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

Skip to comments.

EDITORIAL: Ready, aim, hold your fire--Our troops are saddled with dangerous rules of engagement
The Washington Times ^ | March 6, 2010 | Editorial

Posted on 03/06/2010 10:49:57 AM PST by jazusamo

The recent battle in Marjah in Afghanistan's Helmand province was a key test case for new rules of engagement that emphasized protecting civilians rather than killing insurgents. The town was taken, but whether that was because of the new rules or despite them remains to be seen.

The rules of engagement are probably the most restrictive ever seen for a war of this nature. NATO forces cannot fire on suspected Taliban fighters unless they are clearly visible, armed and posing a direct threat. Buildings suspected of containing insurgents cannot be targeted unless it is certain that civilians are not also present. Air strikes and night raids are limited, and prisoners have to be released or transferred within four days, making for a 96-hour catch-and-release program.

In Marjah, the enemy quickly adapted to the rules, which led to bizarre circumstances such as Taliban fighters throwing down their weapons when they were out of ammunition and taunting coalition troops with impunity or walking in plain view with women behind them carrying their weapons like caddies. If World War II had been fought with similar rules, the battles would still be raging. Paradoxically, America's most successful post-conflict reconstructions were in Germany and Japan, where enemy-occupied towns like Marjah were flattened without a second thought.

U.S. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the NATO commander, said, "The Afghan people are at the center of our mission. In reality, they are our mission." Yet protecting civilians is difficult in an unconventional conflict in which the battlefield has no front lines...

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: afghanistan; bhodod; bhogwot; marjah; mcchrystal; military; nato; obama; oef; roe; taliban; wot

1 posted on 03/06/2010 10:49:57 AM PST by jazusamo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
With these ROE's, the blood of our fallen is on Obama's hands.

Lamh Foistenach Abu!
2 posted on 03/06/2010 10:53:06 AM PST by ConorMacNessa (HM/2 USN, 3/5 Marines, RVN '69 - St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard; smoothsailing

Shaking head Ping!


3 posted on 03/06/2010 10:53:10 AM PST by jazusamo (But there really is no free lunch, except in the world of political rhetoric,.: Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConorMacNessa

Agreed...If my son was still of the age to enlist I’d do everything I could to discourage him. Never thought I’d say that.


4 posted on 03/06/2010 10:56:06 AM PST by jazusamo (But there really is no free lunch, except in the world of political rhetoric,.: Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ConorMacNessa

“With these ROE’s, the blood of our fallen is on Obama’s hands. “

Obama either cares less or is happy about it.


5 posted on 03/06/2010 11:02:50 AM PST by stephenjohnbanker (Support our troops, and vote out the RINOS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
Sorry, civilian and noncombatant injuries and death are simply a part of war. Sometimes a very integral part of the strategy of war. Like with those who go to war in the name of Islam.

Certainly such injuries and deaths should be kept to a minimum, but I would prefer the death of several hundred of the enemy's friends and family to the death or injury of a single US fighting person. Period. No if’s, and’s or but’s.

Part of what keeps such collateral damage to a minimum is a knowledge on the part of, and a fear of, the fact that if you get too close to someone who is fighting a war you might be killed or injured. Avoiding such an ignoble fate is pretty much up to the victim in my book.

Once a population knows the enemy will destroy any human shields that are involved they will figure out it's worth the effort not get involved in someone else’s war. As long as they and the enemy know we won't attack if there are civilians in danger they will use that against us.

Sorry, what would normally be a good point becomes a bad point once the enemy begins using it as a weapon. Purposely putting women and children in harm's way as a means to avoid being attacked is much a weapon as an IED or RPG.

6 posted on 03/06/2010 11:03:10 AM PST by jwparkerjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

Can you imagine Patton giving the Nazi’s his play book?


7 posted on 03/06/2010 11:03:15 AM PST by Marty62 (former Marty60)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

ROE should include blasting any Taliban who is identified as one and taunts our troops. It’s outrageous that our troops have to submit to such humiliation!


8 posted on 03/06/2010 11:16:22 AM PST by luvbach1 (Worse than we could have imagined.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

1. Don’t hurt the Taliban
2. Homosexuals openly serving
3. Thousand ship Navy— rely on India and CHINA while we reduce our fleet to nothing
4. Cut back the Coast Guard! Let them ride their aging fleet to the bottom of the ocean while we pile even more responsibility on them!
5. If making our Armed forces less secure means preserving Fort Hood and Fort Jackson style diversity, then we must do it!
6. Prosecute our soldiers for fighting to win (Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani)
7. Women in combat
8. Women in submarines

Deconstruct, demoralize, decimate.

What am I missing in the list of things that will crumble our great military from the inside out? I think Mr. Obama, and Bush Clinton Bush before him are very nearly done with their work, don’t you?


9 posted on 03/06/2010 11:16:33 AM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwparkerjr
Sorry, civilian and noncombatant injuries and death are simply a part of war.

Right you are. No modern war has ever been fought (or won) without them. Certainly WWI and WWII weren't.

10 posted on 03/06/2010 11:18:50 AM PST by luvbach1 (Worse than we could have imagined.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
There is no telling how many lives the ridiculous ROE's cost when I was in Nam, such as NOT being able to bomb in the Port of Haiphong (where the majority of the North's supplies came in)for fear of "upsetting" the Russians who were the North's primary suppliers to even having the pilots ingress and egress via the same routes over and over to the point that the NVA, set up their AAA and Sams on those routes and our pilots became sitting ducks.

That said, it appears that there must be a holdover mindset from 40 years ago in the Pentagon which appears to be even more restrictive than during Nam which can not but put our brave warriors at risk.

Yeah, hearts and minds are a good thing, but the Islamofacists care no a whit about our restraint and are laughing at us as they adapt to our ROE's.

Though we could have prevailed in Nam in as short a time as 6 months IF we had had the will to do so, it appears that we are not serious about "winning" in Afghanistan either.

My support is slowly waning and when I read BS like this, I am of the mind that I wonder if expending one more valuable American life is worth it???

11 posted on 03/06/2010 11:19:46 AM PST by Conservative Vermont Vet ((One of ONLY 37 Conservatives in the People's Republic of Vermont. Socialists and Progressives All))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

Did you know that Obama has the War college and Naval Fleet resources studying what to do when global warming causes the oceans to rise in 100 years? That’s also a mission that ties up resources for actual military objectives.

Have you seen the new Navy pitch line? they’re a “Global Force for Good”. Who thought that one up?


12 posted on 03/06/2010 11:20:56 AM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
McChrystal, the NATO commander, said, "The Afghan people are at the center of our mission. In reality, they are our mission."

The Afghan people are our mission? Really? WHY???

13 posted on 03/06/2010 11:25:37 AM PST by 668 - Neighbor of the Beast (STOP the Tyrananny State.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConorMacNessa

And to think that he may not be their ligitimate CIC but just a phony usurper. Let him prove that he is a rightful CIC.


14 posted on 03/06/2010 11:27:57 AM PST by 353FMG (Save the Planet -- Eliminate Socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Vermont Vet

Though I was never in Vietnam I distinctly remember the ROE you point out and the absolute fiasco of Johnson and McNamara and their micromanagement.

As to what’s going on now we’ll never win a war by making nice, IMO.


15 posted on 03/06/2010 11:29:45 AM PST by jazusamo (But there really is no free lunch, except in the world of political rhetoric,.: Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

I hadn’t heard of either but I suppose it’s not surprising with Zer0 as CINC. Pathetic!


16 posted on 03/06/2010 11:31:17 AM PST by jazusamo (But there really is no free lunch, except in the world of political rhetoric,.: Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

when the new gay rules start....just send in a squad of gays....that should have the mussies running....


17 posted on 03/06/2010 11:34:06 AM PST by thinking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

We are in serious trouble as a nation when our soldiers fighting an enemy abroad face vastly more restrictive rules than domestic police officers enforcing laws against our citizens.


18 posted on 03/06/2010 11:36:57 AM PST by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo; Lancey Howard
Dr. Paul L. Williams / thelastcrusade.org / Thursday, July 9, 2009
Taliban truck

Taliban truck

Don’t shoot back!

Don’t pick the poppies!

And don’t bother the women and men in burqas!

These are the new rules of engagement for leathernecks in Afghanistan.

Sound incredible?

They’re true.

Welcome to the modern Marine Corps under Commander-in-Chief Barack Hussein Obama

On July 1, the U.S. military initiated Operation Khanjar or “Strike of the Sword,” an invasion of the Helmand Province by 4,000 Marines and 650 Afghan soldiers.

“Strike of the Sword” represents the first military operation to be ordered by President Obama.

The purpose of the campaign is to flush out Taliban operatives from southern Afghanistan in order to safeguard the re-election of Afghan President Hamid Karzai on August 20.

The military initiative is being conducted by the insistence of Kharzai, who fears that a strong Taliban presence will produce unfavorable results for him on election-day.

To accomplish this objective, President Obama remains determined to deploy 68,000 additional U.S. troops to southern Afghanistan within the next six weeks.

But the Marines, thanks to Mr. Obama, are conducting this mission with their hands tied.

The first order from America’s new commander is that the Marines must not return enemy fire for fear of killing an Afghan non-combatant.

ABC Correspondent Mike Boettcher, who is embedded with Golf Company, reports that the young Marines, when ambushed by Taliban forces with automatic weapons, were ordered to shoulder their rifles. Their command, Boettcher writes, warned them that “one civilian casualty could negate the No. 1 objective of this operation – – winning the trust and respect of the farmers of the Helmand River Valley.”

How are the Marines expected to win the trust and respect of the farmers?

By not disturbing the opium poppy fields which remain in full bloom.

The Marines of Bravo’s Company 1st Platoon sleep beside groves of poppies Troops of the 2nd Platoon walk through the fields on strict orders not to swat the heavy opium bulbs. The Afghan farmers and laborers, who are engaged in scraping the resin from the bulbs, smile and wave at the passing soldiers.

The Helmand province is the world’s largest cultivator of opium poppies – the crop used to make heroin.

Afghanistan grew 93 percent of the world’s poppy crop last year, with Helmand alone responsible for more than half of the opium production in the country, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.

Heroin, as it turns out, represents the only staple of the Afghan economy. The country manufactures no domestic products for exportation and the rocky terrain yields no cash crops – – except, of course, the poppies.

The poppies fuel the great jihad against the United States and the Western world. More than 3,500 tons of raw opium is gleaned from the poppy crops every year, producing annual revenues for the Taliban and al Qaeda that range from $5 billion to $16 billion.

Destroying the fields could very well put an end to terrorist activities in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

But the Obama Administration remains intent upon protecting the poppies so that the Afghan farmers and local drug lords can reap the benefits of what purports to be a bumper crop.

Many Marines in the field are scratching their heads over the situation.

Jason Striuszko a journalist embedded with the U.S. Marines in Garmser, reports that many of the leathernecks are scratching their heads at the apparent contradictions — calling in airstrikes and artillery on the elusive Taliban while assuring farmers and drug lords that they will protect the poppies.

“Of course,” Striuszko says, “those fields will be harvested and some money likely used to help fuel the Taliban, and the Marines are thinking, essentially, ‘huh?’”

“It’s kind of weird. We’re coming over here to fight the Taliban. We see this. We know it’s bad. But at the same time we know it’s the only way locals can make money,” said 1st Lt. Adam Lynch, 27, of Barnstable, Mass.

Richard Holbrooke, the Obama Administration’s top envoy in Afghanistan, says that poppy eradication – for years a cornerstone of U.S. and U.N. anti-drug efforts in the country – has only resulted in driving Afghan farmers into the hands of the Taliban.

The new approach, Holbrooke maintains, will try to wean the farmers of the lucrative cash crop by giving them help to grow other produce, like wheat, corn and pomegranates.

Fat chance.

Most of the 33,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan operate in the east, where the poppy problem is not as great. But the 2,400-strong 24th Marines, have taken the field in this southern growing region during harvest season.

An expert on Afghanistan’s drug trade, Barnett Rubin, complained that the Marines are being put in such a situation by a “one-dimensional” military policy that fails to integrate political and economic considerations into long-range planning.

“All we hear is, not enough troops, send more troops,” said Rubin, a professor at New York University. “Then you send in troops with no capacity for assistance, no capacity for development, no capacity for aid, no capacity for governance.”

Staff Sgt. Jeremy Stover, whose platoon is sleeping beside a poppy crop planted in the interior courtyard of a mud-walled compound, said the Marines’ mission is to get rid of the “bad guys,” and “the locals aren’t the bad guys.”

“Poppy fields in Afghanistan are the cornfields of Ohio,” said Stover, 28, of Marion, Ohio. “When we got here they were asking us if it’s OK to harvest poppy and we said, ‘Yeah, just don’t use an AK-47.’”

And the third order from Commander Obama, who has never spent a day in uniform (not even as a Boy Scout), is that no enlisted man must ever question or detain, let alone stop and search, any Afghani in a burqa.

Even glancing at a Muslim woman, the young Marines are told, is a grievous offense in the Islamic world.

This order has resulted in Taliban militants escaping from the clutches of the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade on July 8.

Members of the Brigade had managed to trap the Taliban fighters in a mud compound within the village of Khan Neshin, about 60 miles north of the Pakistani border.

With the help of a translator and a village elder, the Marines, under orders from their commanders, persuaded the trapped insurgents to free the women and children in their custody.

Within minutes, according Afghan Army Commander Mahaiddin Ghorr, thirty to forty figures in full burqas emerged from the mud – – some holding the hands of children – – and sauntered off into the hills.

When the Marines entered the compound an hour or so later, the place was empty.

The latest military operation has resulted in the relocation of Taliban fighters to the western and northern provinces.

This has prompted complaints from German and Italian commanders who now must deal with hundreds of enemy combatants.

19 posted on 03/06/2010 11:45:59 AM PST by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

Thanks for posting, Smooth.

It really is to the point of sickening what our troops are having to do over there, what’s happening is wrong!


20 posted on 03/06/2010 12:00:43 PM PST by jazusamo (But there really is no free lunch, except in the world of political rhetoric,.: Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
I think, out of deep respect for our enemy, we should let them determine our ROE. We won't do anything they won't do.

God forbid it, but I suspect we would see some rapid changes should the shoe be on the other foot.

21 posted on 03/06/2010 12:04:52 PM PST by upchuck (Until one has loved an animal, part of their soul remains unawakened.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
My cousin's son is an Army Major who just came home from Afghanistan last Sunday, and he tells us basically the same thing this article does.


22 posted on 03/06/2010 12:08:06 PM PST by FrankR (Those of us who love AMERICA far outnumber those who love obama - your choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConorMacNessa

So is that of our retired Military.

How one votes AFFECTS US ALL!

It ain’t dead until congress is recessed and we flip at least 1 in Nov, or we will be fighting this battle for 3 more years!

OBAMANOMICS—TRICKLE DOWN DESTRUCTION of the economy
Bambi doesn’t keep his promises...so buyer beware!

SET THEIR LOCAL AND DC LINES ON FIRE!

PLEASE ASK THEM TO REPEAL THE BIG NEW FEES in TRICARE for Life, the retired Military over 65 secondary health ins. which they passed in a DOD bill. They promised our Military these benefits, and our Military have earned them.

Sen Scott Brown’s number is 202-224-4543
Capitol Hill switchboard is 202-224-3121

Lots of local demwit phone numbers on this thread
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2408217/posts

Rename, repackage, rewrite it a tad smaller, and sell another pig in a poke. NO COLAs for granny, retired Military or retired fed employees. BIG NEW fees for Tricare for Life retired over 65 Military’s secondary health ins. (DOD bill already passed, delayed but goes into effect 2011 NEEDS TO BE REPEALED!

OBAMA’s WAR ON SENIORS http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2433867/posts/

New Dem mantra: Woof, woof eat dog food granny....ala let them eat cake.

Obama says slight fix will extend Social Security, http://townhall.com/news/us/2010/02/19/obama_says_slight_fix_will_extend_social_security

Health Care Rationing for Seniors Another Problem in New Obama Plan http://www.lifenews.com/bio3058.html

Medicare tax may apply to investment income (ObamaCare tax hike)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2460988/posts

Obama: No reduced Medicare benefits in health care reform
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/28/obama.health.care/index.html

Will healthcare reform mean cuts in Medicare for seniors?
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2009/1017/will-healthcare-reform-mean-cuts-in-medicare-for-seniors

Health Reform’s Hidden Victims Young people and seniors would pay a high price for ObamaCare.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203517304574306303720472842.html

SOCIALIZED MED THREAD http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2464538/posts

MILITARY & Retired MILITARY
Veterans’ G.I. Bill benefits MIA
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2464680/posts
TRI CARE FOR LIFE This from a google search:

http://economicspolitics.blogspot.com/2009/05/tricare-for-life-is-obama-trying-to.html

This option would help reduce the costs of TFL, as well as costs for Medicare, by introducing minimum out-of pocket requirements for beneficiaries. Under this option, TFL would not cover any of the first $525 of an enrollee’s cost-sharing liabilities for calendar year 2011 and would limit coverage to 50 percent of the next $4,725 in Medicare cost sharing that the beneficiary incurred. (Because all further cost sharing would be covered by TFL, enrollees could not pay more than $2,888 in cost sharing in that year.) http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9925/12-18-HealthOptions.pdf

Bill Would Restrict Veterans’ Health Care Options 11/06/09
Buyer and McKeon Offer Amendments to Protect Veterans and TRICARE Beneficiaries

Congress plans to block Tricare fee increases
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/10/military_tricarefees_blocked_100709w
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/10/military_tricarefees_blocked_100709w/

By Rick Maze - Staff writer, Oct 7, 2009

Tricare fee increases imposed last week by the Defense Department will be repealed by a provision of the compromise 2010 defense authorization bill unveiled Wednesday by House and Senate negotiators.

The fee increases were announced on Sept. 30 and took effect on Oct. 1, but the defense bill, HR 2647, includes a provision barring any fee increases until the start of fiscal 2011.

Retired Army Maj. Gen. Bill Matz, president of the National Association for Uniformed Services, said the announcement of fee increases was shocking considering that the Obama administration promised earlier this year to hold off on any new fee Tricare fee increases until fiscal 2011.

“President Obama and DoD assured NAUS and the entire military family earlier this year that there would rightly be no increases in any Tricare fees” in fiscal 2010, Matz said. “We took them at their word, and I can’t believe that a co-pay increase like this was allowed to go forward,” he added.


23 posted on 03/06/2010 12:08:16 PM PST by GailA (obamacare paid for by cuts & taxes on most vulnerable Veterans, disabled,seniors & retired Military)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FrankR

Thanks, it’s good to hear first hand.


24 posted on 03/06/2010 12:13:31 PM PST by jazusamo (But there really is no free lunch, except in the world of political rhetoric,.: Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

When we attacked Afghanistan, after 9-11, we had Mullah Omar in our sights. The aircraft commander requested permission to fire!

Some woman JAG holdover from the Clinton admin denied permission.

Rumsfield went berzerk! Target rich environment and a JAG officer said “no!”


25 posted on 03/06/2010 12:16:38 PM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack
We are in serious trouble as a nation when our soldiers fighting an enemy abroad face vastly more restrictive rules than domestic police officers enforcing laws against our citizens.

Excellent post. And this same nation wants to give this foreign enemy the same legal rights as ordinary citizens when they attack us. Pathetic.

26 posted on 03/06/2010 12:30:56 PM PST by NYFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ConorMacNessa; jazusamo

I read an article a couple of weeks ago, wish I had saved it, that detailed how NGOs are making these demands on the ROE. The NGOs are “international human rights groups,” including the UN. And then we have McChrystal’s infamous apology.....


27 posted on 03/06/2010 1:05:29 PM PST by La Enchiladita (wise gringa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All

We NEED to get some of those military guys into Congress!!!!


28 posted on 03/06/2010 2:12:25 PM PST by jackibutterfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: jackibutterfly; All
We NEED to get some of those military guys into Congress!!!!

Absolutely agree and there are a fair number of veterans running this coming November.

Iraq Veterans for Congress

29 posted on 03/06/2010 2:21:07 PM PST by jazusamo (But there really is no free lunch, except in the world of political rhetoric,.: Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ConorMacNessa
With these ROE's, the blood of our fallen is on Obama's hands.

In all fairness, Obama and his "progressive socialists" only made it worse. Under Bush the rules were already set. I watched the entire development with the certain knowledge that the ROEs were costing American lives from the getgo, both in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Bush for years kept insisting that we were dealing with the "religion of peace." Until he sobered up; metaphorically.

In the last 40 years, the nature of war has changed completely and the U.S. "attitude" towards the change has been incompetent, bordering on criminal.

First of all, is the notion that the purpose of war is to "win their hearts and minds." Bullshit. That might work with human beings, but not with muslims.

The purpose of war is to win quickly, for the sake of both sides.

The second crime is declaring the mosques off limits, even when used as weapons and ammunition dumps, but also as sniper and sniper spotter posts. Big mistake. If a mosque joins the war, willingly or otherwise, it is a fair and immediate target. It is absurd that both sides of the enemy (the active ones and the passive ones) can claim that the "others" coerced them into allowing the abuse of the mosques.

Whether through the draft or as a voluntary army, I would refuse to fight with such ROEs. I would not allow my sons or daughters to do so either. Fighting for liberty is one thing; Dying for political brownie points by fat cowards sitting in DC is quite another. No compromise possible there.

Should we withraw from the sandmaggot snake pit (Afghanistan, Iraq, Pkistan)? Absolutely.

Fight to win, or get the hell out.

30 posted on 03/06/2010 3:06:55 PM PST by Publius6961 (You can't build a reputation on what you are going to do)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

I have nothing good to say. Good bye.


31 posted on 03/06/2010 3:17:26 PM PST by gathersnomoss (General George Patton had it right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

No comment.


32 posted on 03/06/2010 3:23:04 PM PST by gathersnomoss (General George Patton had it right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

Sad, sick Obumpa.


33 posted on 03/06/2010 3:26:35 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo; jackibutterfly; kjenerette
And here on FR:
Veterans For Congress:
34 posted on 03/06/2010 3:29:39 PM PST by Gene Eric (Your Hope has been redistributed. Here's your Change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: luvbach1
Right you are. No modern war has ever been fought (or won) without them. Certainly WWI and WWII weren't.

Don't forget Viet Nam. When children were sent with bombs into clubs and bars there, it didn't matter much to the enemy if Vietnamese were also present...

35 posted on 03/06/2010 3:30:07 PM PST by Publius6961 (You can't build a reputation on what you are going to do)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric

Thanks, Gene. I remembered the thread but hadn’t posted and didn’t find it. The list was pinged to another posting of that Sowell thread.


36 posted on 03/06/2010 5:58:40 PM PST by jazusamo (But there really is no free lunch, except in the world of political rhetoric,.: Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

I’m really to glad to see the Vets taking a stand in the political realm, even for the Democrat party. I believe DC will be better for it.


37 posted on 03/06/2010 8:30:30 PM PST by Gene Eric (Your Hope has been redistributed. Here's your Change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

Do not blame P Bush or even the current Hemmroid N Chef for these asinine Rules of Engagement.

The blame for this, “Forever War” squarely belongs on the shoulders of Incompetent Pretty Boy Generals and Admirals for whom Victory is not an option..

They must be retired and replaced by Lions not professional Power Point Presenters and GQ Magazine Models talking about how they “Can keep up with the men in PT”, or the need to pave the way for a “Gay new world”...their focus on everything but Victory.

There are plenty of True Warriors in the Pipeline and there is nothing disloyal about demanding our men and women of the Armed Forces are led by Lions not House Cats.

W.


38 posted on 03/06/2010 11:12:51 PM PST by WLR (Remember 911 Remember 91 Iran delinda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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