Danger of US rules of war

[bornright]

My question is who would join the military if they knew in advance the rules of war that would be placed on them before signing up. I joined the Marines during the Vietnam War and we had some very stupid rules of engagement that were placed on us. There is no doubt in my mind that it is even worse now. There is also no doubt in my mind that these rules have killed so many American personnel. It would be great to hear from the ones that have served in these recent wars their opinions.

Roosevelt was the last President to allow Generals and Admirals to conduct wars. Since then it's been micro-management by inept presidents, the worst being the lump of shit who occupies the Oval Office as we speak.

Just wondering how many Obama's got killed and how many Bush Dubya got killed.

Bush seemed to be willing to dispense with US soldier's lives. He put Bremer in charge and got the Iraqi Army and Police turning into insurgents. Such a stupid decision, anyone with half a brain could have worked out what was going to happen.

But then if you look at the fact that the Republicans like war, like having a large military, get lots of funding from the defense industry, having a protracted insurgency in Iraq suited their needs. Having ISIS does also.

Presidential candidates can now talk about how they're going to be tough on ISIS, just as they'll be tough on crime at home. It sounds good to people. They've always done it.

Nobody likes wars. Nobody wants wars. But if there must be a war, the only way to win is to turn the conduct of war over to the Generals and Admirals and say, "Git 'er done." That is the only way and there are no other ways.

Yeah, nothing worse than a president who thinks that he is the Commander in Chief of the Military. Whatever could give one that idea? It's like they believe in "the supremacy of the civil over the military authority" or some such commienism!

Actually there is something worse and that is a president that thinks he is the Commander in chief of the Military that knows nothing of war and respects the enemy more than he does his on troops. When this occurs their administration generally places rules of engagement that gives the enemy the advantage or at least an equal chance. When a politician fails in the nations goal in a war he just moves on to another political cause. When a military man fails in war he dies.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Actually there is something worse and that is a president that thinks he is the Commander in chief of the Military that knows nothing of war and respects the enemy more than he does his on troops. When this occurs their administration generally places rules of engagement that gives the enemy the advantage or at least an equal chance. When a politician fails in the nations goal in a war he just moves on to another political cause. When a military man fails in war he dies.

You talk about the nation's goals, as if the Republicans's goals are the nation's goals. Invading every enemy country isn't the goals of the country. It's just what some Republicans like to do.

Perhaps Obama's goals were to reduce the impact that Bush had on US relations with Muslim countries and on Muslims themselves. Bush had these goals to make the Republican Party more relevant. These aren't American's goals in any way.

Rules of engagement are there for a reason. You can't go around the world claiming to support Human Rights and Democracy, as the US does as a useful tool, especially with countries like Iran and China, and then be just as bad. This is something that is lost on a lot of people who don't have to make decisions and really don't do empathy either.

 

[9thIDdoc]

"Bush had these goals to make the Republican Party more relevant. These aren't American's goals in any way."

Bullshit. A majority of Americans were in favor of "Bush's wars"

".Rules of engagement are there for a reason. You can't go around the world claiming to support Human Rights and Democracy, as the US does as a useful tool, especially with countries like Iran and China, and then be just as bad. This is something that is lost on a lot of people who don't have to make decisions and really don't do empathy either."

More bullshit. Since when have we had enemies that knew or cared anything about human rights and democracy? All Obama does is convince them that we are timid weak and foolish. Empathy is for friends; not enemies. Decisions aren't hard to make but living and dieing by them can be as hard as it gets.

 

[bornright]

Actually there is something worse and that is a president that thinks he is the Commander in chief of the Military that knows nothing of war and respects the enemy more than he does his on troops. When this occurs their administration generally places rules of engagement that gives the enemy the advantage or at least an equal chance. When a politician fails in the nations goal in a war he just moves on to another political cause. When a military man fails in war he dies.

You talk about the nation's goals, as if the Republicans's goals are the nation's goals. Invading every enemy country isn't the goals of the country. It's just what some Republicans like to do.

Perhaps Obama's goals were to reduce the impact that Bush had on US relations with Muslim countries and on Muslims themselves. Bush had these goals to make the Republican Party more relevant. These aren't American's goals in any way.

Rules of engagement are there for a reason. You can't go around the world claiming to support Human Rights and Democracy, as the US does as a useful tool, especially with countries like Iran and China, and then be just as bad. This is something that is lost on a lot of people who don't have to make decisions and really don't do empathy either.

As I recall he took it to Congress and they voted for the war in very high numbers and yes it included a large majority of the democrats. Perhaps Obama's goals do not include the safety of the military personnel. Rules of engagement should not be put in place when it increases the danger of the military that we have in place.

We have gotten away from what I really wanted to see in this thread and that was to hear from some of the true vets from this current war and the negative or positive views they have on the rules of engagement today. I know this will tempt many of the fake soldiers to put in their false statements but hopefully they won't. I have not been in the military for some time but have heard from just a couple that have and they complained about needless dangers placed on them.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Yeah, nothing worse than a president who thinks that he is the Commander in Chief of the Military.

That's kind of what we have now. Would be nice to have one with some idea of what the military is for, and how it functions best.

 

[Agit8r]

"Bush had these goals to make the Republican Party more relevant. These aren't American's goals in any way."

Bullshit. A majority of Americans were in favor of "Bush's wars"

".Rules of engagement are there for a reason. You can't go around the world claiming to support Human Rights and Democracy, as the US does as a useful tool, especially with countries like Iran and China, and then be just as bad. This is something that is lost on a lot of people who don't have to make decisions and really don't do empathy either."

More bullshit. Since when have we had enemies that knew or cared anything about human rights and democracy? All Obama does is convince them that we are timid weak and foolish. Empathy is for friends; not enemies. Decisions aren't hard to make but living and dieing by them can be as hard as it gets.

He's correct. If your justification or invading a country is that the guy you overthrew was a tyrant who killed people willy nilly, then when you occupy the country for years, if you keep killing people willy nilly, the people will say you are the new tyrant. There is no way to achieve lasting peace in such a manner.

 

[Agit8r]

Yeah, nothing worse than a president who thinks that he is the Commander in Chief of the Military.

That's kind of what we have now. Would be nice to have one with some idea of what the military is for, and how it functions best.

What the Defense Department is for is right there in the name.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Yeah, nothing worse than a president who thinks that he is the Commander in Chief of the Military.

That's kind of what we have now. Would be nice to have one with some idea of what the military is for, and how it functions best.

What the Defense Department is for is right there in the name.

It was so renamed in an early exercise of political correctness in 1947.

The purpose of a military force is to destroy an enemy. Any other use is a misuse of men and materials.

 

[Agit8r]

Yeah, nothing worse than a president who thinks that he is the Commander in Chief of the Military.

That's kind of what we have now. Would be nice to have one with some idea of what the military is for, and how it functions best.

What the Defense Department is for is right there in the name.

It was so renamed in an early exercise of political correctness in 1947.

The purpose of a military force is to destroy an enemy. Any other use is a misuse of men and materials.

Then there was no reason to stay in Iraq or Afghanistan after the initial invasion. But then, just going around the world, starting French Revolutions, and heading home would surely be frowned upon.

 

[9thIDdoc]

"Bush had these goals to make the Republican Party more relevant. These aren't American's goals in any way."

Bullshit. A majority of Americans were in favor of "Bush's wars"

".Rules of engagement are there for a reason. You can't go around the world claiming to support Human Rights and Democracy, as the US does as a useful tool, especially with countries like Iran and China, and then be just as bad. This is something that is lost on a lot of people who don't have to make decisions and really don't do empathy either."

More bullshit. Since when have we had enemies that knew or cared anything about human rights and democracy? All Obama does is convince them that we are timid weak and foolish. Empathy is for friends; not enemies. Decisions aren't hard to make but living and dieing by them can be as hard as it gets.

He's correct. If your justification or invading a country is that the guy you overthrew was a tyrant who killed people willy nilly, then when you occupy the country for years, if you keep killing people willy nilly, the people will say you are the new tyrant. There is no way to achieve lasting peace in such a manner.

There was also a few minor details like the invasion of a friendly Nation, an attempt to kill our president, the war on terror, failure to abide the terms of the cease fire, the continuing cost of air war and interdiction, and the continuing threat of WMDs.
And-with the exception of a couple troops that snapped and went bazerk-our guys didn't kill "willy nilly". If anything we spent far too much money, time, trouble, and lives, trying to be sure of our targets. Not firing on the enemy who are firing on you because they are in a mosque is an idiotic ROE that cost casualties as one example. .

 

[Agit8r]

"Bush had these goals to make the Republican Party more relevant. These aren't American's goals in any way."

Bullshit. A majority of Americans were in favor of "Bush's wars"

".Rules of engagement are there for a reason. You can't go around the world claiming to support Human Rights and Democracy, as the US does as a useful tool, especially with countries like Iran and China, and then be just as bad. This is something that is lost on a lot of people who don't have to make decisions and really don't do empathy either."

More bullshit. Since when have we had enemies that knew or cared anything about human rights and democracy? All Obama does is convince them that we are timid weak and foolish. Empathy is for friends; not enemies. Decisions aren't hard to make but living and dieing by them can be as hard as it gets.

He's correct. If your justification or invading a country is that the guy you overthrew was a tyrant who killed people willy nilly, then when you occupy the country for years, if you keep killing people willy nilly, the people will say you are the new tyrant. There is no way to achieve lasting peace in such a manner.

There was also a few minor details like the invasion of a friendly Nation, an attempt to kill our president, the war on terror, failure to abide the terms of the cease fire, the continuing cost of air war and interdiction, and the continuing threat of WMDs.
And-with the exception of a couple troops that snapped and went bazerk-our guys didn't kill "willy nilly". If anything we spent far too much money, time, trouble, and lives, trying to be sure of our targets. Not firing on the enemy who are firing on you because they are in a mosque is an idiotic ROE that cost casualties as one example. .

Nonsense.

 

[9thIDdoc]

"Nonsense".

No, your videos did not prove any murder or even a violation of ROE. Basic propaganda. to get muslim sympathizers all weepy eyed over nothing. War. People die. That's the job. Get over it.

 

[HenryBHough]

In a war you want to win there should be no rules. Well....one....yeah:

Rule #1: You lose; you die.

 

[frigidweirdo]

"Bush had these goals to make the Republican Party more relevant. These aren't American's goals in any way."

Bullshit. A majority of Americans were in favor of "Bush's wars"

".Rules of engagement are there for a reason. You can't go around the world claiming to support Human Rights and Democracy, as the US does as a useful tool, especially with countries like Iran and China, and then be just as bad. This is something that is lost on a lot of people who don't have to make decisions and really don't do empathy either."

More bullshit. Since when have we had enemies that knew or cared anything about human rights and democracy? All Obama does is convince them that we are timid weak and foolish. Empathy is for friends; not enemies. Decisions aren't hard to make but living and dieing by them can be as hard as it gets.

I don't understand your first response. It has nothing to do with people being in favor of the wars. People were in favor of Iraq because the media spends so much time making people be in favor. They're doing the same with Iran, if you hadn't noticed.

Saudi Arabia is worse than Iran, but you hardly ever hear about Saudi Arabia. It doesn't let women drive cars, it doesn't allow a lot of stuff. But when someone pisses badly in Iran you hear about it. Why?

It's simple.

The Powell Doctrine requires public support for any military intervention, so the right go out and MAKE public support for their wars. Hardly difficult.

Oh, Saddam killed people, Saddam is evil, Saddam had WMDs, Saddam talks with al-Qaeda who blew up the USS Cole and the bomb at the Twin Towers. Some of it's true, some of it's not true. Either way people believe.

People get sucked in by the media and told what to believe. They get told to believe the two main parties, and they get told to support these wars.

That doesn't mean this whole thing wasn't done for the interests of the Republican Party. It wasn't hard to get public support after 9/11. Bush was making al-Qaeda the big evil. Again, not hard. However the implication was that ALL MUSLIMS were responsible. Throw in a little link between al-Qaeda and Saddam, which wasn't there and people are jumping on board of Republican interests.

As for your second statement. You clearly didn't read what I wrote.

The US uses Human Rights as a tool. "Hey, China, your human rights record stinks, you should be more like us" is a way the US has of getting at China. It's a way to try and destabilise China, try to get the people to oppose the government.

Therefore the US has to pretend that it gives a damn about Human Rights. You can't go around doing what you like THEN criticize others for not obeying Human Rights. Well the US tries, but hey....

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

"Conan! What is best in life?"

"Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and listen to the lamentations of the women!"

If you're going to fight a war, stomp them till they can no longer get up.

Otherwise, stay the hell home.