Soldiers Frustrated At Being "Nice Guy" (MUST READ!!)

Chicago Sun-Times (Daily Telegraph) ^ | March 25, 2003 | Oliver Poole

[Stavka2]

Worse, this came from a company commander.

[tm22721]

Vietnam - all over again.

I'm afraid that you may be right.

BUMP

[Stavka2]

Why? We protect the biggest nest of vipers of them all: Saudi Arabia, only costs us $10 billion a year. We let the bin Ladens be taken out of the country on 911. The administration has been dogging anyone sueing the Saudies. This is rediculous.

[PISANO]

The comments by our soldiers remind one of VIETNAM. We are going to win this, but it will be at a MUCH higher cost for our SIDE, because of this "NO CIVILIAN or CIVILIAN INFRASTRUCTURE" campaign. I will never understand OUR passion for a kinder, gentler WAR. Our enemies are out to entirely destroy WESTERN CIVILIZATION and we play nice, nice. Shameful! God Bless our TROOPS, never give up, never give in and stay the course.

[honway]

From #53

To help weigh those issues, the Pentagon has dispatched dozens of attorneys to command posts in the region. Their job: help keep the United States legal if President Bush unleashes its fury against Saddam's forces

If this continues, it may be soon time for Freerepublic.com to define what is meant by the words, "Support our troops."

[riri]

Vietnam - all over again

I can't believe we are going to f this up. I just can't believe it.

[Stavka2]

No, you're wrong. Always allow surrenders...beat the hell out of them but allow surrenders. The enemy must always believe that surrender is a better alternative then fighting...even a cornored rabbit can be vicious.

[Stavka2]

US has lost more then 15, it lost 10 marines in one vehicle and so far has not faced the main Iraqi resistence except with airframes.

[patriot31u]

What the hell ever happened to the Powell doctrine where you defeat your enemy swiftly by using overwhelming force? This is why they don't need those reporters with the troops. I think punches are being pulled because high command is worried about what gets seen back home. Kick the reporters out. Anyone here actually think the American public is ready to see on TV what a soldier will have to do when faced with a 12 year-old pointing an AK-47 at him? War is ugly, it does not have to have every detail put on live national news. That is what documentarys are for.

Drew

[riri]

If this continues, it may be soon time for Freerepublic.com to define what is meant by the words, "Support our troops."

I have to agree. I can't sit here and watch our guys die because we are trying to win a seat in a popularity contest...

[Stavka2]

Absolutely correct...what is it with stars that causes men to forget their roots?

[pawdoggie]

Vietnam - all over again. I'm afraid that you may be right.

Some of you folks sound more negative than the ninnies in the Dominant Media. Get a grip! If this were WWII we'd only be 20 miles inside Iraq at this point, and the press would be calling it a "Blitzkrieg" advance. The 20 or so dead we've lost so far would be in the hundreds, and that would be considered "light" casualties.

[honway]

is why they don't need those reporters with the troops. I think punches are being pulled because high command is worried about what gets seen back home

Exactly. Who came up with that brilliant idea?

[KingPin]

Screw this. If top brass are going to play these idiotic games and not protect our brave men and women, then we need to get them out of there.

Don't get me wrong, I support our troops and this war, but damn it give our troops whatever they need to do their damn job. If the choice is between protecting our combat troops and maybe hitting some collaterals or not providing firepower because we're scared of Iraqi civilies, then it's a no brainer in my book.

Let our men do their job and protect them or get the them out of there.

[Stavka2]

How many Americans cheered when they watched Red Dawn...no different Partisan warfare...what Iraq is doing...deal with it, its historically expected.

[section9]

No, you're wrong. Always allow surrenders...beat the hell out of them but allow surrenders. The enemy must always believe that surrender is a better alternative then fighting...even a cornored rabbit can be vicious.

Thank you. A voice of reason in the bedlam.

The primary agents of this guerilla operation have been the Ba'ath Militia, the Fedayeen Saddam, and the Special Security Organization. They have been sent to stiffen the resolve of the local regular troops. As you are aware, the NKVD was used by Stalin to keep wavering regular Red Army troops (not Guards units, they had pretty good unit cohesion, even in 1941) from breaking in that first black year of the Patriotic War. In addition, the Iraqis are not Russians. There's a big difference, and it shows on the battlefield.

As it begins to look like Saddam's time is up, the score settling will be bloody. The Regular Army has resented the Guard and the SSO for years, and has seen many loyal, patriotic officers executed on the whim of the Leader.

Meanwhile, the arm of decision will make itself felt within the week as 4th ID lands.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[muggs]

If our politicians and generals are not prepared to wage total war, our soldiers,sailors, mairines and airman will pay the ultimate price for this PC war.

Bump

[honway]

Their job: help keep the United States legal if President Bush unleashes its fury against Saddam's forces

I could save them a lot of money on the lawyers:

If the company commander in the field determines a target is a threat to his men, kill it. End of legal brief.

[texson66]

Agree!