History ~ December 1941 : Hong Kong Falls To Japan

[fluffy0000]

...,maybe you should tell the Taliban , Al Qaeda and assorted insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq about the United States superior airpower?
Since Oct 7 2001' US Operation Enduring Freedom the war grinds into it's ninth (9) year in Afghanistan with no end in sight .
Iraq since 2003' Operation Iraqi Freedom none of the goals outlined by US has ever been reached .

[Ryzorian]

Because politicians won't let the military use what it has in it's arsenal. They are too Mamby Pamby about it. Those "insurgents" wouldn't be alive now if we were allowed to really go after them, and we dont need nukes to do it either. I'm ex military, my brother serves currently, we have conventional weapons that would make thier blood turn cold if they knew we got the go ahead to deploy them.

The US should go back to doing what we did early in Afganistan, what drove the Taliban out in a few months. If they hid in a mountain cave, we just collapsed the top of the mountain onto them. If they hid in a hospital... we blew it up, if they hid in a school... we blew it up, if they hid in a mosque... we blew it up. We used fuel air bombs that not only destroyed bunkers, it sucked the oxygen out of an entire area. That's why Osama's own son left him early in the fight, cause he was sure the US was out to kill them all.

We have the weapons, and equipment, we know the tactics that work. It's Washington that stoped it, it's like the left hand is afraid of what the right hand is doing. Washington is so concerned about civilian casualties, befriending the "Afganistani's and "training them" to take care of themselves... blah blah blah, that it's gumming up the whole operation.



I think that is wasted effort, and pulls resources away from killing jihadi's, wich is the orginal mission to begin with. We got overly sidetracked with things that ultimately won't help anybody, in some vain atempt to make us look like the good guy.

Honestly, we aren't there to be the good guy, we are there to be the strong guy that kills jihadi's, so they cease to exist as a viable threat.This isn't a love fest, it's a war, and war's are ugly.

[fluffy0000]

congratulations! Both Afghanistan, Iraq conflicts to date have cost more than all of what the United States spent to win WW2 ( USD adjusted for todays inflation rate).
The arguement for the 'politicians interfering' with the conduct of these wars is just plain untrue. No bill put forward by the 2 Bush administrations to pay for these wars since 2001' through todays administration of Obama have ever been denied. period.
Money talks and BS' walks.

[dogsbody70]

If 9/11 hadn't happened and the war on terrorism begun-- would america or Britain have joined in.

We should not have gone in except for the pack of lies we had to swallow.

ALso david Kelly's supposed suicide?

I still don't know why we are in Afghanistan.

governments are happy to send troops in to these places-- great loss of life both sides-- WHy are we there?

[Ryzorian]

In world war 2, dureing the break out of Normandy we took 90,000 casualties in 2 months. Casualties in Afganistan are no where near what they were then.

Hell, dureing the Civil war we lost 2,000 men a day for weeks dureing the wilderness campaign. So lets be real about "casualties". They aren't that bad.

I understand that loved ones are dieing here, they need to be honored and their family cared for with the highest reguard, but they volunteered for this, they knew what they were getting into, same as I did when I served.

Spending bills have nothing to do with operational procedure, Washington sets the rules of engagement and that is what is screwing things up now. Most of the cost over runs are becuse of the lame atempt at "nation building" wich is irrelavent. 90% of Afgans were ignorant uneducated mountain folk when we got there and 85% of them will be that way when we leave, it's a complete waste of time to try to "democratize" them. We never should have gotten involved in nation building, we should just be destroying Taliban and Jihadi's.

Iraq, that was kinda a lame thing too. I actually agree it was probably a wasted move tactically speaking. I mean, if it was for oil, how come we didn't get any?. Kinda dumb there.

Unless there's a larger "grand statagy" involved in all of this and Jihadi's, Taliban , Iraq are all just the excuse. I personally suspect we are trying to establish bases in that region of the world for future reference when the oil shortages hit and China and Russia become restless.

If you think about it, the countries we are in are between those countries and the oil fields in Saudia Arabia. We also surround Iran, so we have a sort of "containment" action going on there as well. War's aren't fought willy nilly, they have goals involved. Sometimes long term agenda's...you just have to look for them.

Still, what's with the nation building aspect if we are trying to build a defensive grid for future operations? There's alot more in play here than any of us really know.

[fluffy0000]

There is no interference or planning going on in Washington about how the rules of engagement are executed on the ground in either Afghanistan or Iraq.

Where you invented this is anybodys guess?

You give no sources or evidence that would support your claim? The CIC in Afghanistan on the ground or the CIC - The United States Central Command (USCENTCOM) General David Petraeus has never complained of interference and was CIC since 2008' until stepping down to replace General Stanley McChrystal, as the commander of the International Security Assistance Force (which is made up of all U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan).

USCENTCOM sends it's plans back to Washington for approval because thats how a chain of command in United States Armed forces work. Gen. Petraeus reports to the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) who advise the civilian government of the United States.

[Ryzorian]

All rules of engagement are done by civilians in Washington, it's how it is, always has been. That's kinda why the president is "commander in chief," he set's combat operation policy. The Bomb's that were droped on Japan were droped By Truman's order, not some generals. It's the same thing here, the president tell's the army how he wants the war carried out and they try to find a way to achieve that.

General Petraeus has allready re organized the combat operations and use of force to a dagree, within the limited parameter's as set by the current administration, wich severally limit's what can and can't be done. It's why McCrystal complained and ended up getting fired. Wether Patreaus can win this with one hand tied behind his back, blindfolded and hopping on one foot, because that's how the civilian in charge want's him to do it, remains to be seen.

You fight battles to win, sometimes you have to get dirty to do that. If you don't allow the troops to get dirty, they won't win. I understand the knight in shineing armor comeing in to save the day, but knights who actually fight, won't have shiny armor.

[fluffy0000]

wrong again dude? The president does not formulate operations or construct any 'rules of engagement' in Afghanistan or anyplace except your fantasy.

The Rules of Engagement are always set by the field commander, not the politicians. In Vietnam it was Westmoreland, and not Presidents Johnson or Nixon thousands of miles away giving commands.

President Bush turned the operation in Afghanistan over to the UN and NATO Dec 2001.The United States in Afghanistan is part of this UN mission.l

The United States is bound by "rules of war" as set down by the Hague and Geneva Convention which clearly rule out your fantasy of ' kill them all and let god sort them out."

As the US Military must obey the four Legal Authorities over the US Military:

a) UN Conventional Rules of Warfare (1907 Hague Convention (fighting like WWI) and 1949 Geneva Convention (fighting like WWII with frontal assaults and uniforms).

b) Local Laws (Koran (Quran), Hadith, Fiqh, Sharia, and Afghan Tribal Laws).

c) US Civil Laws

d) UCMJ

[Ryzorian]

UCMJ is for military personal, reguaring military discipline amoung the ranks. Military rules of engagment for combat operations however, are designated by the commander in chief or congress. Generals recieve thier orders and carry them out as best they can. Our military is controled by civilians, that's one of the biggest things that sets us apart from most other nations.

I know several Vietnam vets, they were severely limited in half the engagements because of stupid rules, one of them personally lost 7 men because the enemy retreated into a monestary and he couldn't get artillery support because it was "against the rules". Lucky for him a barrage from the Iron Horse brigade's 8 inch guns cleared out the viet cong and saved his unit...because the South Korean's didn't have the same "rules of engagement" that we did.

That's the one draw back of our system, civilians many times, specially ones with limited or no military experiance themselves, try legislateing combat rules they think are "morally justified" for the war. I can understand thier truely trying to be the good guy in these, but more often than not they just create a mass of red tape that gets troops needlessly dead. That's where we have the problems, trying to obey shira law and following local law is due to civilian orders, and it's getting our troops killed.

Us civil law doesn't apply to the battlefield, enemy troops don't get miranda rights or constitutional rights. It's the UCMJ that's applied in those situations, it why troops accused of murder and the like are tried by military tribunal, not a civilian court. In fact, according to Geneva rules non uniformed combatants can be shot in the field as spies and sabatours. Jihadi's don't have national uniforms nor claim any national lag . So legally we don't have to take prisoners at all.

[fluffy0000]

wrong again dude.
Rules of engagement always originate from the commander in the field.

The president or the congress does not issue orders or rules of engagement to the field commander on how he conducts combat operations?

And again - President Bush turned the US operation in Afghanistan over to the UN and NATO way back in Dec 2001.

Do you have sources?

Please provide any source from Gen. Petraeus complaining about the source or any rules of engagement?
He was in charge of U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM) from September 16, 2008, to June 30, 2010,


below is an example of two (2) sources.

(RTTNews) 8/4/2010 11:15 AM ET
Gen. Petraeus Calls For Extreme Caution To Minimize Afghan Civilian Casualties
The top U.S. and NATO military commander in Afghanistan has issued new guidelines to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) emphasizing priority to minimize civilian casualties in its mission to wipe out Taliban insurgents.
Gen. David Petraeus issued a strict order on Wednesday in line with a change in tactics introduced by his predecessor Gen. Stanley McChrystall last year, as civilian deaths during ISAF operations targeting militants created "more enemies" than friends.

Oregon Live
Published: Friday, May 14, 2010
David Sirota writes for Creators Syndicate

Though we don't like to call it mass murder, the U.S. government's undeclared drone war in Pakistan is devolving into just that. As noted by a former counterinsurgency adviser to Gen. David Petraeus and a former Army officer in Afghanistan, the operation has become a haphazard massacre.

"Press reports suggest that over the last three years drone strikes have killed about 14 terrorist leaders," David Kilcullen and Andrew Exum wrote in 2009. "But, according to Pakistani sources, they have also killed some 700 civilians. This is 50 civilians for every militant killed."
Former Gen. Stanley McChrystal has, indeed, told journalists that in Afghanistan, U.S. troops have "shot an amazing number of people" and "none has proven to have been a real threat.