NO. I explained cogently why it is impossible to defeat an enemy if your RoE prevents troops from engaging the enemy. To defeat you, the enemy only has to be intelligent enough to take advantage of your absurd RoE. An IQ of 65 would be sufficient. To do so, the enemy need only use unarmed persons as human shields. Because your RoE forbids firing on armed persons when unarmed persons are near.
"My" ROE's? I've only used those provided by BAC from the American military.
You seem to have an issue with the way our troops are trained.
And now that you're cornered like a rat, you want to change the subject.
Sorry Charlie. Your hatred of the mission is no excuse for wanting to see our armed forces defeated, just to feed your bloated ego.
I'd have to know what they'd need to do to win in order to understand how they can be defeated.
There is no way a bunch of scrub thugs and gangsters in Iraq or Afghanistan will be able to "defeat" our army in terms of inflicting serious damage.
If you read Patraeus' work on counterinsurgency, you would recognize that this isn't remotely the issue.
Not as counterproductive as providing the enemy impenetrable armor by the simple expedient of taking advantage of your absurd interpretation of the RoE. Just keep some unarmed people around the armed ones at all times, and fire at will. Doesn't get any simpler than that.
This is infantile. I simply quoted back to you the ROE's provided by the US military.
The use of force in that action was very closely monitored. Video of the entire incident was recorded. The pilots provided a detailed description of everything they saw and did.
So. Has Petraeus charged the pilots with a "war crime" yet? Like you would?
Patraeus defends his troops. He's actually backed off of his own counterinsurgency philosophies and is, for example, bringing tanks and other heavy artillery into Afghanistan.
But you're making a silly argument to try and avoid dealing with the content of his words. You are just wrong based on the US Military's explanation of how to battle a counterinsurgency.
BTW: dead people don't recruit.
Yes, martyrdom has proven to be useless throughout history.
That might be the dumbest thing you've said yet.
If our troops can win without even firing on the enemy, they must be supermen. Are you saying our troops are supermen? Or maybe they're just very persuasive talkers. Because the insurgents could have easily prevented the troops from ever firing on them, if your interpretation of the RoE is correct.
I see a lot about "winning." WHat do you think that means. Do you agree or disagree with Petraeus on that score?
Hitler made a lot of mistakes, but nothing nearly as stupid as the mistake you would admittedly make. Hitler at least gave his troops a chance.
Haha, that's an amazing non sequitor.
And I would consider withdrawal from Iraq to be significantly less of a mistake than the Holocaust. You clearly disagree. That's interesting.
Changing the subject again. It's OK to impose impossible constraints on the troops because you don't think we should be there. Is that your position?
Know where you can stick your position? Know where the troops are going to stick your position?
Childish strawman. The ROE's are from the military. THEY made them. Clearly they don't impose impossible constraints, unless you're arguing that the military is trying to lose.
Right. As long as some terrorist, somewhere, tries to do something, it's all a failure, and we are defeated.
No, it's a reality of life. In a free society, there will always be danger. Dropping bombs in caves can't change that.
I'm not a coward. I move on with my life knowing that risk.
Dream on. Trouble is, with the chicken pen full of cluckers like you, you're not that far wrong. Chickens are easy pickins. I'm thinking me, five teenage girls, and your RoE could do the job. There's you some hyperbole you can latch on to. Pity is, it's not that hyperbolic. Your RoE really is that absurd.
Ah yes, the people terrified of bearded men in caves thousands of miles away are the brave ones. THis is an Orwellian understanding of cowardice.
You're just yammering desperately, trying every trick you can think of to make it look like you're winning an argument which, if won, loses a war. As I've cogently explained several times now.
Except for the part where you haven't even explained what it would mean to win.
You can't beat em if you can't shoot em, genius. And if your interpretation of the RoE is in effect, you can't shoot em. But they can shoot you. Because some of them will have weapons. But you won't be able to shoot the ones who have weapons because there will always be some who don't have weapons. So you won't be able to shoot at any insurgents at all, because the jack-leg lawyers will get you if you do that.
Again, your view is directly at odds with General Petreaus. WHy do you hate our military leaders?
Once again, I feel congratulations are in order. You have succeeded in devising a foolproof strategy for losing a war. Which seems to be all the rage these days among the lefto-chickens.
Yeah, my foolproof strategy for not losing stupid wars is to not fight stupid wars.
