Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US refused to kill 190 Taliban at funeral
Fox News | 9/13/06

Posted on 09/13/2006 6:13:58 AM PDT by pabianice

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-159 next last
To: pabianice
"how is Bush any better than Clinton regarding the war on terror?"

Bush does not write the rules of engagement in Afghanistan. And I'm certain nobody asked him for permission to hit that target.

101 posted on 09/13/2006 7:58:41 AM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

We have so many scruples, it's ridiculous.

OK, we can't fire in a cemetery.

How about firing WHEN THEY LEAVE IT? ;-)


102 posted on 09/13/2006 7:59:48 AM PDT by the OlLine Rebel (Common sense is an uncommon virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Seems like it would have been a good opportunity to demonstrate to taxpayers some military efficiency, as they could have killed them and buried them at the same time! Screw honor and integrety!

Didn't R.I.H. (versus R.I.P.) Abu Musab al-Zarqawi blow up a wedding ceremony in Jordan just last year? Yeah, they have honor...


103 posted on 09/13/2006 8:00:50 AM PDT by deathrace2000 (New Approach)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: deathrace2000

Yes, he did.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/09/jordan.blasts/index.html


104 posted on 09/13/2006 8:03:22 AM PDT by WV Mountain Mama (If Bin Laden were a woman, Clinton would have nailed him every chance he got.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

That wasn't funeral, it was a Taliban strategy meeting using the funeral as cover.

The next one is scheduled at the baby milk factory.


105 posted on 09/13/2006 8:03:57 AM PDT by Rb ver. 2.0
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HeartlandOfAmerica
"nothing in the article about double agents. "

I can't imagine why our intelligence assets aren't mentioned, and named... maybe no Democrat on the Intelligence Committees was available to comment before deadline.

I'm sure the omission will be corrected soon.

106 posted on 09/13/2006 8:03:58 AM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: kittymyrib

"we ought to leave him to the tender mercies of the Taliban and get our troops out of there."

And give up a strategic regional position in the ME? Why?


107 posted on 09/13/2006 8:05:51 AM PDT by Rb ver. 2.0
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Rokke

You are probably right about Bush not being aware of that "silver platter". But how about sacking that official who made that decision? Who was it? Military or political? They did it on the Abu-whatever prison, why not here?


108 posted on 09/13/2006 8:07:16 AM PDT by Ex-Democrat Dean
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Moose4

When we killed tens of thousands of germans or japanese in a single raid it wasn't "collateral damage". It was done on purpose. It was total war, and civilians were targets.


109 posted on 09/13/2006 8:13:14 AM PDT by Scotsman will be Free
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Scotsman will be Free

Back then we fought to win. Today we don't and we won't.


110 posted on 09/13/2006 8:14:19 AM PDT by cripplecreek (If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: WV Mountain Mama

Thanks WV Mountain Mama for the link, it's a nice reminder!

I think in Clinton's day, he would have gone ahead with the strike, but he would have had Madeline Not-So-Bright call the cemetary in advance to get all the women and children out of there first...


111 posted on 09/13/2006 8:15:12 AM PDT by deathrace2000 (New Approach)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

yup.


112 posted on 09/13/2006 8:18:30 AM PDT by Scotsman will be Free
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Moose4

"War means fightin', and fightin' means killin'."

~Nathan Bedford Forrest, CSA


113 posted on 09/13/2006 8:21:53 AM PDT by tomswiftjr (Remember Pearl Harbor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Ex-Democrat Dean
"But how about sacking that official who made that decision? "

First of all what decision? The American public (and especially Freepers) need to end this weird fantasy that when they read or hear something from our media it has any bearing on the truth. The first assumption when you see any MSM story should be "This story presents a partial or false picture designed to promote the specific agenda of the person or agency who wrote it." How many forged document, photoshopped photo, "Karl Rove leaked Plame's name", examples do we need before we stop instantly knee jerking ourselves into outrage everytime the MSM releases some anonymously sourced drivel about how screwed up the world is. Ok...off the soapbox

"Military or political?"

The military writes its rules of engagement after consulting with its own lawyers. The rules are based on laws and precedents. But they can flex with regard to the nature of the situation. This has been true since our military was formed. There are always rules and usually there are good reasons for them. Since nobody on this thread really has any idea what happened in this situation outside of some reporter's interpretation, it isn't even worth speculating what really happened here.

114 posted on 09/13/2006 8:22:32 AM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

"...how is Bush any better than Clinton regarding the war on terror?"

Get a clue.

Can you imagine the world outcry had we gone in? The published "Rules of Engagement" prohibit this type of action. Bush would be put on trial as a war criminal in a minute.

Now, should we alter the RoE? You bet your sweet arse!


115 posted on 09/13/2006 8:28:46 AM PDT by lawdude (Bill Clinton is a virus and should be treated as such.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
If this is true -- tough question here -- how is Bush any better than Clinton ...

Ummm ... well ... when Bush cries at a funeral it is for real? Is this a trick question?
116 posted on 09/13/2006 8:30:10 AM PDT by One_who_hopes_to_know
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Well, I have a simple solution to this...Leave no witnesses. What funeral?

This is what the CIA was designed for.... That was probably a military drone and not a CIA drone or I think we'da had 190 dead talimaniacs.

Wonder if those were Hamas mourners and that was an Israeli armed drone what the end result would be..


117 posted on 09/13/2006 8:30:12 AM PDT by halfright (9/11/2001 3000 AMERICANS were MURDERED. Never, EVER, forget. Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rokke

I feel sorry to be you. As I understand it, you don't believe ANYTHING!


118 posted on 09/13/2006 8:35:35 AM PDT by Ex-Democrat Dean
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
Our military has too many lawyers and perfumed Generals.

I wonder how many of our soldiers will have to die because we let these killers go when we could have easily wiped them out?

How many American wives, children, mothers and fathers will weep at the gravesides of their loved ones because of this abominable decision?

119 posted on 09/13/2006 8:39:38 AM PDT by Gritty (Kill off the Goddamned cowards and we will have a nation of brave men - General Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ex-Democrat Dean
"I feel sorry to be you. As I understand it, you don't believe ANYTHING!"

What kind of stupid assumption is that? I said I don't believe the MSM. If they are what your world revolves around I am very surprised you are an ex-democrat. As I said before, how many forged documents, photoshopped pictures and phony conspiracies do you need to read before you lose your faith in MSM reporting from "anonymous" sources?

120 posted on 09/13/2006 8:49:19 AM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: HeartlandOfAmerica

ROE for terrorists. I was told this has been in effect for years. I am passing on what I heard, and stated so. Screw klintoon! He is not worthy of anyone taking up for him about anything!

LLS


121 posted on 09/13/2006 9:59:26 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (Preserve America... kill terrorists... destroy dims!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

The "Rules of Engagement" appear to be designed to ensure we don't win. This is asinine.


122 posted on 09/13/2006 10:47:47 AM PDT by 21st Century Crusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HeartlandOfAmerica
SCREW THE HIGH ROAD1

If we can win with honor, why not? I'll always take the "high road" regardless of what my dishonorable and cowardlike peers might think.

123 posted on 09/13/2006 1:15:13 PM PDT by GingisK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
If this is true -- tough question here -- how is Bush any better than Clinton regarding the war on terror?

Change "tough" to "dumb" and you'll have your answer.

124 posted on 09/13/2006 3:52:29 PM PDT by Coop (FR = a lotta talk, but little action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GingisK
I'll always take the "high road" regardless of what my dishonorable and cowardlike peers might think.

Well, I have a daughter on the ground in Iraq and her husband isn't even 30 days back from his deployment to kuwait so I got a dog in this fight.

It's REALLY easy to talk about the "high road" sitting behind a computer. If you were on the ground, in the thick of the fight, I'm sure that those sentiments would disappear in less time than it would take you to blink.

America hasn't won her wars by taking the "high road". That's a late PC development foisted on us by Liberals. America has won her wars by becoming ruthless when the situation called for it.

Please spare me the "not me, I'm different" also.

COnversation over

125 posted on 09/13/2006 4:41:17 PM PDT by HeartlandOfAmerica ('... we want the human rights officers, we want the Americans to come back' - Abu Ghraib Prisoner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

So I guess we aren't really at war after all....


126 posted on 09/13/2006 6:20:24 PM PDT by clintonh8r (American first, conservative second.....Republican a distant third.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HeartlandOfAmerica
Please spare me the "not me, I'm different" also.

Honey, I was in the army during a war that wasn't in fashion. We took the "high road" simply because we are a moral people with a code of ethics. We also had a Code of Conduct specified by Congress. I also operated under a code of conduct specified by God. There is no reason whatsoever to conduct oneself in a manner that would trouble the conscience later in life. All soldiers suffer from non-physical wounds, so it is pointless to inflict such upon oneself beyond what is required for effective combat.

You would best be proud of your family members for conducting themselves in a moral fashion, even in the heat of battle. That would give them honor built upon honor.

Part of warfare is "winning the hearts and minds" of the enemy. That all-important tactic is seriously hampered whenever troops conduct themselves in brutal or nondiscriminatory ways.

Americans generally "take the high road" in warfare, because that is the nature of winners and a moral people. We have done so by training and command. Infractions that occured were never sanctioned or permitted. Immoral acts occur during berserker rages or lapse in morality due to extended exposure to carnage.

127 posted on 09/14/2006 8:08:20 AM PDT by GingisK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: halfright
This is what the CIA was designed for....

Totally incorrect. The CIA is an intelligence (information) gathering and processing entity. Assassinations are field expedients.

128 posted on 09/14/2006 8:12:10 AM PDT by GingisK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: HeartlandOfAmerica
COnversation over

Take no prisoners? ;-D

There is a lot of printed matter on this topic. I've browsed DOD and Army sites for material; and, there is an enormous supply of stuff. The following link was provided on a US Army training site:

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/j/justwar.htm

It is sound military policy to show mercy and select targets with care. It makes it possible to end the war.

129 posted on 09/14/2006 9:16:19 AM PDT by GingisK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: michaelt
You can ask if Bush is doing enough, but you can't seriously ask if Bush is no different from Clinton, can you?

Good point! Both get off scott free among their base supporters (along with OBL and the Taliban). Some on this board even blame "the officers on the ground" for not trashing their oath and disobeying the orders of the president and those appointed over them by going after the Taliban anyway. Bushbots and Clintonestas, it doesn't matter who wins the Global War on Terror so long their pretender-in-chief stays above the fray...sczeech!

130 posted on 09/14/2006 9:31:05 AM PDT by meandog (While Bush will never fill them, Clinton isn't fit to even lick the soles of Reagan's shoes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
Bush does not write the rules of engagement in Afghanistan. And I'm certain nobody asked him for permission to hit that target.

Gee, I always thought the president was commander-in-chief of the armed forces...thanks for correcting the Constitutional error.

131 posted on 09/14/2006 9:32:56 AM PDT by meandog (While Bush will never fill them, Clinton isn't fit to even lick the soles of Reagan's shoes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Mister Da
Makes you wonder if Bush is fighting to win, or just prolonging the fight to manipulate the American people. LBJ would be proud.

I quit wondering long ago! Just like LBJ, Carter and his "Read My Lips" old man was, Bush is a product of puppet handlers and, unlike Reagan or Truman or even Eisenhower for that matter, refuses to be an accountable leader.

132 posted on 09/14/2006 9:39:38 AM PDT by meandog (While Bush will never fill them, Clinton isn't fit to even lick the soles of Reagan's shoes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie
This kind of crap comes from the Pentagon. If this administration can be blamed for any part of these stupid rules of engagement it would be for not cleaning out the perfumed princes and attorneys in the Pentagon still operating under U.N. policies.

Okay, well who runs the Pentagon then? Oh, yeah, Rummy does...and, BTW, I would deem it a rock-solid requirement for a commander-in-chief to carefully read the rules of engagement in war and if Bush didn't, he's exactly what the Dims accuse him of being: STUPID!

133 posted on 09/14/2006 9:45:23 AM PDT by meandog (While Bush will never fill them, Clinton isn't fit to even lick the soles of Reagan's shoes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: HeartlandOfAmerica
Here are a few documents from the "US Army War College" that explain why certain rules of engagement are necessary:

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB231.pdf
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB294.pdf
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB219.pdf

These issues are important; and, reflex action to "kill them all" is not a good way to find peace and stability in the future.

134 posted on 09/14/2006 9:47:08 AM PDT by GingisK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: meandog
"Gee, I always thought the president was commander-in-chief of the armed forces...thanks for correcting the Constitutional error."

He is. So do you really think that means he spends all his time running the military? I guess we should just get rid of all the leadership in the military because the Commander in Chief does it all. No point in having decision makers in the military. The man in the Whitehouse can replace the thousands of people at the Pentagon. No point in having command staffs operating all over the world handling the wide variety of crisis zones we are currently operating in. We'll just have the Commander in Chief do all the work. I'm sure all the people we elect to run this country are absolute experts in the UCMJ, international law, military rules of engagement and the constantly changing environment in areas like Southwest Asia. Heck, next time I have a question regarding anything in my military job, I'll just call the Whitehouse.

Did you even think about what you typed before you hit the post button, or did you actually think you were making a useful point?

135 posted on 09/14/2006 9:47:32 AM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
He is. So do you really think that means he spends all his time running the military? I guess we should just get rid of all the leadership in the military because the Commander in Chief does it all. No point in having decision makers in the military. The man in the Whitehouse can replace the thousands of people at the Pentagon. No point in having command staffs operating all over the world handling the wide variety of crisis zones we are currently operating in. We'll just have the Commander in Chief do all the work. I'm sure all the people we elect to run this country are absolute experts in the UCMJ, international law, military rules of engagement and the constantly changing environment in areas like Southwest Asia. Heck, next time I have a question regarding anything in my military job, I'll just call the Whitehouse. Did you even think about what you typed before you hit the post button, or did you actually think you were making a useful point?

In the Navy I retired from, there is a principle called "ultimate accountability"! Whether he was ashore on liberty or at sea but asleep in his rack, many a skipper has been drummed out of the service when his ship suffered a major incident. If Bush did not carefully read the rules of engagement in the war or at least direct Rumsfeld to do so and advise him on the rules, then he's a fool!

136 posted on 09/14/2006 10:01:43 AM PDT by meandog (While Bush will never fill them, Clinton isn't fit to even lick the soles of Reagan's shoes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Rokke

Actually, ROE is determined at very high levels, and has NCA approval before it can be implemented in the field. Like everything else, the ROE is stated very broadly at the NCA level, and then defined more specifically at each lower level to conform to the intent of the CIC's approved ROE, while providing clear guidance to the warfighter. So in a broad sense, the President did approve the ROE, and his staff put it together.

That said, once the ROE is stated, field commanders should not need to ask higher ups for further approval to execute, unless such is required by the ROE.


137 posted on 09/14/2006 10:12:40 AM PDT by Magnum44 (Terrorism is a disease, precise application of superior force is the ONLY cure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: meandog
"In the Navy I retired from, there is a principle called "ultimate accountability"! "

It's still there. Are you really comparing the Commander and Chief of the US military to the Captain of a ship?! Are you suggesting the President of the United States should be fired every time a ship runs aground? Should we hold Bush accountable for every tactical decision made everywhere our military serves? If so, then I suppose you are a raging advocate of Whitehouse direction of every decision made on the battlefield. Sorry, but the Navy you retired from paid a price for that kind of idiocy several decades ago, and that's why we don't do it now.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about when you talk about "rules of engagement". Do you realize, for example, that every theater we operate in has its own rules of engagement, and within each theater, there are different rules for different zones within that theater. And the rules for one service are not the same as the rules for another. The Army has different rules than the Marine Corps who has different rules than the Air Force. And those rules are hundreds of pages thick and change depending on the threat level and battlefield environment. Rumsfeld could brief the President 24 hours a day, 365 days a year and still not keep him current on all the ROE in all the areas we are currently operating in. In your time in the Navy did you even once operate in a combat environment? Do you know that in the course of a single mission, a Naval Aviator will probably have to operate under several different sets of ROE depending on where his aircraft is at that particular minute? Do you have any idea what you are talking about? You certainly aren't giving any indication you do on this thread.

And you call the President a "fool". It's almost amusing.

138 posted on 09/14/2006 10:25:47 AM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

If you have to ask, you don't deserve an answer....


139 posted on 09/14/2006 10:27:13 AM PDT by Osage Orange (The old/liberal/socialist media is the most ruthless and destructive enemy of this country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: avg_freeper

Good post........


140 posted on 09/14/2006 10:28:03 AM PDT by Osage Orange (The old/liberal/socialist media is the most ruthless and destructive enemy of this country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Magnum44
"Actually, ROE is determined at very high levels, and has NCA approval before it can be implemented in the field."

As you state later, the ROE approved at that level is extremely broad to the point of being more an expression of the CIC's intent than rules on the execution of that intent. The NCA does not dictate tactical level rules of engagement. They don't have the visiblity required to micro-manage at that level in all the theaters we currently operate in.

141 posted on 09/14/2006 10:35:15 AM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
"In the Navy I retired from, there is a principle called "ultimate accountability"! " It's still there. Are you really comparing the Commander and Chief of the US military to the Captain of a ship?! Are you suggesting the President of the United States should be fired every time a ship runs aground? Should we hold Bush accountable for every tactical decision made everywhere our military serves? If so, then I suppose you are a raging advocate of Whitehouse direction of every decision made on the battlefield. Sorry, but the Navy you retired from paid a price for that kind of idiocy several decades ago, and that's why we don't do it now. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about when you talk about "rules of engagement". Do you realize, for example, that every theater we operate in has its own rules of engagement, and within each theater, there are different rules for different zones within that theater. And the rules for one service are not the same as the rules for another. The Army has different rules than the Marine Corps who has different rules than the Air Force. And those rules are hundreds of pages thick and change depending on the threat level and battlefield environment. Rumsfeld could brief the President 24 hours a day, 365 days a year and still not keep him current on all the ROE in all the areas we are currently operating in. In your time in the Navy did you even once operate in a combat environment? Do you know that in the course of a single mission, a Naval Aviator will probably have to operate under several different sets of ROE depending on where his aircraft is at that particular minute? Do you have any idea what you are talking about? You certainly aren't giving any indication you do on this thread.

Bunk! Where were your so-called theater "Rules of Engagement" when we dropped the big potato on Hiroshima?
Even LBJ knew about rules of engagement in Vietnam with his "they can't drop a bomb anywhere unless I tell them they can" pronouncement...
And while I agree with your argument that the president isn't responsible for every thing that goes awry in a military engagement I would continue to point out that he is responsible for the rules that the military fights by and should not claim ignorance about sacred status of cemetaries...OBL got away in Tora Bora when diplomatic channels got crossed with the Pakistani government and, though frustrated, I chalked it up to the fog of war. But, now, with this many targets of opportunity walking free to terrorize the world and perhaps the blood relatives I have fighting in the GWOT, I am chalking it up to a guy who barely made his obligatory Air Guard drills (and there is STILL plenty of rumor out there to make me dubious if he even did that)....

And you call the President a "fool". It's almost amusing.
Okay, perhaps "idiot" is a better word (unless you were laughing at yourself).

142 posted on 09/14/2006 10:47:31 AM PDT by meandog (While Bush will never fill them, Clinton isn't fit to even lick the soles of Reagan's shoes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
The NCA does not dictate tactical level rules of engagement. They don't have the visiblity required to micro-manage at that level in all the theaters we currently operate in.

They do not dictate how such engagements may occur, but they clearly dictate the conditions necessary for such an engagement to occur.

The act of firing on a live target is something that is taken very seriously, and the necessary conditions for this are not left for a field commander (self defense is always permitted). They are clearly defined from above. The problem occurs when the nature of conflict changes. It is difficult to anticipate the impacts of those changes apriori. So if the law of war says we dont fire on funeral precessions, we do not fire on cemetaries, unless we find later that the enemy is using cemetaries in unlawful manner, and then the ROE is modified.

I have no idea if this was the case here. Just wanted to point out that ROE, while not intended to micro-manage the fight, is intended to make sure lower levels do not inadvertantly create a national embaressment, or worse a crisis by mistake.

And occasionally, it has resulted in missed oppportunities.

143 posted on 09/14/2006 10:53:51 AM PDT by Magnum44 (Terrorism is a disease, precise application of superior force is the ONLY cure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

We arent fighting a war...its all posturing.

You will see more waving of the bloody shirt this fall.


144 posted on 09/14/2006 10:54:44 AM PDT by BurbankKarl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meandog
"Bunk! Where were your so-called theater "Rules of Engagement" when we dropped the big potato on Hiroshima?"

Perhaps that was about when you retired from the Navy? That was 1945. The current year is 2006. Believe it or not...times have changed. However, it still takes Presidential authority to employ nukes.

"Even LBJ knew about rules of engagement in Vietnam with his "they can't drop a bomb anywhere unless I tell them they can" pronouncement..."

Thank you for supporting my point. You want Bush to be another LBJ. Fortunately, Bush and the US Military does not share your opinion.

"But, now, with this many targets of opportunity walking free to terrorize the world and perhaps the blood relatives I have fighting in the GWOT..."

Stop right there. Why don't you tell the world exactly what that so called Predator picture has captured. Tell us exactly who those folks were and what they were doing. Give us the exact reason why the decision was made not to attack the group, and provide your source for that reason. THEN carry on with your rant about why people aren't conducting this war like you want them to. Since you obviously feel you have the big picture here, I want to know what your sources are regarding this incident. Or...are you relying on the MSM to help form your opinions. Your BS anti-Bush National Guard comments sure make it seem like you are better at spewing MSM trash than well supported arguments. Offer some indication you aren't just some sponge of MSM lies and deception.

145 posted on 09/14/2006 11:05:58 AM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Magnum44
"Just wanted to point out that ROE, while not intended to micro-manage the fight, is intended to make sure lower levels do not inadvertantly create a national embaressment, or worse a crisis by mistake."

I understand your point, and agree with it. But it is being suggested in this thread that the President had a direct role in our decision not to hit whoever is pictured in the subject picture of this thread. To someone who would make such an argument I point out the following:
That might have been the case if Afghanistan were not a combat environment, but it obviously is. In such an environment ROE is prepared and modified at much lower levels than peacetime ROE or ROE written prior to the initiation of hostilities. It must be that way because of the dynamic environment our troops fight in. Prior to invading Iraq our ROE was relatively simple and consisted primarily of direction from the NCA. During that time, unless it was a matter of self-defense, we required a very high level of clearance (not quite NCA) to employ ordinance. During our invasion, that was reduced to requiring a high level of clearance for certain sensitive targets. At various times since then, no high level clearance has been required at all. The same is true in Afghanistan. To suggest that the President or even the NCA currently writes (or could/should even be intimately familiar with) the countless and always evolving theater ROE ignores the work of large numbers of command level staff officers and lawyers whose sole purpose in life is to prepare theater ROE.

With regard to this particular incident, there has been no reason given for not taking out the targets depicted in the released picture. There is media speculation supported by unsourced "Army" officers, but that is all. Clearly, within SWA we are allowed to engage enemy forces in cemeteries. We've done it many times in a variety of scenarios. Rather than blaming the President for a decision that was most likely made by folks with a vast amount of information and outstanding visibility of the entire picture (let's just say more than one poor quality black and white photo still), maybe we should stop knee jerking into hysteria everytime the media baits the hook.

146 posted on 09/14/2006 11:42:08 AM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
maybe we should stop knee jerking into hysteria everytime the media baits the hook.

Having no further knowledge than what has been reported, it is difficult to judge. Generally, unless your under fire, you want to have cooberating sources to ensure your shooting at the right guys. If the on scene commander had intel that a group of AQ were gathering and the predator was sent to watch for them and attack, then they should have fired. If the predator was out scouting and came across a formation of unidentified "people", you would probably not expect them to shoot unless you could discern from the picture who they were. It may have only been confirmed later that they were bad guys. Or maybe it was a communication failure that the OSC did not know they were bad guys. Not enough public info, and I dont believe the MSM waits to get it right.

147 posted on 09/14/2006 12:19:27 PM PDT by Magnum44 (Terrorism is a disease, precise application of superior force is the ONLY cure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
Uh, right, everything about Bush is a is truth, justice and the American way and anybody who criticizes him is a Clinton-loving DU liberal who deserves to be banned for his sacrilegious criticism of the best POTUS ever to wage a war...LOL (that kinda sums up the feeling doesn't it?). Well, I don't buy it. The guy got my vote by default when I cast it against Dole in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 but, that he walks on water, NOT.

Now, he'd be acceptable in most other times but he happens to be the president in, what is IMHO, the most critical challenges to our country in our history and he seems to be full of inconsistencies--i.e. his "worker program" for illegals, his failure to go to the mat for an increase in military equipment (more SDI space interceptors) and manpower (either pay more bonus for volunteer enlistment or institute a draft), not to mention his inconsistencies on core values--i.e. "because life begins at conception, stem cell research 'bad' BUT Plan B "good" (where the "H" is the philosophical difference?). His spending mirrors something I used to do in Olongapo Phillipine bars on "B Girls" after a 9 month "Yankee Station" deployment in the 60s, his No Child Left Behind is a travesty right out of Ted Kennedy's text book, his "compassionate conservatism" is more compassion than conservatism, and his leadership qualities are a joke. Succinctly, he is the embodiment of his "Read My Lips" old man and his worst-president-in-history great-grand-uncle Franklin Pierce! End of rant.

148 posted on 09/14/2006 1:13:25 PM PDT by meandog (While Bush will never fill them, Clinton isn't fit to even lick the soles of Reagan's shoes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Magnum44
"Having no further knowledge than what has been reported, it is difficult to judge."

Bingo. Yet on this thread we have Freepers accusing Bush of being an idiot, a fool, the same as Clinton, calling the war on terror a farce, claiming we have already been defeated and and our efforts in Afghanistan are phony. All that over MSM speculation over a single video still from a UAV camera. That defines "knee jerk hysteria." And you are exactly right in your concluding comment except I'd add one thing. The MSM has proven time and again that they aren't actually interested in getting things "right" no matter how long it takes. In fact, they often purposely get things wrong...even if they have to manufacture the evidence to accomplish that.

149 posted on 09/14/2006 7:35:29 PM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: meandog
"End of rant."

Rant away. You've clearly established the substance behind your rants. Perhaps that explains why despite your claims that someone who expresses your opinions on this site is likely to be banned, you are still here. I would guess people stopped paying attention to your rants years ago.

150 posted on 09/14/2006 7:41:24 PM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-159 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson