Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
New US Battle Rule:; No Fighting Near Afghan Homes.
Topic Started: Jun 23 2009, 12:16 PM (288 Views)
Dean
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
The US military says it has decided to take measures to lessen Afghan civilian casualty by avoiding fights near residential areas.

US military spokesman Rear Admiral Greg Smith said Monday that Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who took command of international forces in Afghanistan earlier in the month, will issue orders within days to implement the new strategy.

Smith added that troops might attack insurgents hiding in Afghan houses if forces are in imminent danger and must return fire.

"But if there is a compound they're taking fire from and they can remove themselves from the area safely, without any undue danger to the forces, then that's the option they should take," Smith said. "Because in these compounds we know there are often civilians kept captive by the Taliban."

Civilian casualties are a major source of friction between Afghan President Hamid Karzai and the United States.

According to the UN figures, some 830 civilians have been killed in US, NATO and Afghan forces strikes last year.

RZS/MD


Gee I wonder where the Taliban will seek shelter now.

Idiotic sissy liberals and their lack of common sense. Sissy 2 will be a worse President than Sissy1 was, and I thought that was impossible.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klecko73isGod

Dean
Jun 23 2009, 12:16 PM
Quote:
 
The US military says it has decided to take measures to lessen Afghan civilian casualty by avoiding fights near residential areas.

US military spokesman Rear Admiral Greg Smith said Monday that Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who took command of international forces in Afghanistan earlier in the month, will issue orders within days to implement the new strategy.

Smith added that troops might attack insurgents hiding in Afghan houses if forces are in imminent danger and must return fire.

"But if there is a compound they're taking fire from and they can remove themselves from the area safely, without any undue danger to the forces, then that's the option they should take," Smith said. "Because in these compounds we know there are often civilians kept captive by the Taliban."

Civilian casualties are a major source of friction between Afghan President Hamid Karzai and the United States.

According to the UN figures, some 830 civilians have been killed in US, NATO and Afghan forces strikes last year.

RZS/MD


Gee I wonder where the Taliban will seek shelter now.

Idiotic sissy liberals and their lack of common sense. Sissy 2 will be a worse President than Sissy1 was, and I thought that was impossible.
Did you bother to read this before passing judgement and posting it?

Of course you didn't.

Quote:
 
Smith added that troops might attack insurgents hiding in Afghan houses if forces are in imminent danger and must return fire.


What is it like to be so filled with feelings of hate and inadequacy Dean?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ernie
Member Avatar

Why announce this publicly? Dean is right. If they didn't already do it, they will now definitely take up amongst Afghan civilians. At a bare minimum a strategic blunder announcing this strategy in public. It is as if Obama cares about world image rather than winning the battle.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DoubleDown
Member Avatar

Ernie
Jun 23 2009, 01:00 PM
Why announce this publicly? Dean is right. If they didn't already do it, they will now definitely take up amongst Afghan civilians. At a bare minimum a strategic blunder announcing this strategy in public. It is as if Obama cares about world image rather than winning the battle.
In a fight against an ideology, image is the most important factor.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ernie
Member Avatar

DoubleDown
Jun 23 2009, 01:11 PM
Ernie
Jun 23 2009, 01:00 PM
Why announce this publicly? Dean is right. If they didn't already do it, they will now definitely take up amongst Afghan civilians. At a bare minimum a strategic blunder announcing this strategy in public. It is as if Obama cares about world image rather than winning the battle.
In a fight against an ideology, image is the most important factor.
Tell that to the men on the ground.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DoubleDown
Member Avatar

Ernie
Jun 23 2009, 01:12 PM
DoubleDown
Jun 23 2009, 01:11 PM

Quoting limited to 2 levels deep
Tell that to the men on the ground.
What about the men who have lost their innocent family members as civilian casualties?

We're never going to win a war against terrorism if we continue to take actions that create terrorists.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ernie
Member Avatar

DoubleDown
Jun 23 2009, 01:17 PM
Ernie
Jun 23 2009, 01:12 PM

Quoting limited to 2 levels deep
What about the men who have lost their innocent family members as civilian casualties?

We're never going to win a war against terrorism if we continue to take actions that create terrorists.
Of course the righteous thing to do is minimize civilian casualties. And I believe the US Armed Forces are a righteous unit, and will do the right thing. Fact is, things happen in war, and to hamstring are armed forces, Brother Double, with specific rules of engagement may put some hesitation in them at exactly the wrong time, and cost them dearly. This is not righteous.

BTW didn't Obama change the name of the battle? It is no longer referred to as the war on terrorism (although I agree the War on Terror is fitting).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DoubleDown
Member Avatar

Ernie
Jun 23 2009, 01:27 PM
DoubleDown
Jun 23 2009, 01:17 PM

Quoting limited to 2 levels deep
Of course the righteous thing to do is minimize civilian casualties. And I believe the US Armed Forces are a righteous unit, and will do the right thing. Fact is, things happen in war, and to hamstring are armed forces, Brother Double, with specific rules of engagement may put some hesitation in them at exactly the wrong time, and cost them dearly. This is not righteous.

BTW didn't Obama change the name of the battle? It is no longer referred to as the war on terrorism (although I agree the War on Terror is fitting).
I am unaware of any name change...it's all semantics anyway.

I just don't see what is wrong with this policy. It is aimed to minimize civilian casualties, which puts us in a good public light in the region, and if you read it carefully, it keeps the door open to act forcefully if needed.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ernie
Member Avatar

DoubleDown
Jun 23 2009, 01:41 PM
Ernie
Jun 23 2009, 01:27 PM

Quoting limited to 2 levels deep
I am unaware of any name change...it's all semantics anyway.

I just don't see what is wrong with this policy. It is aimed to minimize civilian casualties, which puts us in a good public light in the region, and if you read it carefully, it keeps the door open to act forcefully if needed.
It basically tells the Taliban where they can hide. Makes the job of the soldier just a bit more difficult.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
piney
Member Avatar

Ernie
Jun 23 2009, 01:44 PM
DoubleDown
Jun 23 2009, 01:41 PM

Quoting limited to 2 levels deep
It basically tells the Taliban where they can hide. Makes the job of the soldier just a bit more difficult.
right..because before this, the Taliban was not using human shields to hide behind..

jeez..it seems you are criticizing for the sake of criticizing.

You seem to agree with the idea behind this article but still want to find a way to make Obama seem incompetent...you can't have it both ways.

T
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DoubleDown
Member Avatar

Ernie
Jun 23 2009, 01:44 PM
DoubleDown
Jun 23 2009, 01:41 PM

Quoting limited to 2 levels deep
It basically tells the Taliban where they can hide. Makes the job of the soldier just a bit more difficult.
As if they didn't already know?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ernie
Member Avatar

piney
Jun 23 2009, 01:49 PM
Ernie
Jun 23 2009, 01:44 PM

Quoting limited to 2 levels deep
right..because before this, the Taliban was not using human shields to hide behind..

jeez..it seems you are criticizing for the sake of criticizing.

You seem to agree with the idea behind this article but still want to find a way to make Obama seem incompetent...you can't have it both ways.

T
My problem is why announce this publicly? It serves no purpose.

I have been more than fair with Mr. Obama. I do not criticize for the sake of criticizing. In fact I gave him his 100 days before I started posting more actively on this forum. I registered back in January, I gave him a chance. I was more than fair. Now I just speak the truth.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Plumberkhan
Member Avatar

Dean
Jun 23 2009, 12:16 PM
Idiotic sissy liberals and their lack of common sense. Sissy 2 will be a worse President than Sissy1 was, and I thought that was impossible.
The US military are idiotic liberal sissies?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
piney
Member Avatar

Ernie
Jun 23 2009, 02:07 PM
piney
Jun 23 2009, 01:49 PM

Quoting limited to 2 levels deep
My problem is why announce this publicly? It serves no purpose.

I have been more than fair with Mr. Obama. I do not criticize for the sake of criticizing. In fact I gave him his 100 days before I started posting more actively on this forum. I registered back in January, I gave him a chance. I was more than fair. Now I just speak the truth.
not really Ern...if you felt you needed to wait the 100 days before posting then it is obvious you were negative from the start.

There is no need to hide you bias...obviously you were not an Obama supporter and you do not agree with his policies...all well and good...but to pretend that you have been objective in your time waiting for Obama is a bit disingenuous at the very least.

I supported Obama and voted for him, and I am not some sycophant who thinks everything he has done is wonderful, but the idea that you in any way are objective in your criticism is laughable..see your daily cartoons as proof.

Look, Obama seems to be dropping the ball with Iran, I kind of agree with that, although I also think the GOP is using this as a political tool and would gleefully be chiding him if Obama was stronger in his support of the Iranian protesters.

Here, though, seems to be criticism for no reason. If anything, this is stated publicly to try and reaffirm that yes, we are the good guys, and if there are civilian casualties it is not because the US has not taken every measure they can to avoid collateral damage.

It is basically PR, which really does not endanger the troops as Dean and you probably want to paint it as. It is basically announcing our military's practice when dealing with insurgents in civilian areas.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ernie
Member Avatar

piney
Jun 23 2009, 02:12 PM
Ernie
Jun 23 2009, 02:07 PM

Quoting limited to 2 levels deep
not really Ern...if you felt you needed to wait the 100 days before posting then it is obvious you were negative from the start.

There is no need to hide you bias...obviously you were not an Obama supporter and you do not agree with his policies...all well and good...but to pretend that you have been objective in your time waiting for Obama is a bit disingenuous at the very least.

I supported Obama and voted for him, and I am not some sycophant who thinks everything he has done is wonderful, but the idea that you in any way are objective in your criticism is laughable..see your daily cartoons as proof.

Look, Obama seems to be dropping the ball with Iran, I kind of agree with that, although I also think the GOP is using this as a political tool and would gleefully be chiding him if Obama was stronger in his support of the Iranian protesters.

Here, though, seems to be criticism for no reason. If anything, this is stated publicly to try and reaffirm that yes, we are the good guys, and if there are civilian casualties it is not because the US has not taken every measure they can to avoid collateral damage.

It is basically PR, which really does not endanger the troops as Dean and you probably want to paint it as. It is basically announcing our military's practice when dealing with insurgents in civilian areas.

Brother Piney, you seem a righteous man. I only seek the truth. While I did not vote for Obama, I gave him his chance. You say I didn't, that is fine, but I disagree. Thank you, though, for your well written and polite response. Certain other posters can take heed from your example. :thumbsup:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dean
Member Avatar

DoubleDown
Jun 23 2009, 01:17 PM


We're never going to win a war against terrorism if we continue to take actions that create terrorists.
So we're all going to have to convert to Islam?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dean
Member Avatar

Plumberkhan
Jun 23 2009, 02:07 PM
The US military are idiotic liberal sissies?
No, the Muslim-In-Chief is a clone of sissy 1.....
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klecko73isGod

Dean
Jun 23 2009, 03:10 PM
Plumberkhan
Jun 23 2009, 02:07 PM
The US military are idiotic liberal sissies?
No, the Muslim-In-Chief is a clone of sissy 1.....
I got a feeling the President doesn't come up with the strategy on the ground.

One can only imagine how much worse we'd be doing in both Afghanistan and Iraq considering who held that job for the first 7 and a half years of this war that was supposed to last three months. :rolleyes:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DoubleDown
Member Avatar

Dean
Jun 23 2009, 03:09 PM
DoubleDown
Jun 23 2009, 01:17 PM


We're never going to win a war against terrorism if we continue to take actions that create terrorists.
So we're all going to have to convert to Islam?
Not being Muslim creates terrorists? To the same extent as dropping bombs and killing innocent civilians?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
piney
Member Avatar

Ernie
Jun 23 2009, 02:26 PM
piney
Jun 23 2009, 02:12 PM

Quoting limited to 2 levels deep
Brother Piney, you seem a righteous man. I only seek the truth. While I did not vote for Obama, I gave him his chance. You say I didn't, that is fine, but I disagree. Thank you, though, for your well written and polite response. Certain other posters can take heed from your example. :thumbsup:
the problem is..you don't have to give Obama a fair shot....if you don't agree with him and you didn't support him why should you?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · State · Next Topic »
Add Reply