So now we have to ask terrorists if they are al-Qaida or not...

[OklahomaTuba]

Just to make sure its OK to kill them.

While these officials said the precise wording of the measure remains unsettled, one draft would restrict American troops in Iraq to combating al-Qaida, training Iraqi army and police forces, maintaining Iraq's territorial integrity and otherwise proceeding with the withdrawal of combat forces.

The decision to try to limit the military mission marks the next move in what Reid and other Senate war critics have said will be a multistep effort to force a change in Bush's strategy and eventually force an end to U.S. participation in the nearly four-year-old war.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/02/22/D8NF6EBG2.html

Brilliant!

So, some terrorist plants an IED or shoots at our troops, they can't fire back until they determine whether the attackers are al Qaeda or garden-variety insurgents????

[StoopTroup]

Can't a Coroner decide which one they were?

[OklahomaTuba]

This sounds like an attempt to see our soliders get slaughtered so the dims can pick up a few political points.

Sickening.

[fadada1]

i heard that on cnn this morning. i can't believe that some peole think this is an effective strategy. it makes me sick to think that those fighting... can't fight. i would rather die with my finger pulling the trigger, as opposed to questioning my decision to pull said trigger.

as it were, i don't think this one will get passed.

[Osce0la]

What happened to the self defense angle? If someone is walking down the street and gets shot at, they can pull out their gun and shoot them without going to jail because it was self defense, but our troops can't shoot at insurgents unless we know for a fact they are linked to Al Qaida?

[Osce0la]

I have a better strategy, let's just send our troops over with a load of rubber bullets - no live ammo. That way while they are killing us, we can just hit them with rapidly moving rubber bullets and hope to stun them long enough to verify that they are linked to Al Qaida...

[IronSooner]

I really wish someone would realize that it's impossible to fight a war without looking "mean" or killing people. Has anyone in history ever *****footed around a conflict like this?

[yermom]

What happened to the self defense angle? If someone is walking down the street and gets shot at, they can pull out their gun and shoot them without going to jail because it was self defense, but our troops can't shoot at insurgents unless we know for a fact they are linked to Al Qaida?

it probably depends on what state you are in

i'm pretty sure that depending where you are, legally you are supposed run away

[Osce0la]

it probably depends on what state you are in

i'm pretty sure that depending where you are, legally you are supposed run away
IMO, over in Iraq, if we are being shot at we should be able to shoot back no matter wtf it is.

[yermom]

IMO, over in Iraq, if we are being shot at we should be able to shoot back no matter wtf it is.

i agree.

i'm just saying that your line of thought in the other post might be invalid since it's not actually accepted to shoot back in all areas here

[Hatfield]

i find it helpful to get outraged over one draft out of several that hasn't been enacted and that i haven't read.

do you really believe that any plan would not allow our soldiers to engage any combantants that were assualting them?

this "plan" is nothing more than a reduction in responsibility leading up to a withdrawal... a weening if you will.

[Hatfield]

i'm pretty sure that depending where you are, legally you are supposed run away

RUN AWAY

http://www.desertratdemocrat.com/archives/HolyGrail072.jpg

[JohnnyMack]

This sounds like a Monty Python sketch.

You there!

Me?

Yes, you! Behind that wall! Are you Al Qaida?

Am I what?

Al Qaida?

What's that?

A terrorist?

Well certainly not.

Well, I'd like to shoot you, but I can't tell if your Al Qaida or not.

Well then I'd suggest you not shoot me!

[JohnnyMack]

RUN AWAY

http://www.desertratdemocrat.com/archives/HolyGrail072.jpg

:mad:

Thunder stealer.

[yermom]

i find it helpful to get outraged over one draft out of several that hasn't been enacted and that i haven't read.

do you really believe that any plan would not allow our soldiers to engage any combantants that were assualting them?

this "plan" is nothing more than a reduction in responsibility leading up to a withdrawal... a weening if you will.

i'm pretty sure i've read current policy that does exactly that

[Widescreen]

i find it helpful to get outraged over one draft out of several that hasn't been enacted and that i haven't read.

do you really believe that any plan would not allow our soldiers to engage any combantants that were assualting them?

this "plan" is nothing more than a reduction in responsibility leading up to a withdrawal... a weening if you will.
Oh....My....

If nothing else, this tells us exactly what the people who proposed these things are thinking. If it gets enacted, we really should just come home because it's a strategy to get far more of our people killed than is happening now. If it doesn't get enacted, we now know where these "public officials'" hearts lie. Am I surprised that you'd minimize the cancer offered by this mindset? No. I'm sure SoonersCuba will jump in here too to take up the fight.

[Hatfield]

could you provide a link? I can't imagine a situation where our policy is one restricting self defense.

I know there are issues regarding specific locations such as mosques and what not but I am speaking to just the out and about sort of scenario

[JohnnyMack]

Harry Truman would be pis*ed.

[OklahomaTuba]

this "plan" is nothing more than a reduction in responsibility leading up to a withdrawal... a weening if you will.

That's great.

So, not only will our liberal masters allow our troops to get killed by non-AQ terrorist without being able to fight back, they get to do it over a peirod of time as well?

Nice.

Now if Murtha succeeds in getting the funding cut for bullets and armor, the dims goal of total defeat in war will finally be realized.

And to think they actually put our soliders their in the first place.

[Hatfield]

Oh....My....

If nothing else, this tells us exactly what the people who proposed these things are thinking. If it gets enacted, we really should just come home because it's a strategy to get far more of our people killed than is happening now. If it doesn't get enacted, we now know where these "public officials'" hearts lie. Am I surprised that you'd minimize the cancer offered by this mindset? No. I'm sure SoonersCuba will jump in here too to take up the fight.

what are you talking about?

it is so funny how any plan offered is deemed by your side as a plan to kill more of our troops solely because it is offered by democrats, all the while ignoring the fact that the current "plan" does the exact same thing.

you can't just leave the area, so I have no problem reducing our role to focusing on training iraqi forces, focusing on al queda, etc.. prior to withdrawal. (which even you have to admit we are going to do at some point.)

So how does reducing their role put them at greater risk or mean "far more" are going to get killed? Sending in an additional 20,000 troops to stay the course of what we are doing seems far more dangerous.

I approached it simply from a tactical standpoint and then you go nuts to satisfy your fake outrage.

I am curious how you think this will endanger more troops. and since i haven't read this draft of the legislation that isn't even enacted I am operating under the assumption that the troops would still be allowed to defend themselves

[Hatfield]

That's great.

So, not only will our liberal masters allow our troops to get killed by non-AQ terrostist without being able to fight back, they get to do it over a peirod of time as well?

Nice.

that is one way to incorrectly read what I said.

as an aside, you would favor an immediate and total withdrawal? If not you are a hypocrite

[JohnnyMack]

That's great.

So, not only will our liberal masters allow our troops to get killed by non-AQ terrorist without being able to fight back, they get to do it over a peirod of time as well?

Nice.

Now if Murtha succeeds in getting the funding cut for bullets and armor, the dims goal of total defeat in war will finally be realized.

I think you're being overly dramatic here.

[OklahomaTuba]

as an aside, you would favor an immediate and total withdrawal? If not you are a hypocrite

If the dims are going to strip our military from the ability to win, then yes, get them the **** out of there.

I want to win this thing. Its more than obvious your kind won't stand for it.

[OklahomaTuba]

it is so funny how any plan offered is deemed by your side as a plan to kill more of our troops solely because it is offered by democrats, all the while ignoring the fact that the current "plan" does the exact same thing.


The current plan doesn't allow our troops to go after the Mahdi Army and such?

Someone should tell Sadr that. Oh, thats right, he fled to Iran, NM.

[Hatfield]

If the dims are going to strip our military from the ability to win, then yes, get them the **** out of there.

I want to win this thing. Its more than obvious your kind won't stand for it.

can you even define what "win this thing" means?

[OklahomaTuba]

I think you're being overly dramatic here.

Well, WTF do you think is going to happen if you take away funding for the war, take away the rules of engagement during the war, and only let our soliders shoot one type of raghead terrorists?

Last I checked, AQ doesn't wear unifroms.

[OklahomaTuba]

can you even define what "win this thing" means?

Yes, I can. And so can everyone else that doesn't have their head stuck up their ***.

[Hatfield]

i like how tuba is shifting between the murtha proposal and the one that we were talking about as if they were one and the same.

[Hatfield]

Yes, I can. And so can everyone else that doesn't have their head stuck up their ***.

so give it a go...let's hear how you would "win this thing" and eradicate the notion of terrorism from the middle east...

[Widescreen]

So how does reducing their role put them at greater risk or mean "far more" are going to get killed? Sending in an additional 20,000 troops to stay the course of what we are doing seems far more dangerous.
Let's see.

one draft would restrict American troops in Iraq to combating al-Qaida
Exactly how does one do that when many groups are shooting at you? Our ROE are already WAY too restrictive. Now when we run across bad guys we have to find out which group they're affiliated with? Completely retarded.


I approached it simply from a tactical standpoint and then you go nuts to satisfy your fake outrage.
You think that's nuts, huh? :rolleyes: Oh, and my outrage isn't fake. Any plan designed to get out of Iraq at any cost (even putting our troops any greater danger than they already are) makes me outraged. For real. If the Repub minority leader proposed the same thing, I'd be just as outraged.


I am curious how you think this will endanger more troops.
Seems self-evident. Further restrictions placed on our troops = more troops killed. I'm not trying to convince you of anything because I don't believe that's possible. I'm just trying to answer your question.

[OklahomaTuba]

So how does reducing their role put them at greater risk or mean "far more" are going to get killed?

Interesting.

You actually believe that if we just stop trying to kill terrorists, they will just go away and leave us alone huh?

Liberal FantasyLand is alive and well.

[Hatfield]

Interesting.

You actually believe that if we just stop trying to kill terrorists, they will just go away and leave us alone huh?

Liberal FantasyLand is alive and well.

show me where I said that.

[OklahomaTuba]

so give it a go...let's hear how you would "win this thing" and eradicate the notion of terrorism from the middle east...

How about finishing the job in Iraq for staters instead of cutting and running??

You know, the job the dims voted us into??

[Hatfield]

and widescreen, it may just be semantics (because again I haven't read the entire proposal) but when I see restrict the troops to combat al queda, I read that as not excluding the troops from defending themselves against whatever faction is assualting them, rather it is just mentioning that their goal is focused on al queda targets.

[JohnnyMack]

Well, WTF do you think is going to happen if you take away funding for the war, take away the rules of engagement during the war, and only let our soliders shoot one type of raghead terrorists?

Last I checked, AQ doesn't wear unifroms.

I think that they're trying to redefine the mission of the soldiers in Iraq. I haven't seen anywhere where it says that if U.S. Soldiers were to come under fire that they wouldn't be able to return fire. I think it's more of a reorganizing of the offense, not the defense.

I personally think it's a bad idea, but they didn't ask me.

[Hatfield]

How about finishing the job in Iraq for staters instead of cutting and running??

You know, the job the dims voted us into??

and again...how does one finish the job? apparently i asked a simple question you seem to imply it is pretty cut and dry so enlighten me.

[OklahomaTuba]

show me where I said that.
Holy crap, do you even read what you post???

[JohnnyMack]

You know, the job the dims voted us into??

Come on now. Who put us in there?

[OklahomaTuba]

and again...how does one finish the job? apparently i asked a simple question you seem to imply it is pretty cut and dry so enlighten me.

Well, we have accomplished all but one of our objectives in Iraq, and that is stablizing it.

Don't tell me you actually don't understand this. :rolleyes:

[OklahomaTuba]

Come on now. Who put us in there?
Everyone that voted for the war put us in there.

[OklahomaTuba]

I think it's more of a reorganizing of the offense, not the defense.

Usually, when one is at war, it requires an offense.

Dims seem to have forgetten that.

[Widescreen]

and widescreen, it may just be semantics (because again I haven't read the entire proposal) but when I see restrict the troops to combat al queda, I read that as not excluding the troops from defending themselves against whatever faction is assualting them, rather it is just mentioning that their goal is focused on al queda targets.
I'm speculating here, but I have a feeling that there are groups that are loosely affiliated with al qaeda and get some support from them but are not explicitly al qaeda. They may be baathist elements. Do we attack those groups are not? And how do we know if they are truly affiliated? And if we could somehow do that, what purpose would it serve? I thought we were fighting a war on terrorists (I hate the term 'war on terror'. Terror is a concept, not a person). There are a lot of muslim groups that are terrorists that aren't al qaeda. If you don't think the Iraq war is a component of the war on terrorists (as many don't), then we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.

[JohnnyMack]

Usually, when one is at war, it requires an offense.

Dims seem to have forgetten that.

Whatever, but let's keep the discussion accurate shall we? You're using scare tactics, not common sense.

[OklahomaTuba]

Whatever, but let's keep the discussion accurate shall we? You're using scare tactics, not common sense.

Heh, scare tactics.

So explaining the consequences of a plan to strip our soldiers of the tools and ROE's to win is a scare tactic now?


:rolleyes:

[NormanPride]

chicken little + obtuse apologist = ****ing hilarious

[Hatfield]

Holy crap, do you even read what you post???

yes. it seems (to you) i have said if we leave the terrorists alone they will go away.

i merely asked you to show me where I said that.

so let's see it.

i haven't said that, nor do i believe that

[OklahomaTuba]

There are a lot of muslim groups that are terrorists that aren't al qaeda. If you don't think the Iraq war is a component of the war on terrorists (as many don't), then we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.

Well, if the only people we can kill in Iraq are AQs, then that means AQ is in Iraq, and that means Iraq is a part of the GWOT.

If anything, this shows that liberal dims have no problem seeing us LOSE the war on terror.

In fact, I think they want us to, just cause they hate Bush so much.

[OklahomaTuba]

i haven't said that, nor do i believe that

Yet you somehow believe its OK to strip the soliders of the tools they need to kill terrorists???

[JohnnyMack]

Heh, scare tactics.

So explaining the consequences of a plan to strip our soldiers of the tools and ROE's to win is a scare tactic now?


:rolleyes:

That's not what you were talking about when you posted this thread. You were talking about something completely different and have slid the Murtha discussion in somehow. Your assumption that U.S. soldiers wouldn't be able to defend themselves and would just have to get shot at until they verified if they were Al Qaida is inaccurate scare tactics.

[OklahomaTuba]

That's not what you were talking about when you posted this thread. You were talking about something completely different and have slid the Murtha discussion in somehow.

WTF are you talking about???

This thread was started because it is senate dims demanding a change in the ROE's, so they can only go after AQ.

[OklahomaTuba]

Murtha's attempt to strip our soliders of armor and equipment is equally disgusitng though.

Oh well, as long as it helps the dims politically, who cares how many of our soliders get killed cause they can't fight back, right???