Is this true? @ Rules of Engagement

[whitetrashmama]

The other day on Rush Limbaugh a caller identifying herself as a wife of an army officer who is presently in Afghanistan had some chilling information for us all. She said that the soldiers there are not allowed to fire back even when receiving incoming rocket grenades because of "Rules of Engagement" and this includes when they can actually see the enemy individual loading up the grenade-launcher on their screens.

I have yet to google around for the verification, but this caller seemed very believable and I am astounded: how far is this madness going to go? How can it have gone this far with no rebellion within the ranks? What are we doing over there at all, if this is true?

Military Wife on the Rules of Engagement
October 01, 2012


BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/10/01/military_wife_on_the_rules_of_engagement

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I wouldn't be surprised if reelected, Obama will have us read Miranda warning before returning fire

 

[geauxtohell]

The other day on Rush Limbaugh a caller identifying herself as a wife of an army officer who is presently in Afghanistan had some chilling information for us all. She said that the soldiers there are not allowed to fire back even when receiving incoming rocket grenades because of "Rules of Engagement" and this includes when they can actually see the enemy individual loading up the grenade-launcher on their screens.

I have yet to google around for the verification, but this caller seemed very believable and I am astounded: how far is this madness going to go? How can it have gone this far with no rebellion within the ranks? What are we doing over there at all, if this is true?

The right to self defense is inherent. It is an illegal order to not low soldiers to return fire. Even if coming from a mosque. I suspect bullshit.

 

[whitetrashmama]

Here is the link:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/10/01/military_wife_on_the-rules-of-engagement

I notice that the link brings up a partial blank, but if you go to the home screen for Limbaugh's 2012/10/01 show, you can scroll down through the titles and then either listen or read the transcript.

If the link does not work for you, google limbaugh "rules of engagement"

googling on afghanistan "rules of engagement" brings up a wider set of articles and discussions.

I am close to the end of my allotted time on this computer, but I am going to push our active military to the front of my morning rosary. This is extremely upsetting to me. It also throws new light on the plight of our veterans with PTSD: there is a big difference between what they are experiencing and what someone who has been allowed to fight has experienced. We must pray for each one of these men and women!

(go ahead and laugh, atheists: it is still a very powerful weapon!)

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Clearly the "Tolly-bahn" and AQ are winning in Afghanistan

 

[cereal_killer]

It's not true, but they have been neutered.

This will anger you and rightfully so. It's all politically motivated (oh what a surprise!)

America

 

[Katzndogz]

It is true. The Rules of Engagement were changed in response to civilian casualties.

This isn't from Rush Limbaugh.

Lieberman: Rules of engagement protecting civilians ‘hurt morale’ | The Raw Story

 

[whitetrashmama]

I think something is very very sinister in the whole military world that the media in general is ignoring. Even people like Limbaugh don't go into any real depth on the sea-change that has happened in recent years. While we are sending men and women in to be nothing but targets, we are also upgrading the capacity of machines to take over the aggressive side of war as in armed drones, etc.

I think that the very fundamental nature of soldiering or warrior-ship has changed in ways that are waaay beyond political parties or even countries and nations. I'll go fishing for some links to back this comment up, since it is my bad habit to post first and google second....

 

[whitetrashmama]

This *&^%$# library computer won't let me copy-paste links, I yave to type the whole URL! Grrrrr! So just google armed drones virtual war and see a lot of articles.

My take on this is that there is a connection, perhaps unplanned and unconscious or perhaps "conspiratorial", a connection between the emasculation of human warriors and the enhancement of machine warriors.

We may be seeing our last human army. This may also be why our society disrespects veterans today compared to past wars, something which was beginning in the Vietnam era but which is clearly worse today.

 

[High_Gravity]

I think its true, some Air Force guys spotted Abu Musab Al Zarqawi in Iraq back in 2004 running in the desert but they couldn't get permission from their superiors in time to kill him.

 

[whitetrashmama]

I'm sure this kind of thing must be demoralizing to the point of being a real psychological injury to our troops. It is cruel and pointless. We should not have troops in any warzone under these conditions, IMHO.

 

[rightwinger]

Bush rules of engagement were that you were not allowed to fire on Osama bin Laden

 

[High_Gravity]

I'm sure this kind of thing must be demoralizing to the point of being a real psychological injury to our troops. It is cruel and pointless. We should not have troops in any warzone under these conditions, IMHO.

I agree.

 

[geauxtohell]

This *&^%$# library computer won't let me copy-paste links, I yave to type the whole URL! Grrrrr! So just google armed drones virtual war and see a lot of articles.

My take on this is that there is a connection, perhaps unplanned and unconscious or perhaps "conspiratorial", a connection between the emasculation of human warriors and the enhancement of machine warriors.

We may be seeing our last human army. This may also be why our society disrespects veterans today compared to past wars, something which was beginning in the Vietnam era but which is clearly worse today.

Our society "disrespects" veterans? That's news to this veteran. If anything, the fawning some people do is uncomfortable.

 

[geauxtohell]

It is true. The Rules of Engagement were changed in response to civilian casualties.

This isn't from Rush Limbaugh.

Lieberman: Rules of engagement protecting civilians ‘hurt morale’ | The Raw Story

That article specifically says soldiers can engage when fired on.

I don't know what more Leibermann wants. A return to the free fire zones of Vietnam Nam?

Not going to happen.

Instead if bitching about the ROE, which is a reality of modern war, perhaps you guys should stop being so gang ho about us getting into these fucking messes.

 

[AquaAthena]

I wouldn't be surprised if reelected, Obama will have us read Miranda warning before returning fire

I am surprised that some don't remember this issue.

 

[High_Gravity]

This *&^%$# library computer won't let me copy-paste links, I yave to type the whole URL! Grrrrr! So just google armed drones virtual war and see a lot of articles.

My take on this is that there is a connection, perhaps unplanned and unconscious or perhaps "conspiratorial", a connection between the emasculation of human warriors and the enhancement of machine warriors.

We may be seeing our last human army. This may also be why our society disrespects veterans today compared to past wars, something which was beginning in the Vietnam era but which is clearly worse today.

Our society "disrespects" veterans? That's news to this veteran. If anything, the fawning some people do is uncomfortable.

Well I don't know about disrespect per say, but the unemployment rate for Veterans is 13%. If anything they don't trust us.

 

[Oldguy]

?

Not going to happen.

ROE's are very much a factor of strategy. When the strategy is nation building, as it is in Afghanistan, was in Iraq and was in Vietnam, troops just can't go around firing at things willy nilly. It's hard to win the hearts and minds of people when you're continuously blowing up their houses and killing their kids.

When the strategy is complete and utter destruction of the enemy's power to resist, there are little or no restrictions on the use of firepower. A prime example would be WWII.

The point is that any restrictions on the use of deadly force in Afghanistan are directly related to the strategy we've been following since day 1. And, that's a strategy which Barack Obama cannot now change. It's too late for that.

 

[geauxtohell]

?

Not going to happen.

ROE's are very much a factor of strategy. When the strategy is nation building, as it is in Afghanistan, was in Iraq and was in Vietnam, troops just can't go around firing at things willy nilly. It's hard to win the hearts and minds of people when you're continuously blowing up their houses and killing their kids.

When the strategy is complete and utter destruction of the enemy's power to resist, there are little or no restrictions on the use of firepower. A prime example would be WWII.

The point is that any restrictions on the use of deadly force in Afghanistan are directly related to the strategy we've been following since day 1. And, that's a strategy which Barack Obama cannot now change. It's too late for that.

Hard to blame dumbass cons for not getting this.

They still think Afghanistan is a conventional war.

 

[regent]

So many of these threads are mini Elms Streeters. A caller says they heard something on the Limbaugh show and bingo many accept the whole thing as the truth, and then not only accepting the call as the truth but then assigning blame for the supposed incident.
Anyone check out the truth of the charge?