Author Topic: (New) Rules Of Engagment For Troops, Not A Path To Victory  (Read 5626 times)

twyacht

  • "Cogito, ergo armatum sum."
  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10419
  • DRTV Ranger
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
(New) Rules Of Engagment For Troops, Not A Path To Victory
« on: December 12, 2009, 07:51:04 AM »
Regardless. Afghanistan was and is a cluster(insert word). The original plan IMHO should have thrown out this "nation-building" crap, gone over there ASAP after 9/11/01, and just started taking out terrorists, Taliban, Al-Quaeda, just give the bad elements of that s***hole country a swift and blinding assault. No Quarter. Collateral Damage avoided at all costs, but these terrorists hide in the civilian population, and most of them support and house them, so? Too (insert word) bad...

The message is the only one these terrorists understand.. Mess with the U.S? We come to you, kick your ass and kill you. Than we leave. No recovery, no looonnnngggg drawn out involvement in the corrupt political climate. Leave a note with who ever is in charge.

Do this again. And' we'll be back to wipe out all you sons o' bi*****.

Rant off: Here's a recent scenario regarding "insurgents" and our military's "new" rules of engagement.
It's a doomed strategy.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121330893

Sad Strategy. Letting them go to avoid the potential of civilian casualties.
Thomas Jefferson: The strongest reason for the people to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against the tyranny of government. That is why our masters in Washington are so anxious to disarm us. They are not afraid of criminals. They are afraid of a populace which cannot be subdued by tyrants."
Col. Jeff Cooper.

Magnum

  • Active Forum Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 71
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: (New) Rules Of Engagment For Troops, Not A Path To Victory
« Reply #1 on: December 12, 2009, 08:44:00 AM »
Regardless. Afghanistan was and is a cluster(insert word). The original plan IMHO should have thrown out this "nation-building" crap, gone over there ASAP after 9/11/01, and just started taking out terrorists, Taliban, Al-Quaeda, just give the bad elements of that s***hole country a swift and blinding assault. No Quarter. Collateral Damage avoided at all costs, but these terrorists hide in the civilian population, and most of them support and house them, so? Too (insert word) bad...

The message is the only one these terrorists understand.. Mess with the U.S? We come to you, kick your ass and kill you. Than we leave. No recovery, no looonnnngggg drawn out involvement in the corrupt political climate. Leave a note with who ever is in charge.

Do this again. And' we'll be back to wipe out all you sons o' bi*****.



+1000  8)

tombogan03884

  • Guest
Re: (New) Rules Of Engagment For Troops, Not A Path To Victory
« Reply #2 on: December 12, 2009, 11:23:17 AM »
 By denying the reality of a "Punitive mission" and hiding behind "Nation building" our gutless government has condemned us to perpetual warfare in Afghanistan with no clue as to how they will define a "Win".

crusader rabbit

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2726
  • DRTV Ranger
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: (New) Rules Of Engagment For Troops, Not A Path To Victory
« Reply #3 on: December 12, 2009, 11:38:30 AM »
TB,you're absolutely right on target.  As much as I love my country and have faithfully served in her military, I must face the irrefutable facts:  as a nation, we have forgotten how to win a war.  The "containment" philosophy started with Korea and our refusal to kick the north's butt until we couldn't find a piece big enough to kick.  It continued with my war--the one we refused to call a war and instead called a "police action."  We strung ourselves out so far with our refusal to go beyond an arbitrary line that there was no way we could have won.  When the heck did we decide to have "safe zones" in war? 

The last time we actually fought to win was WWII, when our commanders in the field were not controlled by the pantywaists in Washington.   

Now, we don't want to say anything negative about the enemy because we don't want to hurt his feelings.  Don't call the bastards terrorists and ESPECIALLY don't call 'em Islamic terrorists.  You might make 'em feel bad.  But, it's okay to call my returning brothers in arms terrorists.  You can even write a government paper warning everybody about the potential terrorist threat from Christian soldiers returning from the Iraq or Afghan theaters.  That's okay.  But don't call those terrorist camel- (insert word) by what they are.  it might hurt their feelings.

Maybe it's time for the majority of Americans to start acting like we should be running this show instead of the kow-towing crowd we have in DC.  /end rant
“I’ve lived the literal meaning of the ‘land of the free’ and ‘home of the brave.’ It’s not corny for me. I feel it in my heart. I feel it in my chest. Even at a ball game, when someone talks during the anthem or doesn’t take off his hat, it pisses me off. I’m not one to be quiet about it, either.”  Chris Kyle

texcaliber

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1043
  • "My best friends are Smith & Wesson"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: (New) Rules Of Engagment For Troops, Not A Path To Victory
« Reply #4 on: December 12, 2009, 11:42:05 AM »
The simple fact is our Commander n Chief has not served, why would we expect any thing different from this situation.
"All I need in life is Love and a .45!"

Sponsor

  • Guest
Re: (New) Rules Of Engagment For Troops, Not A Path To Victory
« Reply #5 on: Today at 08:59:35 AM »

tt11758

  • Noolis bastardis carborundum (Don't let the bastards wear you down)
  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5821
  • DRTV Ranger ~
    • 10-Ring Firearms Training
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: (New) Rules Of Engagment For Troops, Not A Path To Victory
« Reply #5 on: December 12, 2009, 02:24:09 PM »
Let them win or bring them the (insert word) home.  Simple strategy, simple choice.  Playing (insert word)ing games that get our brave young men and women killed is unacceptable.  Turn them loose to do their (insert word)ing jobs, or get them the (insert word) out!!


Rant off.
I love waking up every morning knowing that Donald Trump is President!!

twyacht

  • "Cogito, ergo armatum sum."
  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10419
  • DRTV Ranger
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: (New) Rules Of Engagment For Troops, Not A Path To Victory
« Reply #6 on: December 12, 2009, 03:54:01 PM »
Too bad our military "Top Brass" has forgotten battle tactics from Patton, Pershing, Sherman, Grant, Washington, that fought with a clear and indisputable goal:

VICTORY. Not to the UN protocols, not to the Human Right Watch BS, not to some bureaucratic pencil pusher who wouldn't make it 20 minutes in a combat zone.

Example,

After the first A-Bomb on Japan, we asked if they were ready to surrender,,,they really wanted to include some conditions,...

Bad (insert word) idea. Hit em' again was the result, that "enlightened" them to unconditional surrender.
These terrorists may not ever want to surrender, they would rather die, martyr themselves for the virgins, BUT,,,they need to know it will be shock & awe every damn day on your world.  Until you stop. They do understand that.

Don't screw with the USA!!!  Now the terrorists  just have to hang out enjoy some of their opium, and wait until our 2011 "announced" date of withdraw.

Patton is cursing from his grave.

I know I'm preaching to the choir here,.... when I lived in NC, I took it out on the wood pile, cut a cord of word, cussing at the state of the world,etc,... good therapy.

Since I still have the damn Air Cond. on, I have to find an outlet, sorry for the ranting, but Thank You!! :-\

"We're going to use their guts to grease the tracks on our tanks, and murder those Nazi terrorist bas***** by the bushel."
General Patton




Thomas Jefferson: The strongest reason for the people to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against the tyranny of government. That is why our masters in Washington are so anxious to disarm us. They are not afraid of criminals. They are afraid of a populace which cannot be subdued by tyrants."
Col. Jeff Cooper.

bulldog75

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1171
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: (New) Rules Of Engagment For Troops, Not A Path To Victory
« Reply #7 on: December 13, 2009, 05:55:36 AM »
WW2 was the last war that generals ran. Since then the politicans have played their games. The military has yet to taste defeat. Those that fought in Vietnam kicked the commies a@@e@, the politicans even tied their hands behind their backs and they did not lose any major engagement and they performed above and beyond. They even in WW2 tried to muzzle one of the greats (Patton) because of some cry baby.
Citizens sleep peacfully at night knowing that rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf - George Orwell

tombogan03884

  • Guest
Re: (New) Rules Of Engagment For Troops, Not A Path To Victory
« Reply #8 on: December 13, 2009, 11:21:51 AM »
The US troops never lose on the battlefield, it's the conference table where we get our a$$es kicked.
If our government is not willing to kill every living creature in a target country to achieve their objective they should not risk a single American life on half measures.

bulldog75

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1171
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: (New) Rules Of Engagment For Troops, Not A Path To Victory
« Reply #9 on: December 13, 2009, 11:33:20 AM »
amen
Citizens sleep peacfully at night knowing that rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf - George Orwell

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk