Donald Trump's greatest achievement.

[eagle1462010]

Sentenced to 20 years ............for firing first and violating Obama Rules of Engagement..............Under Mattis rules NOTHING WOULD BE SAID.

Bullshit. US troops at checkpoints cannot shoot unarmed men just for approaching.

Nothing to do with ROE.

They were ordered to stop at a check point..............and he ordered them to open fire..................And he was fragged for making a decision on the battlefield...........

The rest of his life gone because he made the decision they were hostile forces. And that didn't matter anyway, even though they were Taliban, he was put away for Rules of Engagement.

I don't know why anybody would've signed up for the military UNDER OBAMA..................

 

[NotfooledbyW]

eagle1462010, post: 19626632

Pardon me while I spam the damn thread with those FUCKED BY OBAMA ROE'S..................

Says you and every other racist in the military.

Petraeus ordered the same ROE in Iraq. Not a peep against Bush.

McChystal implemented the same ROE used in Iraq.


That's how we know this is racist.


Both generals support the same strategy
There’s one crucial issue on which Petraeus and McChrystal are the same, however: The belief that the current surge of troops to Afghanistan, and a focus on building better government across Afghanistan with a blend of soldiers and civilian aid workers, is the best way forward. Petraeus oversaw the writing of a 2006 UScounterinsurgency manual that provided a blueprint for McChrystal's strategy in Afghanistan.

General Petraeus and General McChrystal: same policy, different face?


You need to paint a scarlet R on your forehead.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Sentenced to 20 years ............for firing first and violating Obama Rules of Engagement..............Under Mattis rules NOTHING WOULD BE SAID.

Bullshit. US troops at checkpoints cannot shoot unarmed men just for approaching.

Nothing to do with ROE.

They were ordered to stop at a check point..............and he ordered them to open fire..................And he was fragged for making a decision on the battlefield...........

The rest of his life gone because he made the decision they were hostile forces. And that didn't matter anyway, even though they were Taliban, he was put away for Rules of Engagement.

I don't know why anybody would've signed up for the military UNDER OBAMA..................

i hope you mean under BUSH as well?

 

[eagle1462010]

eagle1462010, post: 19626632

Pardon me while I spam the damn thread with those FUCKED BY OBAMA ROE'S..................

Says you and every other racist in the military.

Petraeus ordered the same ROE in Iraq. Not a peep against Bush.

McChystal implemented the same ROE used in Iraq.


That's how we know this is racist.


Both generals support the same strategy
There’s one crucial issue on which Petraeus and McChrystal are the same, however: The belief that the current surge of troops to Afghanistan, and a focus on building better government across Afghanistan with a blend of soldiers and civilian aid workers, is the best way forward. Petraeus oversaw the writing of a 2006 UScounterinsurgency manual that provided a blueprint for McChrystal's strategy in Afghanistan.

General Petraeus and General McChrystal: same policy, different face?


You need to paint a scarlet R on your forehead.

The men fighting these Wars are saying different..............Request fire support and some asshat in the rear denies fire support...................

Or they hesitate to fire because they are worried they'll be investigated..

Or aircraft come home with bombs...........because they afraid if they accidentally hit a target not approved by REAR GUARD LAWYERS that they will get FRAGGED.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

eagle1462010, post: 19626677

I don't know why anybody would've signed up for the military UNDER OBAMA.

Do you say the same about those signing up to fight under Bush/Petraeus in Iraq.

Bush Petraeus were genius' for the surge and same ROE in Iraq to you Obama haters. Not a peep about that.

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[NotfooledbyW]

eagle1462010, post: 19626709

The men fighting these Wars are saying different..........

They are saying that Petraeus and McChrystal had entirely different ROE and counterinsurgency strategy?

Where do they say that?

Now you have a really big lie on your record.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

eagle1462010, post: 19626632

Obama FRAGGED our military...............denied them support ..................and tied their damned hands behind their backs in the fight over there..

No criticism of Bush/Petraeus for the same ROE.

Only variable is that Obama is black,

We get it Eagle. Spam on your racist rant.

 

[eagle1462010]

eagle1462010, post: 19626709

The men fighting these Wars are saying different..........

They are saying that Petraeus and McChrystal had entirely different ROE and counterinsurgency strategy?

Where do they say that?

Now you have a really big lie on your record.

Again..................commonplace the military has said that the ROE's are tying the hands of our War fighters..........PERIOD........

Again..................fire support denied by Rear of military personnel engaged due to ROE's.............

And AGAIN..............THOSE ROE'S are changed PERIOD by MATTIS.

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[gtopa1]

He has made the left admit word for word that repealing the second amendment is there goal. Donald Trump si the greatest President in history.

It is not my goal.

Next.

So you are now complicit in the death of every man, woman, child or trans who dies by gun violence in the USA.

Greg

 

[NotfooledbyW]

eagle1462010, post: 19626709

The men fighting these Wars are saying different..........

They are saying that Petraeus and McChrystal had entirely different ROE and counterinsurgency strategy?

Where do they say that?

Now you have a really big lie on your record.

Again..................commonplace the military has said that the ROE's are tying the hands of our War fighters..........PERIOD........

Again..................fire support denied by Rear of military personnel engaged due to ROE's.............

And AGAIN..............THOSE ROE'S are changed PERIOD by MATTIS.

I have not argued that Mattis did not change a couple things. Your spam rant does address my reply. Never will I guess.


By omission, you admit that you lied again.

And you must have forgotten that Patraeus also took command in Afghanistan under Obama and kept the same ROE that were also in place in Iraq.

Yes the troops don't like them.

Will Petraeus bring back Burger Kingfor the troops? Another change that troops would like to see is a relaxing of rules of engagement (ROE) that have made it difficult to receive permission to shoot back, particularly the use of mortars and other indirect fire on the Taliban.

General Petraeus and General McChrystal: same policy, different face?

Still need a response to your silence, lack of hatred toward Bush for applying the very same ROE in Iraq where it is credited for turning the Iraq disaster around.

Why is Bush Ok but not Obama applying the same ROE.

Stop spamming to answer that question.

Can you write your own words or not?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

eagle1462010, post: 19626800

Ok spammer. I don't disagree with that.

Why are you attacking Obama, but not Bush for applying the very same Petraeus ROE in both Iraq and Afghanistan?

Can you explain that?

Have you ever praised Petraeus for his astounding surge and victory in Iraq?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Sentenced to 20 years ............for firing first and violating Obama Rules of Engagement..............Under Mattis rules NOTHING WOULD BE SAID.

Bullshit. US troops at checkpoints cannot shoot unarmed men just for approaching.

Nothing to do with ROE.

They were ordered to stop at a check point..............and he ordered them to open fire..................And he was fragged for making a decision on the battlefield...........

The rest of his life gone because he made the decision they were hostile forces. And that didn't matter anyway, even though they were Taliban, he was put away for Rules of Engagement.

I don't know why anybody would've signed up for the military UNDER OBAMA..................

i hope you mean under BUSH as well?

It appears the cat got a hold of Eagle's racist tongue.

Can't even bring himself the integrity of accusing Bush of fragging our troops in Iraq.

He just can't do it.

 

[eagle1462010]

Rules of Engagement Need Reform | National Review

This evening, however, our troopers believed that the car ahead wasn’t full of civilians. The driver was too skilled, his tactics too knowing for a carload of shepherds. As the car disappeared into the night, the senior officer on the scene radioed for permission to fire.

His request went to the TOC, the tactical operations center, which is the beating heart of command and control in the battlefield environment. There the “battle captain,” or the senior officer in the chain of command, would decide — shoot or don’t shoot.

If soldiers opened fire after a lawyer had deemed the attack outside the rules, they would risk discipline — even prosecution.

But first there was a call for the battle captain to make, all the way to brigade headquarters, where a JAG officer — an Army lawyer — was on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week. His job was to analyze the request, apply the governing rules of engagement, and make a recommendation to the chain of command. While the commander made the ultimate decision, he rarely contradicted JAG recommendations. After all, if soldiers opened fire after a lawyer had deemed the attack outside the rules, they would risk discipline — even prosecution — if the engagement went awry.

Acting on the best available information — including a description of the suspect vehicle, a description of its tactics, analysis of relevant intelligence, and any available video feeds — the JAG officer had to determine whether there was sufficient evidence of “hostile intent” to authorize the use of deadly force. He had to make a life-or-death decision in mere minutes.

In this case, the lawyer said no — insufficient evidence. No deadly force. Move to detain rather than shoot to kill. The commander deferred. No shot. Move to detain.

Then the call came. Suicide bomber. One of the suspects had self-detonated, and Americans were hurt. One badly — very badly. Despite desperate efforts to save his life, he died just before he arrived at a functioning aid station. Another casualty of the rules of engagement.

For more than a decade, complaints about the rules of engagement have bubbled up on soldiers’ message boards, in stray comments — often by soldiers’ parents — on conservative websites, and in the occasional article in the mainstream press. Frequently, this comes in the context of lauding the military for its restraint. Yet despite being such a vital — and sometimes decisive — factor in a more than decade-long war, the rules of engagement are still poorly understood, and their impact is largely unknown. As ISIS continues to grow and its reach expands from the Middle East to Europe, the United States, and beyond, it’s time to consider the true cost of America’s self-imposed constraints.




Have to call a JAG officer to get permission to fire................

End result...........AMERICAN DEAD AND WOUNDED........

 

[Fiero425]

eagle1462010, post: 19626800

Ok spammer. I don't disagree with that.

Why are you attacking Obama, but not Bush for applying the very same Petraeus ROE in both Iraq and Afghanistan?

Can you explain that?

Have you ever praised Petraeus for his astounding surge and victory in Iraq?

Well that's part of his record! Too bad he didn't stop there! Busted after he got too big for his britches!

 

[eagle1462010]

Sentenced to 20 years ............for firing first and violating Obama Rules of Engagement..............Under Mattis rules NOTHING WOULD BE SAID.

Bullshit. US troops at checkpoints cannot shoot unarmed men just for approaching.

Nothing to do with ROE.

They were ordered to stop at a check point..............and he ordered them to open fire..................And he was fragged for making a decision on the battlefield...........

The rest of his life gone because he made the decision they were hostile forces. And that didn't matter anyway, even though they were Taliban, he was put away for Rules of Engagement.

I don't know why anybody would've signed up for the military UNDER OBAMA..................

i hope you mean under BUSH as well?

It appears the cat got a hold of Eagle's racist tongue.

Can't even bring himself the integrity of accusing Bush of fragging our troops in Iraq.

He just can't do it.

I'm racist is a term we are used to..........and you can take your Rules of Engagement and shove them where the Sun doesn't shine.......

Call a damned JAG LAWYER to get permission to fire in a damned WAR ZONE..................

I hope your happy about them........the last example got one of ours killed...........They should have WASTED THE CAR right up front........but persued them and ended up as CASUALTIES OF ROE'S.........

 

[eagle1462010]

Denied Artillery support

This New Book About The Biggest Battle In Afghanistan Explains How Poor Army Leadership Got Troops Killed

Interviewed for the investigation afterward, Swenson unloaded on the rules of engagement used in Afghanistan, the leadership of officers who didn't send help and the second-guessing he experienced while requesting fire support, according to a copy of his witness statement.



"When I'm being second-guessed by higher or somebody that's sitting in an air-conditioned TOC, why (the) hell am I even out there in the first place?" Swenson told investigators, according to redacted documents reviewed by Marine Corps Times.



This Marine won the Medal of Honor in that fight...............pissed off Marine bashing ROE's...........

Men DIED because of no fire support..........

 

[eagle1462010]

Did Fratricide Fears Stop Fire Support at Ganjgal?

The Ganjgal 15-6 investigation levels some pretty heavy blame on the battalion command for being absent during the key moments of an ambush of Army and Marine trainers that left five Americans and eight Afghan soldiers dead. Officers in the battalion TOC failed to “competently track the battle and synchronize efforts” to provide fire support to the ambushed troops, it reads. Timely indirect fire support was not provided, even though repeated calls went out for just that.


The issue of fire support is a big one here. Only four artillery salvoes were fired in the first minutes of the operation and then all other requests for fires were denies. According to reporting by McClatchy’s Jonathan Landay, a field officer in one command post denied fire support because of a lack of “situational awareness” of friendly locations and the location of a village nearby.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Rules of Engagement Need Reform | National Review

This evening, however, our troopers believed that the car ahead wasn’t full of civilians. The driver was too skilled, his tactics too knowing for a carload of shepherds. As the car disappeared into the night, the senior officer on the scene radioed for permission to fire.

His request went to the TOC, the tactical operations center, which is the beating heart of command and control in the battlefield environment. There the “battle captain,” or the senior officer in the chain of command, would decide — shoot or don’t shoot.

If soldiers opened fire after a lawyer had deemed the attack outside the rules, they would risk discipline — even prosecution.

But first there was a call for the battle captain to make, all the way to brigade headquarters, where a JAG officer — an Army lawyer — was on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week. His job was to analyze the request, apply the governing rules of engagement, and make a recommendation to the chain of command. While the commander made the ultimate decision, he rarely contradicted JAG recommendations. After all, if soldiers opened fire after a lawyer had deemed the attack outside the rules, they would risk discipline — even prosecution — if the engagement went awry.

Acting on the best available information — including a description of the suspect vehicle, a description of its tactics, analysis of relevant intelligence, and any available video feeds — the JAG officer had to determine whether there was sufficient evidence of “hostile intent” to authorize the use of deadly force. He had to make a life-or-death decision in mere minutes.

In this case, the lawyer said no — insufficient evidence. No deadly force. Move to detain rather than shoot to kill. The commander deferred. No shot. Move to detain.

Then the call came. Suicide bomber. One of the suspects had self-detonated, and Americans were hurt. One badly — very badly. Despite desperate efforts to save his life, he died just before he arrived at a functioning aid station. Another casualty of the rules of engagement.

For more than a decade, complaints about the rules of engagement have bubbled up on soldiers’ message boards, in stray comments — often by soldiers’ parents — on conservative websites, and in the occasional article in the mainstream press. Frequently, this comes in the context of lauding the military for its restraint. Yet despite being such a vital — and sometimes decisive — factor in a more than decade-long war, the rules of engagement are still poorly understood, and their impact is largely unknown. As ISIS continues to grow and its reach expands from the Middle East to Europe, the United States, and beyond, it’s time to consider the true cost of America’s self-imposed constraints.




Have to call a JAG officer to get permission to fire................

End result...........AMERICAN DEAD AND WOUNDED........

Did you love these same ROE IN Iraq under Bush?