Evil AMericans and Brits not killing insurgents at night so Taliban can get some sleep.

Its pretty obvious now that any intent of winning has evaporated.

The force thats supposed to uphold civilisation once we leave is so infiltrated that its now too dangerous to train with.

We've told the enemy we are leaving and we've told them when. They win by simply continuing to exist for a while longer.

The next couple of years is just PR so we can leave quietly without any politician admitting it was a waste of time, brave mens lives and treasure. Assess these ROE in that context and the logic behind them becomes clear (if appalling).

BTW, i'd be more than happy for somebody, anybody, to convince me i'm wrong.

I don't think people say that British or American soldiers are evil.

I have good friends in the military, one is in Afghan now and believe me, he doesn't want to be there!

Many soldiers join to 'defend their country'.

The criticism comes because we shouldn't be in Afghanistan, they are there for reasons the public are not informed of, many of the soldiers are as unaware of the truth than the public.

There is a horrible trend devleoping on ATS where people say we hate soldiers and hate UK or America etc, it just isn't true. We criticise the top dogs who are making policy and manipulating us to carry out their agenda.

reply to post by NavyDoc


Maybe it's time to get out of that country and leave those people alone. Imagine some of them do have to get some sleep and it is a rather unspecified target we are going after. I have heard of battles halted for Christmas but you are certainly right. Civility must be thwarted at every opportunity.

Originally posted by justwokeup
Its pretty obvious now that any intent of winning has evaporated.

The force thats supposed to uphold civilisation once we leave is so infiltrated that its now too dangerous to train with.

We've told the enemy we are leaving and we've told them when. They win by simply continuing to exist for a while longer.

The next couple of years is just PR so we can leave quietly without any politician admitting it was a waste of time, brave mens lives and treasure. Assess these ROE in that context and the logic behind them becomes clear (if appalling).

BTW, i'd be more than happy for somebody, anybody, to convince me i'm wrong.

So it wasn't going over there in the first place causing any kind of a problem -
It's telling them when we'd leave? WTF ? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

They win by simply continuing to exist for a while longer.

So just to be safe maybe we kill every insurgent and everyone who looks like an insurgent?

When we leave people are going to exist...hopefully.
I think that was the general idea.

reply to post by NavyDoc

How very considerate.

If one day a foreign power decides to attack, invade and occupy America, I'll hope that in-between their mass killing, they'll introduce some "niceties".

Even Hitler and the Nazis werent all bad.

Kudos to the US government.

reply to post by Wonderer2012

Thats not true.

We have to condemn the actions of the individual soldiers, police officers etc.

In Nuremberg it was determined that "just following orders" was not a valid excuse.

They have a moral obligation to lay down their weapons and refuse these illegal, immoral orders.

I would guess they use other tactics at night then such as emitting a high frequency sound barely perceptible to humans but still effective enough to ruin people's sleep and effect their health as well.

Maybe they can't use their boomsticks but they can look inside buildings with thermal imaging and beam directed energy at "militant aged men" to also effect them.

They've got more tools under their belt to use than just fire arms.

reply to post by NavyDoc



I was going to say, can't they just use silencers? What kind of BS is this?

The only reason I can think of for these orders being issued is because someone at the top wants the war to perpetuate. :shk:

Originally posted by newcovenant

Originally posted by justwokeup
Its pretty obvious now that any intent of winning has evaporated.

The force thats supposed to uphold civilisation once we leave is so infiltrated that its now too dangerous to train with.

We've told the enemy we are leaving and we've told them when. They win by simply continuing to exist for a while longer.

The next couple of years is just PR so we can leave quietly without any politician admitting it was a waste of time, brave mens lives and treasure. Assess these ROE in that context and the logic behind them becomes clear (if appalling).

BTW, i'd be more than happy for somebody, anybody, to convince me i'm wrong.

So it wasn't going over there in the first place causing any kind of a problem -
It's telling them when we'd leave? WTF ? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

They win by simply continuing to exist for a while longer.

So just to be safe maybe we kill every insurgent and everyone who looks like an insurgent?

When we leave people are going to exist...hopefully.
I think that was the general idea.

You are being deliberately obtuse.

My point is that the USA/NATO has accepted that we've been beaten, in private. That was obvious from the moment the withdrawal was announced.

From the moment we announced our departure the game was up. Why are we still continuing to 'fight' with no will to win? To save political face.

Anyone who dies from now till we leave is dying so that that politicians can pretend we've not been defeated in the same way as anybody else who went there.

In a few short years it'll all be back to square one. Our 'Allies' the Pakistanis are waiting patiently to exert their influence over a resurgent Taliban.

reply to post by justwokeup


I think what they have accepted is there is no winning in this. There is only minimal containment and isolation of a danger. Unfortunately it is a danger that grows exponentially daily as long as we are exerting our influence. If we leave we stem the flow of newer recruits but allow some existing extremists to grow bigger. It's a gamble and cutting our loses. Not like we don't have spy drones watching them every minute anyway. We should leave and keep an eye on them remotely.

Originally posted by gladtobehere
reply to post by Wonderer2012

 

Thats not true.

We have to condemn the actions of the individual soldiers, police officers etc.

In Nuremberg it was determined that "just following orders" was not a valid excuse.

They have a moral obligation to lay down their weapons and refuse these illegal, immoral orders.

I agree, but it is easier said than done and it's not a case of soldiers going around killing civilians on purpose- or at least when it comes to the British Army anyway.

It's a very, very complicated issue.

I've had conversations with many military personnel who have served in Iraq and Afghan and all of them have stories to tell of friends they have lost in battle.

As a soldier, you are trained to fight the enemy. If you see the violence, then you get caught up in that. If you are placed in Iraq or Afghan and come under fire, you're going to do what you are trained to do.

The fact of the matter is, they should not be there in the first place because the natural result of a military invasion is death and destruction. At what stage do we judge the soldiers who do their job? Can we blame them, many soldiers, the 25 year old+ guys will have been motivated to join by 9/11, it's just another example of the manipulation that drives this world and the hatred that the elite create to divide us further and further.

I'm aware making generalisations on an issue like this is bad, but my overall take is soldiers sign up to do good, they get caught up in what happens, can we really blame them? The blame falls to those who send them there to do the bidding of the minority elite.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Isn’t that ridiculous? I totally understand limiting civilian casualties but DAMN PEOPLE; IT’S A WARRRR!!

That makes me think of a Marine Corps Air Station near Camp Lejeune….take a look at the sign near their gate!

S&F Doc!

Only cowards kill people who are sleeping. It is a show of strength to keep your enemies well rested so that they can receive a proper ass whooping in the morning.

Originally posted by Wide-Eyes
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

I was going to say, can't they just use silencers? What kind of BS is this?

The only reason I can think of for these orders being issued is because someone at the top wants the war to perpetuate. :shk:

edit on 6-10-2012 by Wide-Eyes because: (no reason given)

I'm no gun expert- but there is no such thing as "silencers" - they're suppressors and they do not silence shots- they suppress the flash so they can't be seen

Yes, this is what our POTUS is doing. You know if we know this, then the Taliban know it and will take advantage. Is this plan just naivete or deliberate sabotage?

reply to post by MrPlow

Only cowards kill people who are sleeping. It is a show of strength to keep your enemies well rested so that they can receive a proper ass whooping in the morning.

Better known as Alinksy's rules for giving radicals the advantage. Somebody flunked the Art of War for telling our enemies when we will NOT hit them. This is why POTUS' policies are failing. Either he thinks they won't hate us as much for letting them sleep at night, or he really wants to let them win.

THis is why lawyers do not make good Commanders in Chief. Our very first Commander in Chief was a real leader of a real army and beat the soldiers of the tyrannical King, and before that he was a surveyor.

reply to post by seabag


Hey maybe Obama really meant it when he said corpse men?

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Iwinder

Originally posted by zonetripper2065
reply to post by Iwinder

 

Those lazy chumps were told to kick out the bad dudes or we're coming in. They had years, years of chances to can the 'ban but sat on their butts and even protected them.
Well eventually sh*t happens they deserve every last drop.

I guess the same logic would apply to Detroit? or perhaps Chicago? or any city in the US.

Regards, Iwinder

Those cities are war zones in some parts exactly because of the same PC issues.

But yet Afghanistan is not a war zone as a war was never declared, It is an invasion in progress of a sovereign nation which has never done any harm to the west.

Same for Iraq, to have a war you must declare war correct?

Why are we meddling so much in countries that have done us no harm?

If this was tried in more modern nations, you folks would be facing overwhelming numbers of hunting rifles and better technology.

There seems to be no pity at all for the people that live there and have no choice but to try and survive this atrocity.

Regards, Iwinder

Originally posted by newcovenant

Originally posted by justwokeup
Its pretty obvious now that any intent of winning has evaporated.

The force thats supposed to uphold civilisation once we leave is so infiltrated that its now too dangerous to train with.

We've told the enemy we are leaving and we've told them when. They win by simply continuing to exist for a while longer.

The next couple of years is just PR so we can leave quietly without any politician admitting it was a waste of time, brave mens lives and treasure. Assess these ROE in that context and the logic behind them becomes clear (if appalling).

BTW, i'd be more than happy for somebody, anybody, to convince me i'm wrong.

So it wasn't going over there in the first place causing any kind of a problem -
It's telling them when we'd leave? WTF ? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

They win by simply continuing to exist for a while longer.

So just to be safe maybe we kill every insurgent and everyone who looks like an insurgent?

When we leave people are going to exist...hopefully.
I think that was the general idea.

Actually going over there and taking out Sadaam got us a lot is support from the people. Sadaam was a brutal dictator who liked putting his political enemies into chipper shredders. We were welcomed as liberators. I recall Iraqis helping us pull down statues of Sadaam. My personal 'terp was in med school before he was arrested and tortured for years in a Baathist prison. He loved the US , we have him his life back.

There was peace initially , but when the US first suggested a withdrawal, sectarian violence exploded. Sunni and shia wanted to fill the vacuum left by our absence and they were willing to murder each other to get it. So we stayed and tried to preserve the peace , to keep those factions from massacring each other and the insurgency exploded. One of our biggest mistakes was not taking out A Sadr immediately and he utilized that error to expand his influence and military might.

What Sadaam was able to crush with cruelty, we could not stop with kindness .

Originally posted by Wide-Eyes
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

I was going to say, can't they just use silencers? What kind of BS is this?

The only reason I can think of for these orders being issued is because someone at the top wants the war to perpetuate. :shk:

edit on 6-10-2012 by Wide-Eyes because: (no reason given)

Silencers do not take away all of the noise, but just reduces it . I guess you could issue weak .. Caliber pistols, but you have to get as fully close to men with rifles to be practicable on a large scale. Rifle silencers only muffle the muzzle blast, but you still hear the supersonic crack of the bullet which very load . The only advantage to using silenced rifles is that it is difficult to determine where the shoptimg is from.