Yes, why do we have such precise rules of engagement when the enemy has none?
And what, exactly, are the IRAQIS doing to eliminate the bloodthristy terrorists in their midst?
The Iraqi troops should have our troops' backs, but to my knowledge they don't.
This is probably an off-the-wall thought, but I have wondered why the soldiers were described by the witness as "getting into a vehicle" with the masked attackers, which would imply that they weren't fighting back much. While it's possible that the witness is lying, I wonder if perhaps there was someone there they knew (an Iraqi) who gave them reason to believe that they would not be harmed. Then again, the details are so vague that I'm probably just letting my imagination get out of control. Still, I think relying on the Iraqis, while I know we have to do it for various reasons, could be a little risky for our guys.
PLEASE NOTE: I AM NOT DEFENDING THOSE IRAQUIS WHO ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM!
They are lining up to join the police or the army, and being blown up by their own countrymen. They are fighting alongside (well, maybe just a little bit behind) our heroes. SOME of them are trying.
And what would be so bad about a little civil war? What is so worth saving over there?
Before you all pile on, I've supported this war (Yep, I'm proud to say I'm ProWar!), this President and our troops since 11:00 a.m. 9-11-01. I'm just getting tired of our side always playing by the rules, and the reffing SUCKS!!!