RE: Afghanistan Rules of Engagment for US Troops

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

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

Message

popeye1250 -> RE: Afghanistan Rules of Engagment for US Troops (12/9/2009 11:50:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy 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. Wilbeur, and thankyou for your service during Vietnam! We had 13 month deployments for Vietnam if I remember correctly and you were rotated out and were done. As for those caves over there what better weapons to use than biological and chemical warfare? You wait till they come out at night and drop sarin gas on those bastards! A couple weeks of that and there'll be a LOT less Ragheads to shoot at.

slvemike4u -> RE: Afghanistan Rules of Engagment for US Troops (12/9/2009 11:55:10 AM)
Ouch!!! There goes the thumb again Popeye...damm your fingers must be all screwed up!

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Afghanistan Rules of Engagment for US Troops (12/9/2009 12:01:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy 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. Wilbeur, and thankyou for your service during Vietnam! We had 13 month deployments for Vietnam if I remember correctly and you were rotated out and were done. As for those caves over there what better weapons to use than biological and chemical warfare? You wait till they come out at night and drop sarin gas on those bastards! A couple weeks of that and there'll be a LOT less Ragheads to shoot at. I enlisted in 1970, and by the time I was done with basic and medic training things were winding down to the point where extended deployments wouldn't have been an issue. However the 13 month deployment limit was only possible because of the draft. I am opposed to bio, but if there are chemical weapons that would make the caves uninhabitable for more than a few days, go for it.

Moonhead -> RE: Afghanistan Rules of Engagment for US Troops (12/9/2009 3:06:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy 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? Short of nuking the country, what would that be? Guided missiles achieved fuck all in Bosnia.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Afghanistan Rules of Engagment for US Troops (12/9/2009 4:43:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy 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? Short of nuking the country, what would that be? Guided missiles achieved fuck all in Bosnia. Bosnia? Bosnia?Bosnia? wtf does Bosnia have to do with actually trying to win a war?

Moonhead -> RE: Afghanistan Rules of Engagment for US Troops (12/9/2009 4:54:24 PM)
It seems germane. Another case of a military intervention where nothing short of genocide was likely to end the problem. It certainly demonstrated that it's impossible to fight an irregular army from a safe distance with airstrikes and guided missiles. So how would you suggest winning the war in Afghanistan without sending in enough troops to do the job properly?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Afghanistan Rules of Engagment for US Troops (12/9/2009 5:08:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead It seems germane. Another case of a military intervention where nothing short of genocide was likely to end the problem. It certainly demonstrated that it's impossible to fight an irregular army from a safe distance with airstrikes and guided missiles. So how would you suggest winning the war in Afghanistan without sending in enough troops to do the job properly? 1. Destroy the poppy fields. 2. Isolate the country economically. the major players in the area all have reason to fear the Taliban. 3. The part that won't happen, start destroying Pashtun villages.

Moonhead -> RE: Afghanistan Rules of Engagment for US Troops (12/9/2009 5:13:31 PM)
2 won't work, for reasons you've referenced in 1. You can't really run an embargo on people whose main export is illegal.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Afghanistan Rules of Engagment for US Troops (12/9/2009 5:16:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead 2 won't work, for reasons you've referenced in 1. You can't really run an embargo on people whose main export is illegal. Uhhh thats why you destroy the poppy fields first. No poppy no exports.

AnimusRex -> RE: Afghanistan Rules of Engagment for US Troops (12/9/2009 5:21:43 PM)
Your plan for the war: quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy 1. Destroy the poppy fields. 2. Isolate the country economically. 3. Destroy Pashtun villages. Perhaps send your proposal to General McChrystal. He might be impressed wih it. "It became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it." An American major after the destruction of the Vietnamese Village of Ben Tre

Slavehandsome -> RE: Afghanistan Rules of Engagment for US Troops (12/9/2009 7:05:00 PM)
At least the cost of Heroin has hit an all time low since we've been occupying Afghanistan. "The War" is not meant to be won, "The War" is meant to be continued. All you taxpayers get back to work and let us worry about which wars you fund. Massa gon' tek gud careyu.

Moonhead -> RE: Afghanistan Rules of Engagment for US Troops (12/10/2009 8:20:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Slavehandsome At least the cost of Heroin has hit an all time low since we've been occupying Afghanistan. "The War" is not meant to be won, "The War" is meant to be continued. All you taxpayers get back to work and let us worry about which wars you fund. Massa gon' tek gud careyu. The jihadists have spread their opium growing expertise into Iraq as well, by most accounts. Presumably that's Obama's fault as well.

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Afghanistan Rules of Engagment for US Troops (12/10/2009 5:21:49 PM)
The problem is neither the Taliban nor is it the poppy fields. The problem is that the army is not meant to win hearts and minds. They are meant to win wars. To try to use them for any other reason is like trying to put in a screw with a hammer. You may get some result you can call acceptable, but it's going to be a fucking mess to everyone else.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Afghanistan Rules of Engagment for US Troops (12/10/2009 5:25:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales The problem is neither the Taliban nor is it the poppy fields. The problem is that the army is not meant to win hearts and minds. They are meant to win wars. To try to use them for any other reason is like trying to put in a screw with a hammer. You may get some result you can call acceptable, but it's going to be a fucking mess to everyone else. Exactly. So win the fucking war and worry about hearts and minds later.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Afghanistan Rules of Engagment for US Troops (12/10/2009 5:32:12 PM)
quote: The problem is neither the Taliban nor is it the poppy fields. The problem is that the army is not meant to win hearts and minds. They are meant to win wars. To try to use them for any other reason is like trying to put in a screw with a hammer. You may get some result you can call acceptable, but it's going to be a fucking mess to everyone else. PERFECT! quote: So win the fucking war and worry about hearts and minds later. Will these rules help or hurt to achieve that goal? Among them: No night or surprise searches. Villagers have to be warned prior to searches. ANA or ANP must accompany U.S. units on searches. (Local Police) U.S. soldiers may not fire at the enemy unless the enemy is preparing to fire first. U.S. forces cannot engage the enemy if civilians are present. Only women can search women. Troops can fire at an insurgent if they catch him placing an IED but not if insurgents are walking away from an area where explosives have been laid. I guess I better be clear.... Will those rules help or hurt OUR side. I'm fairly confident they'll give the enemy the ability to do better in achieving their goal, versus not having them in place and published.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Afghanistan Rules of Engagment for US Troops (12/10/2009 5:38:14 PM)
Everything that has been done to make war less warlike in the last 60 years hurts us and emboldens the enemy. It reminds me of playground fights where one mommy and daddy taught their kid to box and the other's mommy and daddy taught theirs to kick for the groin. Who won? War can only be fought by maximizing strategic advantages. Rules of Engagement that are only followed by one side create advantages for the side that doesnt follow them. "refusing to Lower ourselves to their level" is a self defeating position that is amoral, not moral as its proponents claim.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875