Ah, thank you. Now it is clear that you really have nothing resembling an argument. You're just a war cheerleader..
So, what should I be doing? Rooting for defeat, like you? Does everyone have to become a carbon copy of
(YOU) ? Will nothing less satisfy your ravenous self-absorption?
No. Now it is clear that your interpretation of the rules of engagement would allow insurgents to prevent troops from firing on them by the simple expedient of always having some unarmed people with them, while the insurgents would be free to fire at will without fear of return fire.
Like I said, and you avoided: You've devised the perfect strategy for losing a war. Are congratulations in order? Want a medal? I don't think they award medals for war-losing efficiency.
First, do you really have such little respect for our armed forces that you think denying them the ability to randomly slaughter anyone they think is holding something that looks like a gun will lead to an insurgent victory? Without the ability to kill children in vans, the insurgents will boot us out of there in no time.
Well. That was quite a mouthful of what I don't think. But since you put it so persuasively...
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.
Didn't you read the post?
But this brings up a more interesting point: what the hell do you think we're doing over there? What is our mission?
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.
If you read and listen to Petraeus, we're engaged in a counterinsurgency mission where the expression of force is often counterproductive.
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.
The rules of engagement are always essential, but what dirty-no-good-hippy Patraeus is telling you, is that the use of force in counterinsurgency has to be closely monitored. Collateral damage, of the sort we saw in that video, will destroy the ability to battle back the insurgency. They just created a means to recruit, turn the population against America.
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?
BTW: dead people don't recruit.
So you're wrong on a number of levels. First, "winning" is not a catch-all excuse to kill anyone we want, and second, you're prescription for "winning" contradicts directly with the expressed operating procedure of the Lieutenant General and Commander of operations.
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 guess Hitler's mistake was just losing, then.
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.
No one over there threatens us. They got lucky once. Now we lock cockpit doors. They'll probably set off a bomb sometime, somewhere, but that's a risk we run living in a free society.
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?
Notice that freedom bombs falling in Afghanistan didn't stop the guy from Connecticut from trying to blow up Times Square.
Right. As long as some terrorist, somewhere, tries to do something, it's all a failure, and we are defeated.
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.
You're just engaging in coward's theater.
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.
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.
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.
