RE: Afghanistan Rules of Engagement for US Troops

RE: Afghanistan Rules of Engagement for US Troops (Full Version)

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

Message

Mercnbeth -> RE: Afghanistan Rules of Engagement for US Troops (12/8/2009 7:16:27 PM)
quote: you actually believe we are going to pacify and subdue all of Afghanistan with a little over 100,000 troops in country? No - You must have me confused with Obama. quote: And why should I have to describe to you how our military kills their enemy in a non vicious or humane manner.....I never made that assine statement so I won't be backing it up. My mistake - I thought it was you who saw a distinction in the methods either army kills each other since you thought these rules were civilized. Killing someone is still possible, maybe one of our enemies won't be able to find a kid to walk with him. What then?

slvemike4u -> RE: Afghanistan Rules of Engagement for US Troops (12/8/2009 7:38:47 PM)
You thought wrong.....not the first time either.If you have a point to make...please make it. Lets hope whatever point your trying to make involves something more than twisting words and taking shit out of context.

popeye1250 -> RE: Afghanistan Rules of Engagment for US Troops (12/8/2009 9:22:54 PM)
It's rediculous! We need to get out of Afganistan. Hey, how about all us people in our 50's and 60's start having "Anti War" demonstrations again and Obama and his Big Co. buddies can take on "L.B.J.'s role?' ....."Therefor, I will not run for a second term..."

Mercnbeth -> RE: Afghanistan Rules of Engagement for US Troops (12/8/2009 9:30:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u You thought wrong.....not the first time either.If you have a point to make...please make it. Lets hope whatever point your trying to make involves something more than twisting words and taking shit out of context. These rules of engagement are the latest in a long line of setting up for failure for our military personal. Put it in whatever context you find comfort in making a case in favor of this policy or how it will affect an end to the need to have US troops in Afghanistan in 18 months as committed to by this Administration. While you're at it since you apparently don't belief a "little over 100,000 troops" there won't accomplish pacifying and subduing all of Afghanistan, I agree by the way, what do you think the purpose is for having them there, and how do you think that mission will be accomplished in 18 months?

slvemike4u -> RE: Afghanistan Rules of Engagement for US Troops (12/8/2009 9:55:29 PM)
Context Merc....context,the point was that 100,000 troops was not going to "pacify and subdue" Afghanistan without the active participation of the moderates and tribal leaders. Are you under the impression we are over there conducting some sort of total war against the entire Afghan population? I notice we worked the "setting up for failure" theme again.....cool.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Afghanistan Rules of Engagement for US Troops (12/9/2009 7:16:31 AM)
quote: context,the point was that 100,000 troops was not going to "pacify and subdue" Afghanistan without the active participation of the moderates and tribal leaders. Well, I was trying to avoid comparison to another example of such an attempt. Of course in that case, it was North and South Vietnamese. Do you think that distinction will be easier in Afghanistan since there is no DMZ line to cross? Are the 'good' "tribal leaders" and "moderates" easier distinguishable for our troops quote: Are you under the impression we are over there conducting some sort of total war against the entire Afghan population? "Impression"? Now I do think that's Obama has in mind. The impression he is portraying personally. The impression I have is that our troops under these restrictions will die in greater numbers and be more vulnerable. It is the only impression I can take from considering the restrictions placed upon them. quote: notice we worked the "setting up for failure" theme again.....cool. Well, the troops certainly aren't set up for success, or an easy time of survival. I recall an old Bill Cosby routine when he put famous battles into a football coin flip theme. The comparable one was the General Custer v. Sitting Bull: “Cap’n Custer call the toss” *“You call heads. It’s tails. “Cap’n Sittin’ Bull, what do you want to do?”* “OK, Cap’n Custer. Cap’n Sittin’ Bull says you and your men wait at the bottom of this hill while him and all the Indians in the world ride right down on you.” Actually Cosby's use of the same scenario with the American Revolution is a better comparison: Again providing the 'rules of engagement' like a football game with the toss of a coin between the captain of the Colonists and the captain of the British Army. The British lost the toss; "Alright, the British have lost the toss. They get to dress their soldiers in bright red uniforms and march in a straight line in open fields. The Colonists get to wear clothing that blends in with the natural terrain and can shoot their rifles while hiding behind rocks and trees." Yeah - that's a better comparison to what our troops will face in Afghanistan.

LPslittleclip -> RE: Afghanistan Rules of Engagment for US Troops (12/9/2009 8:38:07 AM)
i am a soldier deployed in afganistan and yes there are rules that must be followed. right now the local forces are just over 50% strenght and readyness, in locations where they are able to they(locals) do the searches and we(colition) just observe and offer sujestions as mentors. as far as a surge it was requested over 8 years ago and now it is here. it is my 4th deployment and what makes it worth it to me is seeing the locals get to have clean water and schools for the children that is not run by al quiada. there is hope here and the northern part of the country is much safer (thats where most nato troops are). the surge will allow the locals to hold and build on the system they have and allow us to withdraw the combat soldiers and only have mentor/trainers.

slvemike4u -> RE: Afghanistan Rules of Engagment for US Troops (12/9/2009 9:25:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LPslittleclip i am a soldier deployed in afganistan and yes there are rules that must be followed. right now the local forces are just over 50% strenght and readyness, in locations where they are able to they(locals) do the searches and we(colition) just observe and offer sujestions as mentors. as far as a surge it was requested over 8 years ago and now it is here. it is my 4th deployment and what makes it worth it to me is seeing the locals get to have clean water and schools for the children that is not run by al quiada. there is hope here and the northern part of the country is much safer (thats where most nato troops are). the surge will allow the locals to hold and build on the system they have and allow us to withdraw the combat soldiers and only have mentor/trainers. First and foremost,Thank You for your service to your country.....now might I ask a question? My reading of your post,not to politicise it,but it would seem that you a) did not got the memo about being set up to fail. and b) That your 1) happy to hear about the additional deployments...and 2) actually think you are doing some good over there.Again thanks. p.s. being this is your 4th deployment your letter would also seem to suggest that we as a country are asking far too much of far too few of our citizens.

Moonhead -> RE: Afghanistan Rules of Engagment for US Troops (12/9/2009 10:02:49 AM)
Well, that's why Obama's in favour of putting more troops into the country, I suppose. I've always found the way the forces in Afghanistan have been neglected in favour of occupying Iraq repulsive. It's such a stupid reversal of what should be the priorities that it'd be hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic.

AnimusRex -> RE: Afghanistan Rules of Engagment for US Troops (12/9/2009 10:24:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LPslittleclip i am a soldier deployed in afganistan and yes there are rules that must be followed. .... it is my 4th deployment and what makes it worth it to me is seeing the locals get to have clean water and schools for the children that is not run by al quiada. there is hope here and the northern part of the country is much safer (thats where most nato troops are). the surge will allow the locals to hold and build on the system they have and allow us to withdraw the combat soldiers and only have mentor/trainers. Clip- I will join with the others in saluting you for your service. Contrary to others, I don't see a lot of malign motives, or bad actors in this situation. I honestly belive the President and Joint Chiefs and Generals are doing what they belive is the best course of action. What gives me skepticism, is the mission creep. Remember, when we started, the mission was to capture Osama. Period. Nothing else. Then it expanded to include overthrowing the taliban government. Then expanded to reconstructing the Afghanistan society. Then to launching raids on AQ in Pakistan. Then, in the LA Times article i linked, there are rumblings being made about Yemen, and how is is housing AQ, and whatever will we do... We have become the defacto policemen and social workers to the world, with the goal of making sure that there is not one square inch of land where there is lawlessness and anarchy, so as to prevent AQ from plotting another attack. This is what I think is madness. We are trying to enforce a Pax Americana on the entire world, and it is destroying our Treasury and society as a result.

LadyPact -> RE: Afghanistan Rules of Engagment for US Troops (12/9/2009 10:25:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: LPslittleclip i am a soldier deployed in afganistan and yes there are rules that must be followed. right now the local forces are just over 50% strenght and readyness, in locations where they are able to they(locals) do the searches and we(colition) just observe and offer sujestions as mentors. as far as a surge it was requested over 8 years ago and now it is here. it is my 4th deployment and what makes it worth it to me is seeing the locals get to have clean water and schools for the children that is not run by al quiada. there is hope here and the northern part of the country is much safer (thats where most nato troops are). the surge will allow the locals to hold and build on the system they have and allow us to withdraw the combat soldiers and only have mentor/trainers. First and foremost,Thank You for your service to your country.....now might I ask a question? My reading of your post,not to politicise it,but it would seem that you a) did not got the memo about being set up to fail. and b) That your 1) happy to hear about the additional deployments...and 2) actually think you are doing some good over there.Again thanks. p.s. being this is your 4th deployment your letter would also seem to suggest that we as a country are asking far too much of far too few of our citizens. Due to limited access time, mike, I'm going to answer this instead of him. I do want to say up front that this I am not replying particularly as his owner. I am doing so because I know his feelings on the matter. For your questions highlighted as one and two, I would have to say the answer to both is yes. As much as I hate to say it, the truth is that there aren't enough forces for the job to be done. Not to mention a lack of supplies. Since clip is a medic, he's very well aware of the latter. On the second, I've been privy to him relating stories of the places where they are doing good, and continue to do good for the people there. No, it's not the stuff that you're going to be able to verify by news reports especially, because they aren't sensational enough to be warranted and there's very little public interest. At least, that seems to be the opinion of the media. Is it too much to ask? If you were posing that question to Me, you'd get a quick yes. For him, to be truthful, some days are worse than others and his opinion on it can change depending on that. Right now, on an emotional level, things are a little harder. This is due to the time of year, when many of the deployed are separated from their homes and families, and that can be very challenging. In addition, he's getting to the point where he's about to start processing for return, so even though he's looking forward to coming home, it's still months away. I hope this helps to answer your questions in some way, even if it wasn't directly from the source.

slvemike4u -> RE: Afghanistan Rules of Engagment for US Troops (12/9/2009 10:44:25 AM)
You handled the questions fine LP.....funny thing,when I was posting to him I had thought about reminding him to take care....lest you get pissed at him.But I didn't want to trivialize the real and actual dangers over there. 4 tours seems too much....I was reading an op-ed I think yesterday that cited 1/10 of 1% of the pop.is bearing the brunt of these deployments. I don't have the answers...a draft seems unlikely and politically undoable...but so does asking young men and woman to deploy for 4,5 and in some instances 6 times.. These service men and woman only have so much to give....we as a country ask far too much of them.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Afghanistan Rules of Engagment for US Troops (12/9/2009 10:50:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LPslittleclip i am a soldier deployed in afganistan and yes there are rules that must be followed. right now the local forces are just over 50% strenght and readyness, in locations where they are able to they(locals) do the searches and we(colition) just observe and offer sujestions as mentors. as far as a surge it was requested over 8 years ago and now it is here. it is my 4th deployment and what makes it worth it to me is seeing the locals get to have clean water and schools for the children that is not run by al quiada. there is hope here and the northern part of the country is much safer (thats where most nato troops are). the surge will allow the locals to hold and build on the system they have and allow us to withdraw the combat soldiers and only have mentor/trainers. Thank you for your service. Your insight into how the ever changing strategies for Afghanistan affect the troops is most valuable. I noticed from LPs later post that you are a medic. I was a medic during Viet Nam, and it is certainly a life changing experience. Be well.

Politesub53 -> RE: Afghanistan Rules of Engagment for US Troops (12/9/2009 10:50:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 " Get the hell out and be prepared to try and contain the inevitable takeover by Islamic extremists, or get the fucking job done right and stop trying to tell the professionals how to wage war. " Another lie, and im fucking sick of it. I never claimed that I "never suggested anything other than withdrawal." Get your facts straight or stfu. I said I have never supported A GROUND WAR. GOT IT? The quote is yours from another thread on the subject. "Get the hell out OR get the job done right" sure sounds to me like an either or approach. If you meant just, "get the hell out" why didnt you say.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Afghanistan Rules of Engagment for US Troops (12/9/2009 10:53:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 " Get the hell out and be prepared to try and contain the inevitable takeover by Islamic extremists, or get the fucking job done right and stop trying to tell the professionals how to wage war. " Another lie, and im fucking sick of it. I never claimed that I "never suggested anything other than withdrawal." Get your facts straight or stfu. I said I have never supported A GROUND WAR. GOT IT? The quote is yours from another thread on the subject. "Get the hell out OR get the job done right" sure sounds to me like an either or approach. If you meant just, "get the hell out" why didnt you say. Uhhhh...maybe because there is a way to get the job done right that doesnt involve ground troops?

Politesub53 -> RE: Afghanistan Rules of Engagment for US Troops (12/9/2009 10:58:36 AM)
You wont ever subdue Afghanistan without a ground war. You can bomb mountains all you like there is only one way to halt the militants. Troops on the gound, even then you need enough troops to do the job. This is due to both terrain and the tribal nature of the Afghani people.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Afghanistan Rules of Engagment for US Troops (12/9/2009 11:04:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 You wont ever subdue Afghanistan without a ground war. You can bomb mountains all you like there is only one way to halt the militants. Troops on the gound, even then you need enough troops to do the job. This is due to both terrain and the tribal nature of the Afghani people. The militants can't be halted when they have caves to fight from and retreat to. There is no number of troops that can do that job, because the tactical positional advantage is insurmountable. Compound that with the advantages given to them by the rules of engagement and you have a suicide mission.

LadyPact -> RE: Afghanistan Rules of Engagment for US Troops (12/9/2009 11:14:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u You handled the questions fine LP.....funny thing,when I was posting to him I had thought about reminding him to take care....lest you get pissed at him.But I didn't want to trivialize the real and actual dangers over there. 4 tours seems too much....I was reading an op-ed I think yesterday that cited 1/10 of 1% of the pop.is bearing the brunt of these deployments. I don't have the answers...a draft seems unlikely and politically undoable...but so does asking young men and woman to deploy for 4,5 and in some instances 6 times.. These service men and woman only have so much to give....we as a country ask far too much of them. Now that you're addressing Me, I can answer for Myself. First, I absolutely want you to know that I never trivialize anyone on these boards or anywhere else for that matter, any good wishes that they send when clip is deployed. Even here in the political section, where opinions vary about thoughts of how to proceed, we have always received positive comments and support. I would have no reason to be angry with him, or anyone else, for wishing him well. The recycle rate for deployments is staggering. On a personal level, that bothers Me a great deal. I agree that there is only so much that can be asked and the problem with that is would be, how exactly does one approach it? There really isn't an unlimited supply of persons who are willing to make the sacrifices that it takes to even go once, so how do you fix the problem? I'll be honest. These are questions greater than Me. My solution to it all, I admit, is one based on emotional bias. One that many wouldn't want to hear.

slvemike4u -> RE: Afghanistan Rules of Engagment for US Troops (12/9/2009 11:33:16 AM)
The solution you are alluding to(a draft?) would be quite unpopular.And as a parent .....you could mark me down as one who wouldn't want to hear it.But I wouldn't deny you the right to voice what is the only equitable way to compel a larger percentage of the American public to shoulder the load.

LadyPact -> RE: Afghanistan Rules of Engagment for US Troops (12/9/2009 11:42:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u The solution you are alluding to(a draft?) would be quite unpopular.And as a parent .....you could mark me down as one who wouldn't want to hear it.But I wouldn't deny you the right to voice what is the only equitable way to compel a larger percentage of the American public to shoulder the load. Not exactly the solution that I was eluding to, mike. The rest aside, I'm actually not in favor of re-instating the draft. I think then, we'd have more people who wouldn't be the type that could be depended on when the bullets start flying. That's not who I want beside a member of My family when the action hits.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875