RNC - examples of things to come?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That lady whose son died in Afghanistan kept talking about the horrible rules of engagement that make winning impossible and are unfair to our soldiers, but she didn't name a single one.

Clearly, you are unaware of these rules of engagement of which she spoke.
Most of those in attendance, and those of us who have been paying attention (and have sons currently serving) are well aware of what she was referring to.
Let me help you understand.....

The rules of engagement (ROE) put into place in 2009 and the early part of 2010 limited air and artillery strikes in the name of preventing civilian casualties, and at times called upon soldiers to restrain from firing their weapons. The report in the Washington Times indicates that, upon approaching Taliban fighters, a ground unit would often have to convince a remote commander that the threat was armed before engaging.

“In Afghanistan, the [rules of engagement] that were put in place in 2009 and 2010 have created a hesitation and confusion for our war fighters,” Wayne Simmons, a retired US intelligence officer who worked at NATO headquarters in Kabul under McChrystal and Petraeus, told the Times.

“It is no accident nor a coincidence that from January 2009 to August of 2010, coinciding with the Obama/McChrystal radical change of the ROE, casualties more than doubled,” Simmons went on. “The carnage will certainly continue as the already fragile and ineffective [rules] have been further weakened by the Obama administration as if they were playground rules.”

Perhaps the most striking example of a bureaucracy putting lives at risk came in September 2009 at the battle of Ganjgal. Two soldiers were award the Medal of Honor for their actions in the in 10-hour fight in Afghanistan’s Kunar province, yet one of them – former Army Captain William Swenson – has said that the military’s reluctance to provide an air strike nearly killed him.

“It’s not JAG (military attorney) responsibility to interject to say, ‘Hey, we are concerned that you’re going to hit a building,’” he told the Washington Times last month. “I can tell you that I am concerned with saving as many lives as I can, not necessarily one. Unfortunately, this is combat. I can’t be perfect, but I can do what I feel what’s right at the time.”

https://www.rt.com/usa/battlefield-deaths-rules-engagement-change-862/

These are just a couple example of the rules the Obama administration has put in place.

[Anonymous]

Is Giuliani off his meds? He has been ranting loudly and hysterically and looks he might explode at any moment.

[Anonymous]

Rudy is so gross.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is Giuliani off his meds? He has been ranting loudly and hysterically and looks he might explode at any moment.

He went batshit crazy some years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That lady whose son died in Afghanistan kept talking about the horrible rules of engagement that make winning impossible and are unfair to our soldiers, but she didn't name a single one.

Clearly, you are unaware of these rules of engagement of which she spoke.
Most of those in attendance, and those of us who have been paying attention (and have sons currently serving) are well aware of what she was referring to.
Let me help you understand.....

The rules of engagement (ROE) put into place in 2009 and the early part of 2010 limited air and artillery strikes in the name of preventing civilian casualties, and at times called upon soldiers to restrain from firing their weapons. The report in the Washington Times indicates that, upon approaching Taliban fighters, a ground unit would often have to convince a remote commander that the threat was armed before engaging.

“In Afghanistan, the [rules of engagement] that were put in place in 2009 and 2010 have created a hesitation and confusion for our war fighters,” Wayne Simmons, a retired US intelligence officer who worked at NATO headquarters in Kabul under McChrystal and Petraeus, told the Times.

“It is no accident nor a coincidence that from January 2009 to August of 2010, coinciding with the Obama/McChrystal radical change of the ROE, casualties more than doubled,” Simmons went on. “The carnage will certainly continue as the already fragile and ineffective [rules] have been further weakened by the Obama administration as if they were playground rules.”

Perhaps the most striking example of a bureaucracy putting lives at risk came in September 2009 at the battle of Ganjgal. Two soldiers were award the Medal of Honor for their actions in the in 10-hour fight in Afghanistan’s Kunar province, yet one of them – former Army Captain William Swenson – has said that the military’s reluctance to provide an air strike nearly killed him.

“It’s not JAG (military attorney) responsibility to interject to say, ‘Hey, we are concerned that you’re going to hit a building,’” he told the Washington Times last month. “I can tell you that I am concerned with saving as many lives as I can, not necessarily one. Unfortunately, this is combat. I can’t be perfect, but I can do what I feel what’s right at the time.”

https://www.rt.com/usa/battlefield-deaths-rules-engagement-change-862/

These are just a couple example of the rules the Obama administration has put in place.

No offense, but this article is pretty thin soup. Nowhere does it show any negative effects. One guy saying something bad almost happened? Because he had to check with someone so he didn't flatten a village? Ok. And the fact that the number of U.S. casualties went up after the surge when the number of troops went up? Uh, gee, that seems self explanatory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That lady whose son died in Afghanistan kept talking about the horrible rules of engagement that make winning impossible and are unfair to our soldiers, but she didn't name a single one.

Clearly, you are unaware of these rules of engagement of which she spoke.
Most of those in attendance, and those of us who have been paying attention (and have sons currently serving) are well aware of what she was referring to.
Let me help you understand.....

The rules of engagement (ROE) put into place in 2009 and the early part of 2010 limited air and artillery strikes in the name of preventing civilian casualties, and at times called upon soldiers to restrain from firing their weapons. The report in the Washington Times indicates that, upon approaching Taliban fighters, a ground unit would often have to convince a remote commander that the threat was armed before engaging.

“In Afghanistan, the [rules of engagement] that were put in place in 2009 and 2010 have created a hesitation and confusion for our war fighters,” Wayne Simmons, a retired US intelligence officer who worked at NATO headquarters in Kabul under McChrystal and Petraeus, told the Times.

“It is no accident nor a coincidence that from January 2009 to August of 2010, coinciding with the Obama/McChrystal radical change of the ROE, casualties more than doubled,” Simmons went on. “The carnage will certainly continue as the already fragile and ineffective [rules] have been further weakened by the Obama administration as if they were playground rules.”

Perhaps the most striking example of a bureaucracy putting lives at risk came in September 2009 at the battle of Ganjgal. Two soldiers were award the Medal of Honor for their actions in the in 10-hour fight in Afghanistan’s Kunar province, yet one of them – former Army Captain William Swenson – has said that the military’s reluctance to provide an air strike nearly killed him.

“It’s not JAG (military attorney) responsibility to interject to say, ‘Hey, we are concerned that you’re going to hit a building,’” he told the Washington Times last month. “I can tell you that I am concerned with saving as many lives as I can, not necessarily one. Unfortunately, this is combat. I can’t be perfect, but I can do what I feel what’s right at the time.”

https://www.rt.com/usa/battlefield-deaths-rules-engagement-change-862/

These are just a couple example of the rules the Obama administration has put in place.

No offense, but this article is pretty thin soup. Nowhere does it show any negative effects. One guy saying something bad almost happened? Because he had to check with someone so he didn't flatten a village? Ok. And the fact that the number of U.S. casualties went up after the surge when the number of troops went up? Uh, gee, that seems self explanatory.

+1. Also RT?! You're directing us to a Russian government propaganda site? For real? LMAO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That lady whose son died in Afghanistan kept talking about the horrible rules of engagement that make winning impossible and are unfair to our soldiers, but she didn't name a single one.

I thought Bush started the war in Afghanistan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That lady whose son died in Afghanistan kept talking about the horrible rules of engagement that make winning impossible and are unfair to our soldiers, but she didn't name a single one.

I thought Bush started the war in Afghanistan.

It was unwinnable from day 1. The Russians found that out. We found that out.