I Wear Pants;586095 wrote:Know what stops troops from being killed? Not being in wars we shouldn't be in.

You know what gets troops killed? Stupid pussy liberal Rules of Engagement. I don't think we should be in the middle east, I think we should let them all kill each other. However, I did think we needed to go into Iraq and lay down the law via planes and carriers but not troops on the ground.

iclfan2;586651 wrote:You know what gets troops killed? Stupid pussy liberal Rules of Engagement. I don't think we should be in the middle east, I think we should let them all kill each other. However, I did think we needed to go into Iraq and lay down the law via planes and carriers but not troops on the ground.

Those "pussy liberal Rules of Engagement" are from the author of the COIN doctrine, General Petraus. So, blame him as it is his strategy and doctrine for the rules. Those are the same rules that helped turn the tide in Iraq in 2007-2008. Now, he is starting to change the ROE, but the importance is to gain support of the local population as that will lead to stopping the spread of the Taliban and Pakistani tribal groups.

Again, we should be in the region as it does create a buffer between the Taliban and core al Qaeda in which disrupts their ability to conduct large, coordinated attacks. Instead, smaller groups use smaller attacks which we can absorb or stop. If we just let them fight it out, we get an Afghanistan that is like 2001, which is a country that supported al Qaeda and allowed them to use its resources to launch attacks. We cannot allow groups like al Qaeda to establish a homebase in a country.

Finally, the 1990s taught us planes and carriers don't impact terrorist groups, only boots on the ground.

ptown_trojans_1;586665 wrote:Those "pussy liberal Rules of Engagement" are from the author of the COIN doctrine, General Petraus. So, blame him as it is his strategy and doctrine for the rules. Those are the same rules that helped turn the tide in Iraq in 2007-2008. Now, he is starting to change the ROE, but the importance is to gain support of the local population as that will lead to stopping the spread of the Taliban and Pakistani tribal groups.

OK, this is dangerous to tread on your playground, but I'm gonna try. Wish me luck!

Gaining support of the local population in Afghan is what's getting us killed. I think iclfan2 is correct in the pussification of the ROE in that these villagers and peasants will never be supportive of evil satan Americans. We are beating our heads against the wall if we think these locals will embrace the US and turn on the Taliban, whom will be in their faces in August, 2011, as that's when we've already told the enemy we are leaving their country. We need to fight like they do if we have any chance. This constant idea of "playing nice" and not attacking the civilians is leaving us high and dry and getting our teenagers murdered by these people hiding in mosques and in villager's clothes. We either decide to win or decide to lose. This praying and hoping we can be friends with those that are killing our soldiers has got to end.

The fact that you can't shoot unless shot upon is the biggest bullshit rule I have ever heard of. If the Taliban is standing across from you then you shoot the MFers in the head. The rules of engagement should be written by the troops on the ground, not some old man in the US.

So, what makes these rules of engagement a "liberal" thing?

Seems like they've been used and promoted by those from all sides of the political spectrum.

Completely understand what you're saying, but definitely don't think this is just a "liberal" thing.

Seems like the rules of engagement are a "people who have the authority, knowledge, and input to make those types of decisions" thing. We have a lot of armchair generals.

You think the soldiers on the ground like the rules of engagement IWP? You think they like having to wait to be shot at before they can engage an enemy? Or be worried that the liberal media will call them criminals for killing someone that they thought they had to? I consider the rules liberal because the only reason they exist is to not piss off other countries, which in a time of war, I would think most conservative thinkers would agree whatever needs to be done should be done and not to worry about the collateral damage. Who knows, it may have been made up by conservatives and liberals alike, but imo I think they suck.

iclfan2;585676 wrote:Ohhhh nooooes, not killing Iraqis. son of a bitch! I'm reading Lone Survivor right now, and because they didn't want to kill some Taliban supporters because the liberal media would call them murderers they didn't and 3 of the 4 wound up dead (along with 16 that came to save them in a helicopter). So sorry that if "citizens" need to die to protect our soldiers, so be it. Liberalism and Rules of Engagement are getting Americans killed everyday.

I would think that if they are Taliban supporters then they are not civilians but combatants. By offering support to a combatant, you are in turn a combatant. And if it played out as you stated (not killing the supporters caused their deaths) then they were not civilians, but fighters.

CenterBHSFan;586408 wrote:Oh look! Trying to be clever and profound.

Truth is, your statement is BS. Because out of the people who post here you'll find MAYBE one person who wants this war.

Their is a difference in not wanting the war and thinking we shouldn't be in the war though, wouldn't you agree?

iclfan2;586651 wrote:You know what gets troops killed? Stupid pussy liberal Rules of Engagement. I don't think we should be in the middle east, I think we should let them all kill each other. However, I did think we needed to go into Iraq and lay down the law via planes and carriers but not troops on the ground.

If I may ask, why did you think we needed to go into Iraq and do you still believe we needed to go into Iraq?

I also thought we needed to at first, until I actually went to Iraq and then learned that Iraq was never the threat we were told it was.

iclfan2;587109 wrote:You think the soldiers on the ground like the rules of engagement IWP? You think they like having to wait to be shot at before they can engage an enemy? Or be worried that the liberal media will call them criminals for killing someone that they thought they had to? I consider the rules liberal because the only reason they exist is to not piss off other countries, which in a time of war, I would think most conservative thinkers would agree whatever needs to be done should be done and not to worry about the collateral damage. Who knows, it may have been made up by conservatives and liberals alike, but imo I think they suck.

Do you honestly believe all soldiers in every instance in Iraq wait to be fired upon before engaging? Please.......

dwccrew;588123 wrote:Their is a difference in not wanting the war and thinking we shouldn't be in the war though, wouldn't you agree?

It would (to a certain degree) depend on which side of the mouth somebody is wanting to talk out of. I get what you're saying, but the flipside is that the equation you use is sometimes one and the same to many.

BGFalcons82;586739 wrote:OK, this is dangerous to tread on your playground, but I'm gonna try. Wish me luck!

Gaining support of the local population in Afghan is what's getting us killed. I think iclfan2 is correct in the pussification of the ROE in that these villagers and peasants will never be supportive of evil satan Americans. We are beating our heads against the wall if we think these locals will embrace the US and turn on the Taliban, whom will be in their faces in August, 2011, as that's when we've already told the enemy we are leaving their country. We need to fight like they do if we have any chance. This constant idea of "playing nice" and not attacking the civilians is leaving us high and dry and getting our teenagers murdered by these people hiding in mosques and in villager's clothes. We either decide to win or decide to lose. This praying and hoping we can be friends with those that are killing our soldiers has got to end.

We "played nice" over there in Iraq to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi citizens didn't we? Not to mention that now over 2 million of the "surviving" citizens now live in tents across neighboring borders. You do have a point....just kill em all the same way we euthanize ailing pets.

iclfan2;587109 wrote:You think the soldiers on the ground like the rules of engagement IWP? You think they like having to wait to be shot at before they can engage an enemy? Or be worried that the liberal media will call them criminals for killing someone that they thought they had to? I consider the rules liberal because the only reason they exist is to not piss off other countries, which in a time of war, I would think most conservative thinkers would agree whatever needs to be done should be done and not to worry about the collateral damage. Who knows, it may have been made up by conservatives and liberals alike, but imo I think they suck.

It doesn't take the "liberal media" to call out soldiers who kill innocent citizens. It takes any member of a normal society who actually values human life. This is not "deer season" whereby the population needs to be pruned....or is it?

I Wear Pants;587015 wrote:Seems like the rules of engagement are a "people who have the authority, knowledge, and input to make those types of decisions" thing. We have a lot of armchair generals.

And the band played on........

I'm still waiting for Obama/Petraeous/Gates or any of the other military bosses to define victory....because there is no definition of such. But keep the hundreds of billions of dollars flowing over there...it keeps the war people in our country happy....as they ruffle through their fanny packs to pay for Chinese made shit at the mall.

Felize fuckin Navidad.

Footwedge;588297 wrote:And the band played on........

I'm still waiting for Obama/Petraeous/Gates or any of the other military bosses to define victory....because there is no definition of such. But keep the hundreds of billions of dollars flowing over there...it keeps the war people in our country happy....as they ruffle through their fanny packs to pay for Chinese made shit at the mall.

Felize fuckin Navidad.

Victory=A stable, semi working Afghanistan government at the state, local and tribal level that decreases the influence of the Taliban to a point to where more people trust the local police and government than the Taliban. Success is also a stable relationship with Pakistan and a stable regional relationship between India, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

I've been hearing that for about a year anyways from government, international and other people in the region.

Footwedge;588283 wrote:We "played nice" over there in Iraq to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi citizens didn't we? Not to mention that now over 2 million of the "surviving" citizens now live in tents across neighboring borders. You do have a point....just kill em all the same way we euthanize ailing pets.

My point is we will continue to be slaughtered by these "villagers" as they know when we eventually leave, they will be subject to the rule of chieftans and the Taliban...again. They are not going to forfeit their lives for the sake of Americans. But...we never learn from past mistakes, so we'll stay there and have more American deaths and spend billions more. I heard this morning that Obama now wants to stay until 2014, not 2011. Wow...3 more years of death and mayhem...for what? That will make 12 years of war against an enemy that we don't have the will to beat. We have decided not to win and not to lose...but just "to be". I don't care if you post that it's Petraeus/Bush/McChrystal's strategy...so the F what? Thousands more will die, billions will be spent and at the end of the day, what will we have gained? Nada...just losses upon losses...just like another "war" fought in Southeast Asia not so long ago. Win or go home....since we don't have the fortitude to win...let's get the hell out.

BGFalcons82;586739 wrote:OK, this is dangerous to tread on your playground, but I'm gonna try. Wish me luck!

Gaining support of the local population in Afghan is what's getting us killed. I think iclfan2 is correct in the pussification of the ROE in that these villagers and peasants will never be supportive of evil satan Americans. We are beating our heads against the wall if we think these locals will embrace the US and turn on the Taliban, whom will be in their faces in August, 2011, as that's when we've already told the enemy we are leaving their country. We need to fight like they do if we have any chance. This constant idea of "playing nice" and not attacking the civilians is leaving us high and dry and getting our teenagers murdered by these people hiding in mosques and in villager's clothes. We either decide to win or decide to lose. This praying and hoping we can be friends with those that are killing our soldiers has got to end.

It's not that simple. The goal is not just to get the locals to support Americans, but to support the Afghan police. The goal is to have the locals feel that it is better to work with the police and Americans than to say or so nothing and support the Taliban as they swoop in.

The deadline did hurt, but the U.S. is now emphasizing that the police are not leaving and neither are they, which we aren't.
If you decide to engage the enemy in close coordination with civilians, you are just making the problem worse. As, if you kill someone's son or daughter in a strike in trying to get one guy, you lose that families trust and any hope of getting him to reveal intelligence the next time you visit the village. If you read reports on mistakes, that is one of the largest in that the U.S. lost trust by being reckless. Now, we are slowly turning the tide. It takes time, but the Taliban is slowly losing influence in Afghan provinces.

iclfan2;586745 wrote:The fact that you can't shoot unless shot upon is the biggest bullshit rule I have ever heard of. If the Taliban is standing across from you then you shoot the MFers in the head. The rules of engagement should be written by the troops on the ground, not some old man in the US.

We pretty much can there chief. The problem comes in who are the Taliban and how sure are you that that person is in the Taliban? Just shooting a guy makes no sense as we have been proven wrong many times. The key is to catch them, gain information and use the local population to turn the tide.

It is long, counter intuitive for most Americans, but for people that know the internal dynamics of the region and the nature of war today, it makes sense.

Finally, all that said. It is not a perfect doctrine or strategy, but until someone can come up with a better one that keeps the Taliban and al Qaeda at bay, we have to maintain our presence.

BGFalcons82;588325 wrote:My point is we will continue to be slaughtered by these "villagers" as they know when we eventually leave, they will be subject to the rule of chieftans and the Taliban...again. They are not going to forfeit their lives for the sake of Americans. But...we never learn from past mistakes, so we'll stay there and have more American deaths and spend billions more. I heard this morning that Obama now wants to stay until 2014, not 2011. Wow...3 more years of death and mayhem...for what? That will make 12 years of war against an enemy that we don't have the will to beat. We have decided not to win and not to lose...but just "to be". I don't care if you post that it's Petraeus/Bush/McChrystal's strategy...so the F what? Thousands more will die, billions will be spent and at the end of the day, what will we have gained? Nada...just losses upon losses...just like another "war" fought in Southeast Asia not so long ago. Win or go home....since we don't have the fortitude to win...let's get the hell out.

And you are willing to accept al Qaeda in power in Afghanistan?

ptown_trojans_1;588336 wrote:And you are willing to accept al Qaeda in power in Afghanistan?

Al Queda is not just in Afghanistan. They are in Pakistan. They are in Indonesia. They are in Saudi Arabia. They are everywhere. I'm certain you know this. We have been slogging over there for almost 9 years and what have we gained? The KIA numbers are at their highest since Obama increased troop strength a year ago....for what? What progress? The enemy hides in mosques, homes, and in other countries. We refuse to go after them, except with menial drone attacks that just piss off more of them than we take out. Relying on villagers to support us and the new Afghan police is hope and change. We're dying and hemorhaging money at an unsustainable rate and now we're going to do it for 3 more years. I don't see a win anywhere in sight...only hope that the Afghans will somehow see the light and join up against the Taliban and Al Queda. I don't see anyway this occurs, so why keep dying needlessly?

BGFalcons82;588353 wrote:Al Queda is not just in Afghanistan. They are in Pakistan. They are in Indonesia. They are in Saudi Arabia. They are everywhere. I'm certain you know this. We have been slogging over there for almost 9 years and what have we gained? The KIA numbers are at their highest since Obama increased troop strength a year ago....for what? What progress? The enemy hides in mosques, homes, and in other countries. We refuse to go after them, except with menial drone attacks that just piss off more of them than we take out. Relying on villagers to support us and the new Afghan police is hope and change. We're dying and hemorhaging money at an unsustainable rate and now we're going to do it for 3 more years. I don't see a win anywhere in sight...only hope that the Afghans will somehow see the light and join up against the Taliban and Al Queda. I don't see anyway this occurs, so why keep dying needlessly?

Depends upon how we define "win." If the object is to keep stirring the pot and maintaining a military presence in the region then we've "won." If the aim was to eradicate Osama bin Laden & Co. then we've failed...somewhat miserably.

paypal has cnacelled wiki's account....you cannot no longer donate (as if you wanted to) thru paypal. The apparent pressure being exerted by authorities and whether wiki is involved in illegal doings is having an effect.

WikiLeaks Ready to Release Giant 'Insurance' File if Shut Down

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/12/05/wikileaks-ready-release-massive-insurance-file-shut/

Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, has circulated across the internet an encrypted &#8220oison pill” cache of uncensored documents suspected to include files on BP and Guantanamo Bay.

One of the files identified this weekend by The Sunday Times — called the “insurance” file — has been downloaded from the WikiLeaks website by tens of thousands of supporters, from America to Australia.

Assange warns that any government that tries to curtail his activities risks triggering a new deluge of state and commercial secrets.

Well....Its your move world

ou1980;588973 wrote:WikiLeaks Ready to Release Giant 'Insurance' File if Shut Down

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/12/05/wikileaks-ready-release-massive-insurance-file-shut/





Well....Its your move world

Wikileaks has already been mirrored to hundreds if not thousands of servers by now. I wouldn't be surprised if there was involvement from anon in the near future too....and that would make this whole thing real fun to watch unfold.

One should deal with wiki like any one would deal with a blackmailer.

And now Assange has released a list of key facilities around the world that the Feds believe are vital to our national security. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11923766

All of you out their who view these leaks as a positive thing - as a sort of "last bastion of true free press" - need to reevaluate your thinking. This information is like candy to terrorists.

If this information leads to foul play by anti-American thugs.............:mad:

believer;589793 wrote:And now Assange has released a list of key facilities around the world that the Feds believe are vital to our national security. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11923766

All of you out their who view these leaks as a positive thing - as a sort of "last bastion of true free press" - need to reevaluate your thinking. This information is like candy to terrorists.

If this information leads to foul play by anti-American thugs.............:mad:

I'm a firm believer someone should fry for this. However the only person who should fry and has committed a crime is the douche bag they already have in custody. The guy who actually took the files.

Some things to consider...

What makes wikileaks posting the information on their site any worse than CNN, BBC, MSN, NYTimes, etc? They are posting the same shit.

What law has been broken? Our freedom of press/speech laws cannot save Assange because he isn't even American. Just the same, America's laws cannot convict people who do not fall under those laws, which he doesn't. The fact is the espionage act was written nearly 100 years ago and applies to american on american crime. The US spends 80 billion dollars on their own spy programs. Are other countries going to start arresting those people?

One of two things is going to happen. They'll have a little 'talk' with him when they get him and he will agree to stop with the leaks and turn over the insurance file he has. They will then have re-written all of our rights regarding freedom of press/speech. Or 2, he releases the insurance file, shit will hit the fan -- he'll be tried as a terrorist, our freedoms will still be re-written, and the internet will be censored/locked down by the US. It's going to be a fucked up situation either way.

All of you out their who view these leaks as a positive thing - as a sort of "last bastion of true free press" - need to reevaluate your thinking.

And to all of you out there who view these leaks as a negative thing, be prepared to give up some freedoms and an internet you once knew.

the_system;590789 wrote:I'm a firm believer someone should fry for this. However the only person who should fry and has committed a crime is the douche bag they already have in custody. The guy who actually took the files.

I agree those that leaked any secrets that damage national security are ultimately at fault.

the_system;590789 wrote:What makes wikileaks posting the information on their site any worse than CNN, BBC, MSN, NYTimes, etc? They are posting the same shit.

Wikileaks is initiating publicizing the information. The other news organizations are reporting on already publicized information. These news organizations have a choice on what they choose to report on. If they choose to propagate the publication of information potentially damaging to national security in principle they too bare some responsibility. These organizations should have their first loyalties to their country and wisely chose what information they propagate. As long as their country is not engaging in gross unjust or immoral activity.

the_system;590789 wrote:What law has been broken? Our freedom of press/speech laws cannot save Assange because he isn't even American. Just the same, America's laws cannot convict people who do not fall under those laws, which he doesn't. The fact is the espionage act was written nearly 100 years ago and applies to american on american crime. The US spends 80 billion dollars on their own spy programs. Are other countries going to start arresting those people?

As far as I am concerned the only laws that have been broken are those that violated their security clearance and leaked sensitive material to the press. No one in the press has committed a criminal act. Some may have exercised unwise or unloyal judgment.

the_system;590789 wrote:And to all of you out there who view these leaks as a negative thing, be prepared to give up some freedoms and an internet you once knew.

I view many of these leaks as a negative thing. Some I must say I do not. Some could have used wise judgment and should have put their nation first in regards to some of the information leaked. Assange is not an American and our national security interest appear to be of little concern to him. But I agree with you the likely result is we should be prepared to give up some freedoms and the internet we once knew. Reactionary government restrictions on common Americans daily activities in the name of security has become the norm in the eternal war on terror.