Rules of Engagement
5 posters
Page 1 of 1
Rules of Engagement
It was said (with a straight face) that the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton. Now that we're awarding "participation" trophies to all participants and awarding wins to teams that lose by more than five points, I wonder what we'll do in future wars... Think there's no correlation? McChrystal prior to his cashiering wanted to award medals for "restraint". That is, he wanted to decorate troops for not firing their weapons. Know what? If you're going to put our troops out in harm's way and ask that they not return fire, bring them home now. Why wait until next year?
ohio county- Moderator
- Number of posts : 3207
Location : Wheeling
Registration date : 2007-12-28
Re: Rules of Engagement
Great points, OC. Surely these people should not have been trusted running a shoe shine operation, let alone a country. Ultimately, who makes the rules of engagement? Obviously not men anymore.
SheikBen- Moderator
- Number of posts : 3445
Age : 48
Location : The Soviet Socialist Republic of Illinois
Registration date : 2008-01-02
Re: Rules of Engagement
McChrystal prior to his cashiering wanted to award medals for "restraint". That is, he wanted to decorate troops for not firing their weapons.
I don't blame him one damn bit ...... given the fact that .... Orders from Top Headquarters stipulates ...... "Don't fire at any potential enemies unless they fire at you first".
Well "DUH", what dumbass wants to wait until they get shot before they shoot back?
And if they shoot an enemy combatant who the other enemy combatants later claim was an "innocent civilian" ...... McChrystal arse would get raked across the coals.
SamCogar- Number of posts : 6238
Location : Burnsville, WV
Registration date : 2007-12-28
Re: Rules of Engagement
GEORGE WILL: Obama’s absurd “rules of engagement” for U.S. troops in Afghanistan ensures disastrous results
June 21st, 2010
June 21st, 2010
Torrents of uninteresting mail inundate members of Congress, but occasionally there are riveting communications, such as a recent e-mail from a noncommissioned officer (NCO) serving in Afghanistan. He explains why the rules of engagement for U.S. troops are “too prohibitive for coalition forces to achieve sustained tactical successes.”
Receiving mortar fire during an overnight mission, his unit called for a 155mm howitzer illumination round to be fired to reveal the enemy’s location. The request was rejected “on the grounds that it may cause collateral damage.” The NCO says that the only thing that comes down from an illumination round is a canister, and the likelihood of it hitting someone or something was akin to that of being struck by lightning.
Returning from a mission, his unit took casualties from an improvised explosive device that the unit knew had been placed no more than an hour earlier. “There were villagers laughing at the U.S. casualties” and “two suspicious individuals were seen fleeing the scene and entering a home.” U.S. forces “are no longer allowed to search homes without Afghan National Security Forces personnel present.” But when his unit asked Afghan police to search the house, the police refused on the grounds that the people in the house “are good people.”
Ich bin Ala-awkbarph- Number of posts : 2310
Age : 73
Location : The Caliphate of Zarr Chasmistan, WV
Registration date : 2008-01-28
Re: Rules of Engagement
Ah, they kill so many more Americans in Afghanistan than they did, even in Iraq. I'm sure they're all laughing. They can kill so many more Americans THERE than they ever could HERE.
Similar topics
» US Judge Rules for Muslim Defector Bus Ads
» Ballot Rules
» 25 Rules For Voting Democrat
» Barroom fighting and the Queensbury Rules
» Obama issues AGW rules in Jan then exempts GE in Feb
» Ballot Rules
» 25 Rules For Voting Democrat
» Barroom fighting and the Queensbury Rules
» Obama issues AGW rules in Jan then exempts GE in Feb
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum