Patton and Eisenhower would have beaten ISIL............

[pismoe]

It seems that a lot of Republicans currently think that our military is weak, has been decimated, and isn't being allowed to fight the terrorists.

They then say that Eisenhower or Patton would have been able to beat ISIL in a short amount of time.

Yeah.................but back in WWII, they weren't constrained by things like the Geneva Conventions, which came about AFTER WWII, because of all the really horrific things that had gone on, like the Dresden bombing (which was basically carpet bombing to get a few enemy at the cost of many innocent civilian lives).

But, RumsFAILED said back before the Iraq war that "you go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you wished you had".

And, the war that ISIL is fighting isn't anything like the conventional warfare of old, it's more like the guerrilla warfare that was done during Viet Nam.

------------------------------------ see the results USA might on the retreating Iraqi army as they left 'kuwait' . Its called the highway of death BSailor !! --- highway of death photos - Bing video --- and this good work on the 'highway of death' was done while the USA was constrained by the 'Geneva convention' and other silly 'roe' . The problem since mrobama has been 'cic' is that mrobama is 'cic' BSailor .

 

[JakeStarkey]

Patton and Ike were as hamstrung under FDR and Truman as they would have been under the Hussein administration. Americans had encircled Berlin at the closing of WW2 but they were ordered to stand down and allow the Russian hoarde to take the city. We ended up with the Cold War and Germans shot in the back for the crime of crossing the street. Little timid bean counter Harry Truman was too busy downsizing the U.S. Military to see the NK threat and his negligence and failed leadership led to 50,000 Americans killed in three years and we ended up where we started after a three year quagmire. Finally we were humiliated by a "truce" dictated by China and NK.

Read real history, please.

The American armies were sixty miles short of Berlin and had not circled Berlin; the Soviets had.

HT did fine in Korea until he listened to that megalomaniac MacArthur, and allowed coalition troops to race for the Yalu.

China and NK signed a truce because DDE let them know he would use in-theater nukes if they did not.

 

[pismoe]

When over half of your sorties come back with their payloads you're doing something wrong

Seems like they are being responsible in their choice of targets

Or afraid of collateral damage....are our enemies afraid of collateral damage? You can't win a war when one side has rules and the other one doesn't

We are the good guys

we are the stupid guys , just corrected your language Rightwinger !!

 

[SassyIrishLass]

You'll never win a war this way.....most certainly a guerrllia war as the OP says we are in. Who in the hell gives the enemy safe havens....oh yeah...safe places

Rules of engagement limit the actions of U.S. troops and drones in Afghanistan
Say dwellings now virtual safe havens for terrorists


The new U.S.-Afghanistan security agreement adds restrictions on already bureaucratic rules of engagement for American troops by making Afghan dwellings virtual safe havens for the enemy, combat veterans say.

The rules of engagement place the burden on U.S. air and ground troops to confirm with certainty that a Taliban fighter is armed before they can fire — even if they are 100 percent sure the target is the enemy. In some cases, aerial gunships have been denied permission to fire even though they reported that targets on the move were armed.


The proposed Bilateral Security Agreement announced Wednesday by Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Secretary of State John F. Kerry all but prohibits U.S. troops from entering dwellings during combat. President Obama made the vow directly to Mr. Karzai.

“U.S. forces shall not enter Afghan homes for the purposes of military operations, except under extraordinary circumstances involving urgent risk to life and limb of U.S. nationals,” Mr. Obama pledged in a letter to the Afghan leader.

Rules of engagement bind U.S. troops’ actions in Afghanistan

 

[bodecea]

When over half of your sorties come back with their payloads you're doing something wrong

Seems like they are being responsible in their choice of targets

You choose your target,
select the weapon to destroy it
Launch the aircraft
Arrive over selected target
Call the lawyers
Report civilians in the area.
Return home.
Dats how Obabble do it, yo....

So that's current ROE?

 

[bodecea]

You'll never win a war this way.....most certainly a guerrllia war as the OP says we are in. Who in the hell gives the enemy safe havens....oh yeah...safe places

Rules of engagement limit the actions of U.S. troops and drones in Afghanistan
Say dwellings now virtual safe havens for terrorists


The new U.S.-Afghanistan security agreement adds restrictions on already bureaucratic rules of engagement for American troops by making Afghan dwellings virtual safe havens for the enemy, combat veterans say.

The rules of engagement place the burden on U.S. air and ground troops to confirm with certainty that a Taliban fighter is armed before they can fire — even if they are 100 percent sure the target is the enemy. In some cases, aerial gunships have been denied permission to fire even though they reported that targets on the move were armed.


The proposed Bilateral Security Agreement announced Wednesday by Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Secretary of State John F. Kerry all but prohibits U.S. troops from entering dwellings during combat. President Obama made the vow directly to Mr. Karzai.

“U.S. forces shall not enter Afghan homes for the purposes of military operations, except under extraordinary circumstances involving urgent risk to life and limb of U.S. nationals,” Mr. Obama pledged in a letter to the Afghan leader.

Rules of engagement bind U.S. troops’ actions in Afghanistan

Kill them all and let your god sort them out, eh? Why does that ring a Bell? Oh yes...the Catholics have been known to do that.

 

[rightwinger]

When over half of your sorties come back with their payloads you're doing something wrong

Seems like they are being responsible in their choice of targets

Or afraid of collateral damage....are our enemies afraid of collateral damage? You can't win a war when one side has rules and the other one doesn't

We are the good guys

When you send brave men and women to war you let them do their job and don't tie one hand behind their backs. It's not fair to them and we lose good people because of it

No...you protect them

Allowing them to kill indiscriminately alienates the local population. These are the same people you need on your side when fighting terrorists

 

[deltex1]

You'll never win a war this way.....most certainly a guerrllia war as the OP says we are in. Who in the hell gives the enemy safe havens....oh yeah...safe places

Rules of engagement limit the actions of U.S. troops and drones in Afghanistan
Say dwellings now virtual safe havens for terrorists


The new U.S.-Afghanistan security agreement adds restrictions on already bureaucratic rules of engagement for American troops by making Afghan dwellings virtual safe havens for the enemy, combat veterans say.

The rules of engagement place the burden on U.S. air and ground troops to confirm with certainty that a Taliban fighter is armed before they can fire — even if they are 100 percent sure the target is the enemy. In some cases, aerial gunships have been denied permission to fire even though they reported that targets on the move were armed.


The proposed Bilateral Security Agreement announced Wednesday by Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Secretary of State John F. Kerry all but prohibits U.S. troops from entering dwellings during combat. President Obama made the vow directly to Mr. Karzai.

“U.S. forces shall not enter Afghan homes for the purposes of military operations, except under extraordinary circumstances involving urgent risk to life and limb of U.S. nationals,” Mr. Obama pledged in a letter to the Afghan leader.

Rules of engagement bind U.S. troops’ actions in Afghanistan

Obabble relied on his years of military sevice to agree to that tactic......

 

[rightwinger]

When over half of your sorties come back with their payloads you're doing something wrong

Seems like they are being responsible in their choice of targets

Or afraid of collateral damage....are our enemies afraid of collateral damage? You can't win a war when one side has rules and the other one doesn't

We are the good guys

we are the stupid guys , just corrected your language Rightwinger !!

Why are we stupid?

 

[deltex1]

When over half of your sorties come back with their payloads you're doing something wrong

Seems like they are being responsible in their choice of targets

Or afraid of collateral damage....are our enemies afraid of collateral damage? You can't win a war when one side has rules and the other one doesn't

We are the good guys

When you send brave men and women to war you let them do their job and don't tie one hand behind their backs. It's not fair to them and we lose good people because of it

No...you protect them

Allowing them to kill indiscriminately alienates the local population. These are the same people you need on your side when fighting terrorists

Doesn't make any difference if they're all dead.

 

[deltex1]

When over half of your sorties come back with their payloads you're doing something wrong

Seems like they are being responsible in their choice of targets

You choose your target,
select the weapon to destroy it
Launch the aircraft
Arrive over selected target
Call the lawyers
Report civilians in the area.
Return home.
Dats how Obabble do it, yo....

So that's current ROE?

Yup.....or worse.

 

[deltex1]

You'll never win a war this way.....most certainly a guerrllia war as the OP says we are in. Who in the hell gives the enemy safe havens....oh yeah...safe places

Rules of engagement limit the actions of U.S. troops and drones in Afghanistan
Say dwellings now virtual safe havens for terrorists


The new U.S.-Afghanistan security agreement adds restrictions on already bureaucratic rules of engagement for American troops by making Afghan dwellings virtual safe havens for the enemy, combat veterans say.

The rules of engagement place the burden on U.S. air and ground troops to confirm with certainty that a Taliban fighter is armed before they can fire — even if they are 100 percent sure the target is the enemy. In some cases, aerial gunships have been denied permission to fire even though they reported that targets on the move were armed.


The proposed Bilateral Security Agreement announced Wednesday by Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Secretary of State John F. Kerry all but prohibits U.S. troops from entering dwellings during combat. President Obama made the vow directly to Mr. Karzai.

“U.S. forces shall not enter Afghan homes for the purposes of military operations, except under extraordinary circumstances involving urgent risk to life and limb of U.S. nationals,” Mr. Obama pledged in a letter to the Afghan leader.

Rules of engagement bind U.S. troops’ actions in Afghanistan

Kill them all and let your god sort them out, eh? Why does that ring a Bell? Oh yes...the Catholics have been known to do that.

That's God with a capital G, Mona.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

You'll never win a war this way.....most certainly a guerrllia war as the OP says we are in. Who in the hell gives the enemy safe havens....oh yeah...safe places

Rules of engagement limit the actions of U.S. troops and drones in Afghanistan
Say dwellings now virtual safe havens for terrorists


The new U.S.-Afghanistan security agreement adds restrictions on already bureaucratic rules of engagement for American troops by making Afghan dwellings virtual safe havens for the enemy, combat veterans say.

The rules of engagement place the burden on U.S. air and ground troops to confirm with certainty that a Taliban fighter is armed before they can fire — even if they are 100 percent sure the target is the enemy. In some cases, aerial gunships have been denied permission to fire even though they reported that targets on the move were armed.


The proposed Bilateral Security Agreement announced Wednesday by Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Secretary of State John F. Kerry all but prohibits U.S. troops from entering dwellings during combat. President Obama made the vow directly to Mr. Karzai.

“U.S. forces shall not enter Afghan homes for the purposes of military operations, except under extraordinary circumstances involving urgent risk to life and limb of U.S. nationals,” Mr. Obama pledged in a letter to the Afghan leader.

Rules of engagement bind U.S. troops’ actions in Afghanistan

Obabble relied on his years of military sevice to agree to that tactic......

You'll never win a war this way.....most certainly a guerrllia war as the OP says we are in. Who in the hell gives the enemy safe havens....oh yeah...safe places

Rules of engagement limit the actions of U.S. troops and drones in Afghanistan
Say dwellings now virtual safe havens for terrorists


The new U.S.-Afghanistan security agreement adds restrictions on already bureaucratic rules of engagement for American troops by making Afghan dwellings virtual safe havens for the enemy, combat veterans say.

The rules of engagement place the burden on U.S. air and ground troops to confirm with certainty that a Taliban fighter is armed before they can fire — even if they are 100 percent sure the target is the enemy. In some cases, aerial gunships have been denied permission to fire even though they reported that targets on the move were armed.


The proposed Bilateral Security Agreement announced Wednesday by Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Secretary of State John F. Kerry all but prohibits U.S. troops from entering dwellings during combat. President Obama made the vow directly to Mr. Karzai.

“U.S. forces shall not enter Afghan homes for the purposes of military operations, except under extraordinary circumstances involving urgent risk to life and limb of U.S. nationals,” Mr. Obama pledged in a letter to the Afghan leader.

Rules of engagement bind U.S. troops’ actions in Afghanistan

Kill them all and let your god sort them out, eh? Why does that ring a Bell? Oh yes...the Catholics have been known to do that.

Yeah those Muslims never had a prayer during the Crusades, guess they should have stayed home instead of invading. Run along hairy back, you can't win with me, I'm smarter than you....of course our 5 y/o is also so that's not saying much

 

[S.J.]

It helps when you have a president who actually wants to DEFEAT our enemy instead of EMPOWER them.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

It seems that a lot of Republicans currently think that our military is weak, has been decimated, and isn't being allowed to fight the terrorists.

They then say that Eisenhower or Patton would have been able to beat ISIL in a short amount of time.

Yeah.................but back in WWII, they weren't constrained by things like the Geneva Conventions, which came about AFTER WWII, because of all the really horrific things that had gone on, like the Dresden bombing (which was basically carpet bombing to get a few enemy at the cost of many innocent civilian lives).

But, RumsFAILED said back before the Iraq war that "you go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you wished you had".

And, the war that ISIL is fighting isn't anything like the conventional warfare of old, it's more like the guerrilla warfare that was done during Viet Nam.

The problem with fighting a war with a group like ISIL is they can give a rat ass about the Geneva Convention, and yet we have to obey it...

So Patton and Ike would not be able to fight a war against ISIL, and Patton would be facing the Hague if he were the General in today time because he would Genocide those bastards for what they have done to Historical Sites...

 

[pismoe]

When over half of your sorties come back with their payloads you're doing something wrong

Seems like they are being responsible in their choice of targets

Or afraid of collateral damage....are our enemies afraid of collateral damage? You can't win a war when one side has rules and the other one doesn't

We are the good guys

we are the stupid guys , just corrected your language Rightwinger !!

Why are we stupid?

------------------------------- not YOU in particular , mostly I point my finger at mrobama as being the dummy 'CiC' or most likely of being a , err , well , unAmerican 'CiC' in his thinking and policies Rightwinger . See what GHWB built with his 'Highway of Death' when he was CiC and just so you know , I have no use for any of the bushes Rightwinger !!

 

[LA RAM FAN]

It seems that a lot of Republicans currently think that our military is weak, has been decimated, and isn't being allowed to fight the terrorists.

They then say that Eisenhower or Patton would have been able to beat ISIL in a short amount of time.

Yeah.................but back in WWII, they weren't constrained by things like the Geneva Conventions, which came about AFTER WWII, because of all the really horrific things that had gone on, like the Dresden bombing (which was basically carpet bombing to get a few enemy at the cost of many innocent civilian lives).

But, RumsFAILED said back before the Iraq war that "you go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you wished you had".

And, the war that ISIL is fighting isn't anything like the conventional warfare of old, it's more like the guerrilla warfare that was done during Viet Nam.

Eisenhower,as in the man who was pals with Stalin and watched by his side when Stalin let his men rape women as i have posted the pic many times before?

 

[Moonglow]

It seems that a lot of Republicans currently think that our military is weak, has been decimated, and isn't being allowed to fight the terrorists.

They then say that Eisenhower or Patton would have been able to beat ISIL in a short amount of time.

Yeah.................but back in WWII, they weren't constrained by things like the Geneva Conventions, which came about AFTER WWII, because of all the really horrific things that had gone on, like the Dresden bombing (which was basically carpet bombing to get a few enemy at the cost of many innocent civilian lives).

But, RumsFAILED said back before the Iraq war that "you go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you wished you had".

And, the war that ISIL is fighting isn't anything like the conventional warfare of old, it's more like the guerrilla warfare that was done during Viet Nam.

Eisenhower financially backed France in Nam, and guess how that worked out...You seem to forget that ISIS is a shadow army operation when at the right stage, just like the Viet Cong.......

 

[Moonglow]

It seems that a lot of Republicans currently think that our military is weak, has been decimated, and isn't being allowed to fight the terrorists.

They then say that Eisenhower or Patton would have been able to beat ISIL in a short amount of time.

Yeah.................but back in WWII, they weren't constrained by things like the Geneva Conventions, which came about AFTER WWII, because of all the really horrific things that had gone on, like the Dresden bombing (which was basically carpet bombing to get a few enemy at the cost of many innocent civilian lives).

But, RumsFAILED said back before the Iraq war that "you go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you wished you had".

And, the war that ISIL is fighting isn't anything like the conventional warfare of old, it's more like the guerrilla warfare that was done during Viet Nam.

Eisenhower,as in the man who was pals with Stalin and watched by his side when Stalin let his men rape women as i have posted the pic many times before?

So both Stalin and Ike were voyeurs?

 

[Moonglow]

You'll never win a war this way.....most certainly a guerrllia war as the OP says we are in. Who in the hell gives the enemy safe havens....oh yeah...safe places

Rules of engagement limit the actions of U.S. troops and drones in Afghanistan
Say dwellings now virtual safe havens for terrorists


The new U.S.-Afghanistan security agreement adds restrictions on already bureaucratic rules of engagement for American troops by making Afghan dwellings virtual safe havens for the enemy, combat veterans say.

The rules of engagement place the burden on U.S. air and ground troops to confirm with certainty that a Taliban fighter is armed before they can fire — even if they are 100 percent sure the target is the enemy. In some cases, aerial gunships have been denied permission to fire even though they reported that targets on the move were armed.


The proposed Bilateral Security Agreement announced Wednesday by Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Secretary of State John F. Kerry all but prohibits U.S. troops from entering dwellings during combat. President Obama made the vow directly to Mr. Karzai.

“U.S. forces shall not enter Afghan homes for the purposes of military operations, except under extraordinary circumstances involving urgent risk to life and limb of U.S. nationals,” Mr. Obama pledged in a letter to the Afghan leader.

Rules of engagement bind U.S. troops’ actions in Afghanistan

Kill them all and let your god sort them out, eh? Why does that ring a Bell? Oh yes...the Catholics have been known to do that.

That's God with a capital G, Mona.

And God is so kewl he uses a hyphen at the end...