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

Skip to comments.

US refused to kill 190 Taliban at funeral
Fox News | 9/13/06

Posted on 09/13/2006 6:13:58 AM PDT by pabianice

Haven't seen this posted yet. Fox is reporting that recently one of our UAVs filmed in live time a Taliban funeral in Afghanistan at which 190 Taliban leaders were shown lined-up in ranks. Fox is showing the photo and reporting that US policy forbids the killing of Taliban in cemetaries and thus the US watched the funeral but took no action to kill the 190 murderers attending. If this is true -- tough question here -- how is Bush any better than Clinton regarding the war on terror?


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: compassionate; gentler; wearenotanimals; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-159 next last
To: HeartlandOfAmerica

ROE for terrorists. I was told this has been in effect for years. I am passing on what I heard, and stated so. Screw klintoon! He is not worthy of anyone taking up for him about anything!

LLS


121 posted on 09/13/2006 9:59:26 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (Preserve America... kill terrorists... destroy dims!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

The "Rules of Engagement" appear to be designed to ensure we don't win. This is asinine.


122 posted on 09/13/2006 10:47:47 AM PDT by 21st Century Crusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HeartlandOfAmerica
SCREW THE HIGH ROAD1

If we can win with honor, why not? I'll always take the "high road" regardless of what my dishonorable and cowardlike peers might think.

123 posted on 09/13/2006 1:15:13 PM PDT by GingisK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
If this is true -- tough question here -- how is Bush any better than Clinton regarding the war on terror?

Change "tough" to "dumb" and you'll have your answer.

124 posted on 09/13/2006 3:52:29 PM PDT by Coop (FR = a lotta talk, but little action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GingisK
I'll always take the "high road" regardless of what my dishonorable and cowardlike peers might think.

Well, I have a daughter on the ground in Iraq and her husband isn't even 30 days back from his deployment to kuwait so I got a dog in this fight.

It's REALLY easy to talk about the "high road" sitting behind a computer. If you were on the ground, in the thick of the fight, I'm sure that those sentiments would disappear in less time than it would take you to blink.

America hasn't won her wars by taking the "high road". That's a late PC development foisted on us by Liberals. America has won her wars by becoming ruthless when the situation called for it.

Please spare me the "not me, I'm different" also.

COnversation over

125 posted on 09/13/2006 4:41:17 PM PDT by HeartlandOfAmerica ('... we want the human rights officers, we want the Americans to come back' - Abu Ghraib Prisoner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

So I guess we aren't really at war after all....


126 posted on 09/13/2006 6:20:24 PM PDT by clintonh8r (American first, conservative second.....Republican a distant third.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HeartlandOfAmerica
Please spare me the "not me, I'm different" also.

Honey, I was in the army during a war that wasn't in fashion. We took the "high road" simply because we are a moral people with a code of ethics. We also had a Code of Conduct specified by Congress. I also operated under a code of conduct specified by God. There is no reason whatsoever to conduct oneself in a manner that would trouble the conscience later in life. All soldiers suffer from non-physical wounds, so it is pointless to inflict such upon oneself beyond what is required for effective combat.

You would best be proud of your family members for conducting themselves in a moral fashion, even in the heat of battle. That would give them honor built upon honor.

Part of warfare is "winning the hearts and minds" of the enemy. That all-important tactic is seriously hampered whenever troops conduct themselves in brutal or nondiscriminatory ways.

Americans generally "take the high road" in warfare, because that is the nature of winners and a moral people. We have done so by training and command. Infractions that occured were never sanctioned or permitted. Immoral acts occur during berserker rages or lapse in morality due to extended exposure to carnage.

127 posted on 09/14/2006 8:08:20 AM PDT by GingisK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: halfright
This is what the CIA was designed for....

Totally incorrect. The CIA is an intelligence (information) gathering and processing entity. Assassinations are field expedients.

128 posted on 09/14/2006 8:12:10 AM PDT by GingisK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: HeartlandOfAmerica
COnversation over

Take no prisoners? ;-D

There is a lot of printed matter on this topic. I've browsed DOD and Army sites for material; and, there is an enormous supply of stuff. The following link was provided on a US Army training site:

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/j/justwar.htm

It is sound military policy to show mercy and select targets with care. It makes it possible to end the war.

129 posted on 09/14/2006 9:16:19 AM PDT by GingisK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: michaelt
You can ask if Bush is doing enough, but you can't seriously ask if Bush is no different from Clinton, can you?

Good point! Both get off scott free among their base supporters (along with OBL and the Taliban). Some on this board even blame "the officers on the ground" for not trashing their oath and disobeying the orders of the president and those appointed over them by going after the Taliban anyway. Bushbots and Clintonestas, it doesn't matter who wins the Global War on Terror so long their pretender-in-chief stays above the fray...sczeech!

130 posted on 09/14/2006 9:31:05 AM PDT by meandog (While Bush will never fill them, Clinton isn't fit to even lick the soles of Reagan's shoes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
Bush does not write the rules of engagement in Afghanistan. And I'm certain nobody asked him for permission to hit that target.

Gee, I always thought the president was commander-in-chief of the armed forces...thanks for correcting the Constitutional error.

131 posted on 09/14/2006 9:32:56 AM PDT by meandog (While Bush will never fill them, Clinton isn't fit to even lick the soles of Reagan's shoes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Mister Da
Makes you wonder if Bush is fighting to win, or just prolonging the fight to manipulate the American people. LBJ would be proud.

I quit wondering long ago! Just like LBJ, Carter and his "Read My Lips" old man was, Bush is a product of puppet handlers and, unlike Reagan or Truman or even Eisenhower for that matter, refuses to be an accountable leader.

132 posted on 09/14/2006 9:39:38 AM PDT by meandog (While Bush will never fill them, Clinton isn't fit to even lick the soles of Reagan's shoes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie
This kind of crap comes from the Pentagon. If this administration can be blamed for any part of these stupid rules of engagement it would be for not cleaning out the perfumed princes and attorneys in the Pentagon still operating under U.N. policies.

Okay, well who runs the Pentagon then? Oh, yeah, Rummy does...and, BTW, I would deem it a rock-solid requirement for a commander-in-chief to carefully read the rules of engagement in war and if Bush didn't, he's exactly what the Dims accuse him of being: STUPID!

133 posted on 09/14/2006 9:45:23 AM PDT by meandog (While Bush will never fill them, Clinton isn't fit to even lick the soles of Reagan's shoes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: HeartlandOfAmerica
Here are a few documents from the "US Army War College" that explain why certain rules of engagement are necessary:

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB231.pdf
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB294.pdf
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB219.pdf

These issues are important; and, reflex action to "kill them all" is not a good way to find peace and stability in the future.

134 posted on 09/14/2006 9:47:08 AM PDT by GingisK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: meandog
"Gee, I always thought the president was commander-in-chief of the armed forces...thanks for correcting the Constitutional error."

He is. So do you really think that means he spends all his time running the military? I guess we should just get rid of all the leadership in the military because the Commander in Chief does it all. No point in having decision makers in the military. The man in the Whitehouse can replace the thousands of people at the Pentagon. No point in having command staffs operating all over the world handling the wide variety of crisis zones we are currently operating in. We'll just have the Commander in Chief do all the work. I'm sure all the people we elect to run this country are absolute experts in the UCMJ, international law, military rules of engagement and the constantly changing environment in areas like Southwest Asia. Heck, next time I have a question regarding anything in my military job, I'll just call the Whitehouse.

Did you even think about what you typed before you hit the post button, or did you actually think you were making a useful point?

135 posted on 09/14/2006 9:47:32 AM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
He is. So do you really think that means he spends all his time running the military? I guess we should just get rid of all the leadership in the military because the Commander in Chief does it all. No point in having decision makers in the military. The man in the Whitehouse can replace the thousands of people at the Pentagon. No point in having command staffs operating all over the world handling the wide variety of crisis zones we are currently operating in. We'll just have the Commander in Chief do all the work. I'm sure all the people we elect to run this country are absolute experts in the UCMJ, international law, military rules of engagement and the constantly changing environment in areas like Southwest Asia. Heck, next time I have a question regarding anything in my military job, I'll just call the Whitehouse. Did you even think about what you typed before you hit the post button, or did you actually think you were making a useful point?

In the Navy I retired from, there is a principle called "ultimate accountability"! Whether he was ashore on liberty or at sea but asleep in his rack, many a skipper has been drummed out of the service when his ship suffered a major incident. If Bush did not carefully read the rules of engagement in the war or at least direct Rumsfeld to do so and advise him on the rules, then he's a fool!

136 posted on 09/14/2006 10:01:43 AM PDT by meandog (While Bush will never fill them, Clinton isn't fit to even lick the soles of Reagan's shoes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Rokke

Actually, ROE is determined at very high levels, and has NCA approval before it can be implemented in the field. Like everything else, the ROE is stated very broadly at the NCA level, and then defined more specifically at each lower level to conform to the intent of the CIC's approved ROE, while providing clear guidance to the warfighter. So in a broad sense, the President did approve the ROE, and his staff put it together.

That said, once the ROE is stated, field commanders should not need to ask higher ups for further approval to execute, unless such is required by the ROE.


137 posted on 09/14/2006 10:12:40 AM PDT by Magnum44 (Terrorism is a disease, precise application of superior force is the ONLY cure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: meandog
"In the Navy I retired from, there is a principle called "ultimate accountability"! "

It's still there. Are you really comparing the Commander and Chief of the US military to the Captain of a ship?! Are you suggesting the President of the United States should be fired every time a ship runs aground? Should we hold Bush accountable for every tactical decision made everywhere our military serves? If so, then I suppose you are a raging advocate of Whitehouse direction of every decision made on the battlefield. Sorry, but the Navy you retired from paid a price for that kind of idiocy several decades ago, and that's why we don't do it now.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about when you talk about "rules of engagement". Do you realize, for example, that every theater we operate in has its own rules of engagement, and within each theater, there are different rules for different zones within that theater. And the rules for one service are not the same as the rules for another. The Army has different rules than the Marine Corps who has different rules than the Air Force. And those rules are hundreds of pages thick and change depending on the threat level and battlefield environment. Rumsfeld could brief the President 24 hours a day, 365 days a year and still not keep him current on all the ROE in all the areas we are currently operating in. In your time in the Navy did you even once operate in a combat environment? Do you know that in the course of a single mission, a Naval Aviator will probably have to operate under several different sets of ROE depending on where his aircraft is at that particular minute? Do you have any idea what you are talking about? You certainly aren't giving any indication you do on this thread.

And you call the President a "fool". It's almost amusing.

138 posted on 09/14/2006 10:25:47 AM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

If you have to ask, you don't deserve an answer....


139 posted on 09/14/2006 10:27:13 AM PDT by Osage Orange (The old/liberal/socialist media is the most ruthless and destructive enemy of this country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: avg_freeper

Good post........


140 posted on 09/14/2006 10:28:03 AM PDT by Osage Orange (The old/liberal/socialist media is the most ruthless and destructive enemy of this country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-159 next last

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