Rules of Engagement (ROE) CHANGED...Hurray!!!

[Thinker101]

Why didnt I hear liberals crying about being in Afghanistan over the last eight years?

Because they were too busy crying about $15 an hour at McDonalds?

 

[JoeB131]

A) May I remind you that this happened?
B) The above was planned by Al-queda in Afghanistan remember???
C) Now let's return to the Rules of Engagement!

Obama killed those guys. And since we are not going to occupy every failed state in the middle east where Al Queda or ISIS is going to set up shop (Libya and Yemen are bigger threats in that regard). What's the compelling interest again?

You see, what made Al Qaeda dangerous was not that some of them were hiding in Afghanistan. What made them dangerous was that they had cells all over the world and bankers in Saudi Arabia willing to fund them.

Obama severely restricted rules of engagement. The U.S. was only allowed to intervene on behalf of the Afghans about to suffer a particularly devastating military setback. These rules of engagement, coupled with an increasingly corrupt Afghan government, led to the Taliban’s best year since the U.S. invasion and, later, fertile ground for a new ISIS branch.

and again, why are we still propping up the Afghan Government 16 years later? It would seem to me if the Afghan people haven't rallied to the corrupt, drug-dealing Quislings we've put in charge of the place, they never will.

Or to put it another way, the Afghans has been fighting this war one way or the other since the 1970's. What are we goign to do in a 40 Year civil war that is really going to change it?

Certainly nothing the Orange Shitgibbon has proposed. He's just trying to show he tried something.

 

[healthmyths]

The major point I am making with regards to Trump's rescinding the Obama ROEs is that makes a world of difference in how our military can respond AND also
teach the Afghanis. All of Obama's ROEs were political based. That is, if we happen to have civilian collateral damage that would have never happened!
Remember Obama was the traitor who told the world "our troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"
He and these other traitors also helped the barbarians by telling the world:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "War is lost", Certainly gave the barbarians a good old atta boy!
U.S. Rep. Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
Or how about the future Secretary of State Senator Kerry(D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children." Calling our troops "TERRORISTS"!
With this mentality was it NO wonder ISIS regained Mosul,etc. and 11% of Afghanistan is still in barbarians' hands.

With these totally hand tying ROEs and the politically correct mentality GONE... maybe our military can do what the trillions of dollars are used for WIN!
Defeat the Islamic extremists and its core objective is becoming clear: to kill Christians. Its long-term goal: to provoke a new Crusade, reviving the holy wars of many hundreds of years ago in the belief that this time around Islam will win.
In practical terms, this focus on a single pervasive, easily targeted enemy is useful to a “caliphate” under pressure that is trying to keep its troops in line.
ISIS Orders Its Franchises to Kill Christians

As President Trump clearly outlined... it is them or us!

 

[Tom Horn]

They've used Pakistan like the NLF used Cambodia. If we pursue Afghan fighters into Pakistan, the Pakis will be forced to come out and meet us. That puts Paki troops on the border......do you see where I'm going with this?

 

[Moonglow]

What's our vital interest in staying in Afghanistan at this point?

70 trillion in mineral deposits..

 

[healthmyths]

A) May I remind you that this happened?
B) The above was planned by Al-queda in Afghanistan remember???
C) Now let's return to the Rules of Engagement!

Obama killed those guys. And since we are not going to occupy every failed state in the middle east where Al Queda or ISIS is going to set up shop (Libya and Yemen are bigger threats in that regard). What's the compelling interest again?

You see, what made Al Qaeda dangerous was not that some of them were hiding in Afghanistan. What made them dangerous was that they had cells all over the world and bankers in Saudi Arabia willing to fund them.

Obama severely restricted rules of engagement. The U.S. was only allowed to intervene on behalf of the Afghans about to suffer a particularly devastating military setback. These rules of engagement, coupled with an increasingly corrupt Afghan government, led to the Taliban’s best year since the U.S. invasion and, later, fertile ground for a new ISIS branch.

and again, why are we still propping up the Afghan Government 16 years later? It would seem to me if the Afghan people haven't rallied to the corrupt, drug-dealing Quislings we've put in charge of the place, they never will.

Or to put it another way, the Afghans has been fighting this war one way or the other since the 1970's. What are we goign to do in a 40 Year civil war that is really going to change it?

Certainly nothing the Orange Shitgibbon has proposed. He's just trying to show he tried something.

Well we certainly weren't going to WIN with this attitude:ROE from Obama...
"Patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that you will not have to defend yourselves with lethal force."

How can anyone ever win any battle if you don't have to defend yourself with lethal force?
GEEZ this was the stupidity of ignorant naive people like Obama and especially his followers who he and the people he hired thought were morons. Yes..
Obama hired this guy who told you morons that voted for Obama it was because of YOUR " stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass."
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/223578-obamacare-architect-lack-of-transparency-helped-law-pass

But only people of your ilk can support a person who depended on lying and tricks and tactics to fool you!

 

[healthmyths]

What's our vital interest in staying in Afghanistan at this point?

70 trillion in mineral deposits..

Prove it! Where did you come up with such a stupid ass statistic?

WASHINGTON — The United States has discovered nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, far beyond any previously known reserves and enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself, according to senior American government officials.Jun 13, 2010
U.S. Identifies Vast Mineral Riches in Afghanistan - The New York Times
www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html

GEEZ I don't understand people like you MoonGlow! You make dumb ass unsubstantiated statement $70 trillion"!
I just proved you were so wrong!
Why in the f...k waste trillions to get $1 trillion?
Maybe idiots like you should consider THIS number!!!
2: The United States of America
With about $45 trillion in natural resources, the U.S. is number two on the list. The U.S. has over 31% of the world's coal, but also has large amounts of timber. A total of 89% of the country's natural resources are from coal and timber, but it also has sizable deposits of natural gas, oil, gold and copper.
10 Countries With The Most Natural Resources | Investopedia Here Are the Countries With the Most Natural Resources

 

[healthmyths]

They've used Pakistan like the NLF used Cambodia. If we pursue Afghan fighters into Pakistan, the Pakis will be forced to come out and meet us. That puts Paki troops on the border......do you see where I'm going with this?

Absolutely! For too long Pakistan has been a refuge and Trump is telling them... MAKE up your mind!
A) Want the country of India AND the USA to come down with might and fury on your piddling nuclear arms OR
B) Get rid of those little worthless absolutely WORTHLESS Islamic terrorists!
The terrorist have NOTHING to offer Pakistan.
Where as the USA/India i.e. western civilization offer either all out war or becoming a true “partners across the globe" with NATO.
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_50071.htm
Remember Pakistan is part of NATO and as such if they are harming any NATO country it is the obligation of NATO to thwart Pakistan!

 

[bodecea]

I wonder what the Soviets' rules of engagement were when they ultimately got driven out of Afghanistan?

Once more trump and his trumpettes want us to be just like the Russians.

 

[Kosh]

ROE from Obama...
"Patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that you will not have to defend yourselves with lethal force."

Watching President Trump speech moments ago and during it he mentioned that the "Rules of Engagement" have changed since he became President.

During the Obama administration, the military had to follow standards set by the president in 2013 to carry out airstrikes or ground raids in countries like Somalia, where the United States was not officially at war. Those rules required that a target had to pose a threat to Americans and that there be near certainty that no civilian bystanders would die. Under the Trump administration’s new rules, some civilian deaths are now permitted in much of Somalia and parts of Yemen if regional American commanders deemed the military action necessary and proportionate.
The Obama administration process frustrated many in the military.

Now for a perfect example of one of the many many onerous ROEs...
A laminated card with the following text was distributed to all U.S. Army and Marine personnel in Iraq.
Policies about limiting civilian casualties have soldiers complaining they can't effectively fight;
one showed author Michael Hastings a card with regulations including:
"Patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that you will not have to defend yourselves with lethal force."
For a soldier who has traveled halfway around the world to fight, that’s like telling a cop he should only patrol in areas where he knows he won’t have to make arrests.
“Does that make any f–king sense?” Pfc. Jared Pautsch.
In Afghanistan, a New General -- But An Old Strategy

Yes and now Trump needs to pardon all those prosecuted by the Obama administration for doing their jobs..

 

[healthmyths]

I wonder what the Soviets' rules of engagement were when they ultimately got driven out of Afghanistan?

Once more trump and his trumpettes want us to be just like the Russians.

Russians weren't winners in Afghanistan if you recall THANKS to the Democrat Charlie Wilson and his War!
Charlie Wilson's War (2007) - IMDb

 

[JoeB131]

The major point I am making with regards to Trump's rescinding the Obama ROEs is that makes a world of difference in how our military can respond AND also
teach the Afghanis. All of Obama's ROEs were political based. That is, if we happen to have civilian collateral damage that would have never happened!

So you think the Afghans are going to love us more if we keep accidentally killing their children?

I'm going to take a guess here an realize you've probably never spent a day in the armed forces.

Well we certainly weren't going to WIN with this attitude:ROE from Obama...
"Patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that you will not have to defend yourselves with lethal force."

How can anyone ever win any battle if you don't have to defend yourself with lethal force?

You do get at the point where that was issued, we weren't responsible for the patrolling anymore, right?

Here's the real problem. We've been trying to prop up the Afghan government for 16 years now.

Keep in mind, 16 years after VJ day, West German and Japan were functioning democracies with stable governments.

And Afghanistan STILL needs billions of dollars in support?

Absolutely! For too long Pakistan has been a refuge and Trump is telling them... MAKE up your mind!
A) Want the country of India AND the USA to come down with might and fury on your piddling nuclear arms OR
B) Get rid of those little worthless absolutely WORTHLESS Islamic terrorists!

yes, most countries respond really well to empty threats.

The thing is, even a nuclear war between Pakistan and India would trigger a nuclear winter that would wipe out half the population of Earth.

 

[Tom Horn]

 

[ColonelAngus]

ROE from Obama...
"Patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that you will not have to defend yourselves with lethal force."

Watching President Trump speech moments ago and during it he mentioned that the "Rules of Engagement" have changed since he became President.

During the Obama administration, the military had to follow standards set by the president in 2013 to carry out airstrikes or ground raids in countries like Somalia, where the United States was not officially at war. Those rules required that a target had to pose a threat to Americans and that there be near certainty that no civilian bystanders would die. Under the Trump administration’s new rules, some civilian deaths are now permitted in much of Somalia and parts of Yemen if regional American commanders deemed the military action necessary and proportionate.
The Obama administration process frustrated many in the military.

Now for a perfect example of one of the many many onerous ROEs...
A laminated card with the following text was distributed to all U.S. Army and Marine personnel in Iraq.
Policies about limiting civilian casualties have soldiers complaining they can't effectively fight;
one showed author Michael Hastings a card with regulations including:
"Patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that you will not have to defend yourselves with lethal force."
For a soldier who has traveled halfway around the world to fight, that’s like telling a cop he should only patrol in areas where he knows he won’t have to make arrests.
“Does that make any f–king sense?” Pfc. Jared Pautsch.
In Afghanistan, a New General -- But An Old Strategy

Progs are disgusting assholes who value politics and power over human life,

 

[Doc1]

Bout damned time.

Who the hell expects soldiers to fight with one hand tied behind their backs?

Men forced to use ridiculous Rules of Engagement prepared by folks who are sitting on their big fat asses safe at home??

Shouldn't be there.

But we are and since we are take the handcuffs off.

 

[Crixus]

Bout damned time.

Who the hell expects soldiers to fight with one hand tied behind their backs?

Men forced to use ridiculous Rules of Engagement prepared by folks who are sitting on their big fat asses safe at home??

Shouldn't be there.

But we are and since we are take the handcuffs off.

I wouldn't mind if it was strictly huge ass bombs. That shit hole is not worth any other country's kids lives.

 

[Doc1]

Bout damned time.

Who the hell expects soldiers to fight with one hand tied behind their backs?

Men forced to use ridiculous Rules of Engagement prepared by folks who are sitting on their big fat asses safe at home??

Why are we still there again?

When you can tell me that, then we can discuss the Rules of Engagement.

You assume someone gives a fuck about your opinion. We ARE there and since we are it's time to the take the handcuffs off.

 

[westwall]

I wonder what the Soviets' rules of engagement were when they ultimately got driven out of Afghanistan?

They were getting driven out till they changed tactics and began to exclusively use Spetsnaz. Once they shifted they were winning. Then their country collapsed so they all went home. We used their tactics when we sent our Green Berets in and they kicked the enemy to pieces in three months. Then obummer gave it all back.

 

[jc456]

What's our vital interest in staying in Afghanistan at this point?

didn't trump explain that yesterday? did you listen?

 

[Doc1]

Bout damned time.

Who the hell expects soldiers to fight with one hand tied behind their backs?

Men forced to use ridiculous Rules of Engagement prepared by folks who are sitting on their big fat asses safe at home??

Shouldn't be there.

But we are and since we are take the handcuffs off.

I wouldn't mind if it was strictly huge ass bombs. That shit hole is not worth any other country's kids lives.

I agree whole heartedly, but we are there and as long as we are we need to let them do their jobs. All war is nothing but a money maker for the banks.