mails,” pointing to the qualifier in AR 530-1 that the terms only applied to communication to any “public forum,” an apparent misreading on the part of Shachtman and most milbloggers. In a surprising revelation, it further explains that the regulation offered almost no new wording since the previous regulation was issued in 2005.


Hmmm.. this is a public forum. Nice you left that part off.

http://live.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/06/2740192/





tazzygirl -> RE: Obama on the Iraqi Withdrawal (9/5/2010 10:54:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

It's always amusing when somebody with no practical experience or firsthand knowledge of how the military functions decides to set us straight by reading the regulations. You have given yourself a very incomplete picture.

During my brother's last deployment, we were able to stay in touch, even chat a few times, on Facebook. He wasn't checking in every time he hit a 'send' button. His commander had provided a security briefing to the unit and told them not to be stupid online.

Also, don't assume the rules don't get ignored and violated in the military. When the First Sergeant gives the newbie briefing, listing the local 'off-limits' establishments, those are the good ones.

What you are doing here, Tazzy, is similar to someone Googling up the 70 mph speed limit on the freeways to Vegas, and arguing driving times with somebody who knows that if you aren't running 80+, you're about to cause a crash.


Gee Rich, im glad you know me well enough to assume i have no working knowledge of how the military works... other than being in the military for all of my childhood. [:D]




Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875