To some these are minarets; to the Americans in Ramadi they’re sniper nests.
...and "hands off (DMZ)" to our troops.
[ Getting angry-errrr by the moment ]
Posted on 09/13/2006 3:51:29 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
I therefore do ordain and establish that I was the first to define "Rumsfeld's Restraint".
Rumsfeld's Restraint: You are only allowed to kill a Muslum terrorist if he/she has first killed you.
The Pentagon is now officially fully PC indoctrinated.
Pretty much what I was thinking... a kinder, gentler war on terror.
God bless you for your son's devotion to country.... I've only got one son that worries his mom with his interest in the Marine Corp. He may follow the example of his grandfather, 8 uncles and 5 cousins in taking up arms for this country.
I've informed my son that he's to be a meat eater.... Force Recon or Spec Op.... always be the hunter, never the hunted.
I'm looking at the Bullsh#t that is going on with the Marines being charged with murder, this latest pile of cr#p and the general civil war going on within the military between the asskissers and the soldiers...
I just know that I'd be in Leavenworth right now if if one of my squad, platoon or company brothers was murdered and I couldn't track down and smoke the little rat b#stard that killed or helped kill him.
I am praying to God that this is all misinformation leaked out in order to discourage folks like me and our troops. If not and Rumsfeld or some other limp d#ck bureaucrat is keeping this war going on with "rules" of engagement that are so restrictive it starts to look like a legal rather than bloody war.... I don't want my son involved. He's got my temper and I don't have the money for lawyers he'd probably need if he got in the field and went hunting.
Tell your son to keep his head down, legs moving and hurry home safely......God Bless you for your son..... "Rangers lead the way!!!!"
Semper Fi...
Apparently, no one has any access to written rules on the ban on attacking cemeteries where the enemy are congregated. Why would there be a ban on this in the first place? Those that are dead already are not gonna notice.
Please forward this to Rosie O'Donnell, she needs a wake up call.
Thanks. Yeah, I told him to take a knee whenever he stops. He said that they are doing it so I keep my fingers crossed.
Great, now every terrorist planning session/meeting will be conducted in a cemetary.
Too bad it wasn't a wedding, they'd be meat pudding, har de har har.
Maybe Bush and Rummy needs to learn the Chicago way. Condi would no doubt want a ceasefire.
"They fail to mention that firing on a cemetery is against the military rule book of engagement"
I find it interesting that this story is coming out after the "Path to 9/11" movie - and using it as a counter-attack against our current administration and warriers (or at least the desk-bound officers).
I read a book about our Revolutionary War and one story (actually letters from the troops) told of how we shelled a group of British officers that were standing on a hill. We only wounded one I think. It was later found out that the officers were attending a funeral for one of their own. We sent the British a note apologizing for the firing as we didn't know that it was a funeral.
Of course later in the war Washington went into the enemy camp returning the British general's hunting dog that had got lost during the day's battle (and that Washington had recognized). After drinks and talking about their dogs the two parted company.
I understand that rules for warfare exist. I guess I sort of recognize that they need to be followed. But it would seem to me that when we KNOW the enemy will not follow the "rules" - then we need to make our standards a bit less lofty.
Tombstone tagline...
Lawyers, of course!
"which civilians at the pentagon are authorized to give orders to generals?"
Lawyers, of course!
_____________________________________________
Maybe we can just get rid of everyone and let the lawyers run the country.
Yea .. the timing of this is noted
Though the difference with this and during Clinton's term is Bin Laden wasn't in a cemetery and there weren't rules of engagement violation
I understand that rules for warfare exist. I guess I sort of recognize that they need to be followed. But it would seem to me that when we KNOW the enemy will not follow the "rules" - then we need to make our standards a bit less lofty.
I don't disagree.. this is a new kind of war we are fighting ... but the rules need to be changed .. otherwise it will be the Soldiers who will end up before military Court with the likes of Murtha trying them in the press
WHAT IN THE HELL IS GOING ON ???????????????
WHO THE F*$K IS RUNNING THIS WAR.......?
BUMP UNTIL SOMEONE'S ASS IS IN A SLING OVER THIS
"which civilians at the pentagon are authorized to give orders to generals?"
I didn't say that the civilians were in the pentagon. They're more likely to work at the White House, or for someone who does.
To some these are minarets; to the Americans in Ramadi they’re sniper nests.
...and "hands off (DMZ)" to our troops.
[ Getting angry-errrr by the moment ]
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.