The Commander in Chief is Killing our Marines

We can't make Afghanistan into a governable nation. We need to pull our troops into the major cities, train the Afghans as best we can, and get pull our troops out. We have to technology to see if al Qaeda tries to come back in and set up any camps, and if they do we can destroy any such camp.

 

If the rules of engagement had been the same in WWII as they were in Iraq and are in Afghanistan we would have undoubtedly lost.

 

I saw that last night and was shocked. I did not know about these new rules of engagement imposed on them in the last six months I believe it said.

Several soldiers told of how stressful duty has now become for them with this new policy.

For anyone who did not see it, now our soldiers are told to wait a full 3 seconds before firing on the enemy. The first second you are supposed to ask "can I", the next two you are supposed to ask "should I". The idea is to have no civilian deaths whatsoever. Now our soldiers have been instructed to let the enemy escape if fighting them could mean even one civilian death. One officer said a common tactic of the enemy is to fire on our soldiers, and then quickly mix with the general population.

This policy is beyond stupid.

 

This is 2009, not 1944.

Civilized people do not as easily go along with the idea of killing civilians during battles as they did 65 years ago.

Like it or not, but that's a fact.

 

the premise of your statement is incorrect and unprovable.

 

Terrorist groups do not seem to have difficulty killing civilians, in fact they seem to prefer civilians because they can't fight back. When you see a school bus full of kids rocketed in Israel it shows you what these folks are really like. They avoid the military, because they know they would be killed.

 

>>Civilized people do not as easily go along with the idea of killing civilians during battles as they did 65 years ago.

>>Like it or not, but that's a fact.

>the premise of your statement is incorrect and unprovable.

"We have met the enemy and he is us," Pogo.

 

I'm sure our Grandpas enjoyed killing civilians. KenH's statement is not only wrong, it's offensive. They were not uncivilized.

 

Do we really have to ask? Millions of civilians were killed in WWI. Civilians are killed in every war. That's one reason we should be absolutely certain the war is necessary before we get involved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties


Civilians killed totaled from 40 to 52 million, including 13 to 20 million from war-related disease and famine.

 

My statement is correct and quite provable to anyone who has an understanding of the timeline of history. Of course, considering that most people hated to study history in school and certainly don't study it as adults those who have an understanding of the timeline of history are a quite distinct minority.

 

I have no desire for us as Americans, especially Christians, to act like terrorists do. Do you?

 

uh...yea

 

1) I'm quite sure they did not.

2) My statement is correct and it is not offensive if one stops and thinks it through.

3) No, they were not uncivilized.

 

Some people will incorrectly cite the number of civilian causalities during war in way that implies they are entirely America's fault and the result of our careless or wanton acts. That's wrong! Millions of people did die in World War II but the majority did so at the hands of our enemies or as a result of our necessary response to our enemies' aggression.

Others will demand unreasonable rules of engagement that can prolong a war, multiply the risk to our combatants, and give aid to the enemy who hides behind them. That's also wrong! Reasonable rules are a way to enforce the principles of just war. Unreasonable rules are an impediment to just war and lead to more injustice. It also contributes to lowered morale and incites more illicit acts of retaliation out of frustration.

It's my belief and experience that America has shown far more concern and compassion for civilians caught up in a war than any other nation, probably more in many cases than the armed forces of our allied host nations, and certainly much more so than our enemies who often have no regard whatsoever.

By the way, Obama's biggest priority for the military seems to be to make it "okay" for homosexuals to serve openly. That's just plain foolish but it will probably get him another bogus award not unlike his Nobel "peace" prize!

 

You beat me to it. I was going to use a less polite characterization so thanks!

 

How about BS as in Buffalo Schips!

 

Is it possible this would cause an increase in friendly fire casualties.