'I Didn't Join to Be Sacrificed': U.S. Troops Fed Up with Risky Afghanistan Strategy

[carpro]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/...TAN-ARE-NOW-FORCED-TO-FIGHT-A-TWO-FRONTED-WAR

'I Didn't Join to Be Sacrificed': U.S. Troops Fed Up with Risky Afghanistan Strategy

U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan are now forced to fight a two-fronted war. Before each deployment, these soldiers understand fully that day after day they will do battle against relentless terrorists with shifting loyalties and unspeakable hatred. But what none of them could have foreseen was the killing field that would open from their rear: the Continental United States.

Our government’s incessant tightening of already restrictive ROE (Rules of Engagement), compounded by the failed COIN (Counterinsurgency) strategy—also known as “winning hearts and minds”—has made an otherwise primitive enemy formidable.

Our best and brightest come home in body bags as politicians and lawyers dine over white linen tablecloths; writing, modifying, and re-modifying these lethal rules. Rules that favor the enemy rather than the American soldier. Rules so absurd they’re difficult to believe until you hear the same stories over and again from those returning from battle.

In a delicate discussion with an Army Ranger who recently left the military, we heard the following: “I had to get out. I have a family who needs me. I didn’t join to be sacrificed. I joined to fight.”

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Our government’s incessant tightening of already restrictive ROE (Rules of Engagement), compounded by the failed COIN (Counterinsurgency) strategy—also known as “winning hearts and minds”—has made an otherwise primitive enemy formidable.

Gee, where have I seen that strategy before? Oh, yeah!

That's where it was. Didn't work then, either. That's why so many troops carried the "politically incorrect" slogan in sign or tatoo, "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out." Those combat officers who lived through it vowed it would never be our strategy if another shooting war broke out.

We must all be retired now. :tonofbricks:

 

[Bro. James]

Curiously, "Kill them all, let God sort them" was coined supposedly in the Christians killing Christians era. Remember the holy(?) Romans and the ones who would not bow to Rome? Surf: the Jesuits and the Anabaptists.

Someone is still drunk from the blood of the Saints.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[JohnDeereFan]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/...TAN-ARE-NOW-FORCED-TO-FIGHT-A-TWO-FRONTED-WAR

'I Didn't Join to Be Sacrificed': U.S. Troops Fed Up with Risky Afghanistan Strategy

U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan are now forced to fight a two-fronted war. Before each deployment, these soldiers understand fully that day after day they will do battle against relentless terrorists with shifting loyalties and unspeakable hatred. But what none of them could have foreseen was the killing field that would open from their rear: the Continental United States.

Our government’s incessant tightening of already restrictive ROE (Rules of Engagement), compounded by the failed COIN (Counterinsurgency) strategy—also known as “winning hearts and minds”—has made an otherwise primitive enemy formidable.

Our best and brightest come home in body bags as politicians and lawyers dine over white linen tablecloths; writing, modifying, and re-modifying these lethal rules. Rules that favor the enemy rather than the American soldier. Rules so absurd they’re difficult to believe until you hear the same stories over and again from those returning from battle.

In a delicate discussion with an Army Ranger who recently left the military, we heard the following: “I had to get out. I have a family who needs me. I didn’t join to be sacrificed. I joined to fight.”

I've said it before, but if we were drafting young men for this trainwreck, I'd be the first one smuggling them into Canada.

 

[FollowTheWay]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/...TAN-ARE-NOW-FORCED-TO-FIGHT-A-TWO-FRONTED-WAR

'I Didn't Join to Be Sacrificed': U.S. Troops Fed Up with Risky Afghanistan Strategy

U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan are now forced to fight a two-fronted war. Before each deployment, these soldiers understand fully that day after day they will do battle against relentless terrorists with shifting loyalties and unspeakable hatred. But what none of them could have foreseen was the killing field that would open from their rear: the Continental United States.

Our government’s incessant tightening of already restrictive ROE (Rules of Engagement), compounded by the failed COIN (Counterinsurgency) strategy—also known as “winning hearts and minds”—has made an otherwise primitive enemy formidable.

Our best and brightest come home in body bags as politicians and lawyers dine over white linen tablecloths; writing, modifying, and re-modifying these lethal rules. Rules that favor the enemy rather than the American soldier. Rules so absurd they’re difficult to believe until you hear the same stories over and again from those returning from battle.

In a delicate discussion with an Army Ranger who recently left the military, we heard the following: “I had to get out. I have a family who needs me. I didn’t join to be sacrificed. I joined to fight.”

This war was a mistake from the time that GW Bush started it.

 

[Revmitchell]

This war was a mistake from the time that GW Bush started it.

More mythical propoganda I see.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

This war was a mistake from the time that GW Bush started it.

In Iraq, yes. But Afghanistan wasn't a mistake, it was just a ridiculously poorly executed war, with politicians bound and determined to repeat every mistake from Vietnam verbatim.

No goal, no clearly defined, enemy, no exit strategy, and ridiculous RoE restrictions, how could they possibly hope to win?

But then, when have politicians ever gone to war to win?

 

[Don]

This war was a mistake from the time that GW Bush started it.

Then why didn't the Democrats in the House and the Senate at that time stop it?

I doubt you'll answer this, as whenever I post something that's opposite to your perception of reality, you completely ignore me....

 

[Salty]

Then why didn't the Democrats in the House and the Senate at that time stop it?

I doubt you'll answer this, as whenever I post something that's opposite to your perception of reality, you completely ignore me....

Actually it only takes one of the Houses to stop the funding -

What say you - Follow the Way?

 

[church mouse guy]

Carpro, Obama does not want to end the war, Obama does not want to bring our troops home, Obama does not want to win the war, Obama wants to bleed the military. Carpro, your thread is correct.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Then why didn't the Democrats in the House and the Senate at that time stop it?

I doubt you'll answer this, as whenever I post something that's opposite to your perception of reality, you completely ignore me....

That's because when he's in his own little world, he can't see you from there. :laugh:

 

[FollowTheWay]

Actually it only takes one of the Houses to stop the funding -

What say you - Follow the Way?

Both the House and the Senate were controlled by the Republicans from 1999-2007 except for an equal split in the Senate from 2001-2003.

 

[Don]

Both the House and the Senate were controlled by the Republicans from 1999-2007 except for an equal split in the Senate from 2001-2003.

Shall we pull the voting records to see just how the democrats tried to stop it?

 

[OldRegular]

This war was a mistake from the time that GW Bush started it.

You are dead wrong.

The initial invasion of Afghanistan was the correct thing to do: punish Al Queda and the Taliban and then get out. The mistake was staying in there. That misstake was amplified by the war in Iraq. Then the big O made a bad situation worse by abandoning Iraq.

Perhaps the biggest mistake of all were the stupid rules of engagement imposed on the military. Some years back Iraqi veterans met with WWII veterans in a nearby town. The conclusion of the WWII vets was they would have lost WWII if hampered by the current rules of engagement.

My personal opinion is we should get out of that part of the world and let them slaughter each other, all in the name of their false god, allah!

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

My personal opinion is we should get out of that part of the world and let them slaughter each other, all in the name of their false god, allah!

Great idea, but it won't work. They'll slaughter each other and still find time, if unfettered by antiterrorism campaigns by the West, to infiltrate the nations of the West and cause havoc, if not actually do major damage. Then again, I'd have to call 9/11 "major damage."

 

[OldRegular]

Great idea, but it won't work. They' slaughter each other and still find time, if unfettered by antiterrorism campaigns by the West, to infiltrate the nations of the West and cause havoc, if not actually do major damage. Then again, I'd have to call 9/11 "major damage."

We need to be more careful who we allow in the country. [The big O has just relaxed, again lawlessly, the rules restricting immigration of anyone associated with terrorists.] Home grown terrorists need to be given a quick trial and quickly executed so they could meet those 70 virgins. Consider, it took almost 5 years to convict the homegrown terrorist in the Fort Hood slaughter of "WORKPLACE VIOLENCE' of all things. As long as "political correctness' dominates the thinking of the military leaders and BigO we are in substantial danger from the homegrown terrorist. I understand that some people are calling for mercy for the Boston terrorist still alive. And these fruitcake ran down his own brother trying to escape!

If an attack originates from a country offering safe haven to the terrorists we can do the same thing we did in Afghanistan except get out after punishing them!

 

[poncho]

You are dead wrong.

The initial invasion of Afghanistan was the correct thing to do: punish Al Queda and the Taliban and then get out. The mistake was staying in there. That misstake was amplified by the war in Iraq. Then the big O made a bad situation worse by abandoning Iraq.

Perhaps the biggest mistake of all were the stupid rules of engagement imposed on the military. Some years back Iraqi veterans met with WWII veterans in a nearby town. The conclusion of the WWII vets was they would have lost WWII if hampered by the current rules of engagement.

My personal opinion is we should get out of that part of the world and let them slaughter each other, all in the name of their false god, allah!

Where in the constitution is the president and/or congress authorized to engage in military actions to punish others?

 

[OldRegular]

Where in the constitution is the president and/or congress authorized to engage in military actions to punish others?

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
http://constitutionus.com

Section 8
1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

You'd think barking moonbats would be like attorneys: Never ask a question for which you don't know the answer.

 

[poncho]

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
http://constitutionus.com

Section 8
1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The law of nations defines a "sovereign state" as

§ 4. What are sovereign states.

Every nation that governs itself, under what form soever, without dependence on any foreign power, is a Sovereign State, Its rights are naturally the same as those of any other state. Such are the moral persons who live together in a natural society, subject to the law of nations. To give a nation a right to make an immediate figure in this grand society, it is sufficient that it be really sovereign and independent, that is, that it govern itself by its own authority and laws.

http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm

The United States government depends on a foreign power (private central bank) to sustain it. Therefore it is not a sovereign state.

My question then is does the Law Of Nations even apply?