Have Our Troops Taken Needless Casualties To Appease Mulsims?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by AAAintheBeltway, Mar 1, 2006.

  1. Since the occupation began, I have been concerned about tactics used by our troops that exposed them to needless casualties. I am talking about such moronic ideas as house to house sweeps in inurgent-controlled areas, allowing insurgents to use mosques as sancturaries and not controlling traffic on key roads used by our troops. The only obvious explanation for any of this was to avoid upsetting Iraqi's, particularly the extreme religious fringes.

    It was brought home to me last night when I was watching a documentary on the fighting. It featured actions in Mosul against the al Sadr militia. In one memorable battle, Marines were forced to engage in a three day firefight out side a mosque and in a cemetary. Obviously, close air support could have ended this battle within 15 minutes. For some unstated reason, none was used. Tanks were also standing by unused. Meanwhile, the Marines took numerous casualties. Eventually they killed enough of the militiamen to calim victory, but al Sadr himself was allowed to go his merry way and in fact now is part of the government.

    Similarly, despite the international indignation over our actions and over episodes such as the al ghraib prison fiasco, this has to be the most heavily lawyered war in history. I recently read about a sniper who got into trouble because he challneged an army lawyer on the legailty of ammo they were using. The female JAG officer had given an opinion that the sniper ammo was illegal under the law of war, but in fact she was wrong. Other officers have been forced out of the service and faced prison time for such things as shooting terrorists guarding a bomb factory during an arrest or firing a pistol to frightne a terrorist to give up ambush plans.

    Democrats in congress grandstand over things like body armor, but the real scandal to me is that our troops have been exposed to death rather than allowed to use normal wartime tactics. Whether it is due to civilians in the Pentagon and State Department wanting to placate the europeans and iraqis or the Bush administration trying to pretend that all the fighting is over, the fact is our troops seem to have been put at needless risk. An investigation is long overdue, and some heads should roll. I'm notholding my breath.
  2. So if I understand correctly, war is all about our troops acting as uncivilized as humanly possible, is that your perspective?

    More "the end justifies the means" rhetoric from the right wing....

  3. BSAM


    I'll get right to the point: Apparently.
  4. [​IMG]

    Preaching freedom and democracy and we end up with Abu Ghraib and other secret CIA prisons. I saw one article that the US govt settled with one prisoner wrongfully imprisoned. I wonder how long that list will be.
  5. Liberalism is a mental disorder.
  6. If you send troops into combat, you have a moral obligation to them to do everything possible within the law to prevent them taking casualties. This is a concept that liberals , most of whom never served, can't understand. Their view is that the troops should use the least amount of force possible, even if that exposes them to harm. It's not like most liberals or journalists know anyone in the military anyway.
  7. Within which law?

    The law of the end justifies the means? Or according to internal laws, Geneva Convention, that the US helped to push through following WWII?

    Oh, and if you would pay attention, leading republicans like Chuck Hegel and John McCain have denounced our use of torture....and the liberals and journalists know them very well....

  8. What about moral obligation to use real evidence and real intelligence instead of manufactured evidence and fake intelligence. Before sending the troops into harms way?

    Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

    If you send troops into combat, you have a moral obligation to them to do everything possible within the law to prevent them taking casualties. This
  9. maxpi


    The troops were pulled out of Fallujah for months to appease somebody [the international community?]. Then they had to go back in and take the place. Stupid political wars, what does everybody think Vietnam was about? Appeasing the international community and playing by UN rules. When the commies did the Tet Offensive the gloves came off and the US military proceeded to drive the Viet Cong all the way back to Hanoi. The VC endured so much destruction that they ceased to exist, then we let people like the UN and John Kerry and Jane Fonda and the press/whatnot screw with us until we were defeated!! I thought this administration would be immune to that stuff but no.........
  10. Conservatives are all ass-kissers.
    #10     Mar 1, 2006