Washington Times editorial

Discussion in 'The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr' started by armedandsafe, Mar 8, 2010.

  1. armedandsafe

    armedandsafe Guest

    Rules of (non) engagement.

    Sad, but not unexpected from this administration.

  2. Lee C.

    Lee C. New Member

    Feb 3, 2010
    Antigo Wi.
    pops, you really think the dems in office to day know any thing about fighting a war. There good at tiying are hands be hind are backs and telling the guys over there go fight. Look at all the sh@t they pulled on us when we where in vietnam. I say let them do there job or pull them out.

  3. hogger129

    hogger129 Well-Known Member

    Nov 29, 2009
    They need to let the military do what they are trained to do best.

    I have heard many say that politicians running the war is why we lost in Vietnam.

    I'm not saying we should turn into animals and kill 'em all, but would these people we're fighting show us the same respect we're showing them? No.

    Whether or not it had to do with our nation's foreign policy, WE were attacked on our home soil.

    Vietnam was a different time, different place. The insurgency back then was popular among many people there. We were fighting not only the Vietnamese, but the Russians and Chinese who were supporting/supplying them.

    If it were up to me, I'd take our troops out, bring them home with their families and let the Israelis off the leash after the terrorists. They've been fighting terrorists nearly all their lives. Against terrorists, they're a more battle-hardened force.

    One problem with the Democrats is no matter who it is, they always try to find a diplomatic solution all the time. Look at Carter. When they took hostages in Iran, what did he do? Reagan came into office and got 'em out. Or how about bin Laden during the Clinton administration? Didn't do anything. Same way with Hussein.

    Look back on JFK. When the Russians built the Berlin Wall, what did he do? When they put missiles in Cuba, what did he do? They tried to find a diplomatic solution to it. Granted, those were different times and I probably would've tried to avoid a war at all costs too.

    It begs the question of what will the Obama administration do when Iran starts making offensive moves? Or even more frightening - North Korea.

    One thing you gotta give Bush - he didn't sit and do nothing.
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2010
  4. Trouble 45-70

    Trouble 45-70 New Member

    Wonder if the Feds. Would use the same Rules of Engagement in the U.S. when they go to round up our guns. They didn't use that policy at Waco or Ruby Ridge and made the threat on Elian Gonzalez's Grandparents.

    Too bad the people who planed and executed this policy aren't embedded in the units that have to carry out this policy. Wonder how long it would last if they were being shot at and couldn't return fire?
  5. Suicide*Ride

    Suicide*Ride New Member

    Apr 6, 2009
    Golden, Colorado
    It seems to me that this administration has the current ROE set for a reason. Anyone care to make a guess what that reason is? :mad:

    If you de-fang & de-claw the American Military Tiger, you can then walk right up & neuter it @ will.

  6. bigbore480

    bigbore480 New Member

    Apr 9, 2009
    Okmulgee OK
    A couple of days ago one of my friends mentioned that one of his other friends son had been offered 200,000.00 to re-enlist, he is a ranger. I told him with the rules of engagement I didn't think it was worth it to be a target.
  7. topper

    topper New Member

    Aug 2, 2006
    deep in the woods
    The war(s) are making a butt load of money for many folks and they are not about to let it go away quickly. Just like the vietnam war was a cash cow for many people so is this one. I doubt that america will ever get disengaged from either Iraq or Afghanistan.
  8. Suicide*Ride

    Suicide*Ride New Member

    Apr 6, 2009
    Golden, Colorado
    $200-large might sound like a lot of green..... until you subtract .gov's piece ($58,000 :eek: :mad:), & the fact that the bonus will force the Soldier into a much higher tax bracket! :mad:

  9. Marlin T

    Marlin T Well-Known Member

    Jul 8, 2005
    New Mexico
    Thanks for the article Pops.
  10. Trouble 45-70

    Trouble 45-70 New Member

    Suicide. as the 'Bush' Tax Cuts expire that $58,000 increases substantially. Now even our soldiers are the taxable wealthy.
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr Washington Times editorial Mar 22, 2010
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr Another Great Washington Times Editorial Mar 11, 2010
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr Washington Post Columnist: Air Conditioning is Sexist Jul 27, 2015
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr Washington Sheriff- "we need MRAPS to deal with Constitutionalist" Dec 17, 2014
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr A Polite Request (and Offer) To Our Washington Members Nov 4, 2014