The Rules of Engagement Need to Change NOW

[Fingon]

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8...2001936,00.html

 

When are U.S. forces in Afghanistan allowed to shoot back when they come under attack? An episode last month illustrates the quandary American troops face. In early June, on the southern edge of Kandahar city, a small Army convoy drove into a nighttime ambush. Within seconds, a turret gunner in one of the vehicles was hit in the arm. Muzzle flashes pierced the dark, alerting fellow troops to where the shots were coming from. But, thinking that they had to clearly identify the triggerman before firing back, they waited before retaliating, even as rounds of hostile fire poured in. Only after an officer radioed back with the go-ahead did the Americans return heavy fire. By then, the militants had melted away

 

In Marjah, the desert town in central Helmand province where U.S. Marines are battling a resurgent Taliban, roving groups of militants on foot and motorbike take potshots at the Americans when they are not setting up ambushes and IEDs. Yet even if Marines see an attack taking shape around them, the current rules of engagement mandate that they cannot shoot unless they are first shot at. The insurgents know this, so they often "drop and go": firing from a distance, then abandoning their weapons. Sometimes Marines never get a single shot off in defense, an exercise in restraint that is especially taxing for the American military's hardiest warriors. "It's hard as hell holding back when you know what's coming every time," says a lance corporal from Lima Company, Third Battalion, Sixth Marines. It's a commonly held grievance, but as usual the Marines make do. Staff Sergeant Christopher Whitman, a platoon leader, argues that discipline is the only way to avoid the big mistakes that forfeit the support of the traditionally xenophobic locals, difficult as it may be at times. Says Whitman: "[The Taliban's] will to fight may be as strong as ours. But it's our duty to keep ours measured."

 

 

Our rules of engagement are absolutely disgusting.

[Hossage]

My father likes to tell a story about directing artillery fire. Upon finding a column of enemy troops marching in the open, he attempted to fire upon them, before they get closer. He was not allowed, because they were in Cambodia and he was in Vietnam. So he put in white phosphorus shells, called in a location, and adjusted 90 degrees for wind.

 

When his superiors learned what he had done, they called him for a bigtime chewing out. He said, "The attack was directed against their equipment, sir. I was burning the packs off their backs."

 

 

Why are we even there?

[Booster4324]

My father likes to tell a story about directing artillery fire. Upon finding a column of enemy troops marching in the open, he attempted to fire upon them, before they get closer. He was not allowed, because they were in Cambodia and he was in Vietnam. So he put in white phosphorus shells, called in a location, and adjusted 90 degrees for wind.

 

When his superiors learned what he had done, they called him for a bigtime chewing out. He said, "The attack was directed against their equipment, sir. I was burning the packs off their backs."

 

 

Why are we even there?

 

You are a !@#$ing liar and troll. It really is that simple.

[3rdnlng]

You are a !@#$ing liar and troll. It really is that simple.

 

 

Sleep much? Drink much?

[Hossage]

Booster's unrequited love for Dakota Fanning makes him a little testy sometimes.

[LeviF]

Booster's unrequited love for Dakota Fanning makes him a little testy sometimes.

So he's self-loathing too? But Booster isn't a homosexual Republican, is he?

[Hossage]

Why a homosexual republican?

 

Since you asked, I would guess he is not gay, but has AIDS, and is a Republican.

 

Would a homosexual republican be more self-loathing for the contradiction between his lifestyle and political views than a heterosexual liberal, considering the root of liberalism is self-loathing to start with?

[meazza]

You are a !@#$ing liar and troll. It really is that simple.

 

Why feed the troll?

[LeviF]

Why a homosexual republican?

 

Since you asked, I would guess he is not gay, but has AIDS, and is a Republican.

 

Would a homosexual republican be more self-loathing for the contradiction between his lifestyle and political views than a heterosexual liberal, considering the root of liberalism is self-loathing to start with?

I used homosexual republican because they've been fairly prevalent in the news in recent years. Probably the most obvious self-loathing individuals, other than homosexual fundamentalist Christians.

 

As for the rest of your post