TALIBAN FUNERAL OFF LIMITS ?
A United States Military drone spotted a goldmine in Taliban leadership and fighters. The image was sent back for clearance to fire an kill the 190 gathered for the funeral of what appeared because of the number to be the funeral of a high ranking Taliban leader which would also indicate that leaders of that same caliper were in attendance but because of the politically correct rules of engagement that state that we cannot fire on a cemetary not only was permission to fire denied but quickly after the funeral all 190 dispersed into the Afghan Mountains to live and kill another day. Now I ask you if this had been one of our soldiers funerals or and Afghan civilian or a Pakistani leader or civilian or even a funeral procession not in a cemetary does anyone believe that the Taliban would have hesitated to fire and kill those in attendance ? I realize that many would make the argument that this is one of the many things that make us different from them. The fact that we have rules that we follow and they do not when it comes to war. If this had been a civilian with a few Taliban in attendance of course we should not fire. But a Taliban leader being buried by 190 of his fellow leaders and fighters ? Have we become so politically correct in our view of war that we have forgotten that the very nature of war is its disgusting and ugly face that in itself makes it something that we want to avoid ? Yes war is ugly and it sometimes requires that we make hard choices in prosecuting the war and if firing in a cemetary full of the enemy means that the war will last one day less or that American lves can be saved because 190 of the enemy are killed then by all means FIRE! Robert E. Lee once stated, "It is well that war is so terrible. We should grow too fond of it." Terrible is the nature of war and if political correctness continues to decide how this war is conducted then we are doomed to eternal war. It is time to take the kid gloves off and release the full, awsome and devistating potential and power of the United States Military in the War on Terror and destroy the enemy completely. We have the capability to flush out these animals with massive air and Cruise Misslile capabilities and the forces to clean up the rest. Yes it will cost as do all wars and we will have casualties as in all wars but at the risk of sounding cold we lost more in the first 30 minutes of D-Day than we have in the last five years in this war on all fronts. Yes every soldiers life is precious and every family suffers a tremendous loss as does this nation if we lose even one soldier but war is war and WE ARE AT WAR ! The enemy brought the war to us on 9/11 and we rightfully chose to take the figth to them and defend this nation. We have held back far to long and it is well past time to use our full capabilities and show the enemy just who we are and how they cannot stand up to the power of The United States. Hard and aggressive fighting will not be popular and it will cause great political flak both at home and over seas. But in the final analysis destroying the enemy and their capability to attack us or our allies again will be its reward.Ken Taylor
posted by The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth | 1:21 PM
6 Comments:
It is not political correctness - it is the military's rules of engagement that have been in place for years. If you have any complaints send them directly to the "great" Donald Rumsfeld and our Commander-in-Chief. They are the ones who are responsible for prosecuting the war.
HA, ha, ha of course if the U.S. wanted to it could annihilate the entire globe. Their is no commitment to winning the war in Afghanistan and no credible desire to eliminate the heroin trade. The idea is to perpetuate continual violence, empire building and " thug maintainence ". Name me one country on the planet America hasn't screwed with? Puppet tyrant dictators and hired thugs to maintain control. America has become what it's constitution was designed to defeat. Seven million dollar birthday parties for their wives, 20 million a year salaries, 200 million lump sum pension packages and severance packages and 25 cents an hour for the employees in the race to the bottom, millions of illegal immigrants to battle organized labor, tom delay charging people between 2-5,000 dollars to work in the Marianna Islands for 25 cents an hour and live in a bunkhouse for their life while the profits go to a Chinese businessman and the republican political campaign.
The pentagon game of creating bogiemen and all you do is support it spewing the lies and inciting the murder and stealing. The rich people rake in the profits and the naive and truthfully vulnerable end up dying as patriots for a plutocratic agenda that is seditious and not patriotic.
They want the taliban to be able to attack you or they couldn't justify their war's. They need America to be afraid and use the science of psychological manipulation to keep you killing while they do the sealing from everyone. Haliburton, cheney and ten thousand dollar toilet seats for the Navy says it all. What a horrible example for humanity and the third millenia.
If you don't want to be called satan don't behave like satan.
“If you don't want to be called satan don't behave like satan.”
If you don’t want to be called ignorant, don’t behave with willful ignorance.
What I find ironic is on the very same week that all the right wingers are pointing to the fictionalized, "Path to 9/11" made-for-TV movie and saying that Clinton was somehow responsible for not taking out bin Laden with a CIA hellfire missile from a drone, we have almost exactly the same situation occur under Bush.
I am really surprised it took this long for someone to mention this. You do have a smei-valid point Rob. Where it falls apart is the fact that under Clinton that was to be a completely covert strike on someone in a training camp. This was to take place in a country our forces are currently serving and still creating diplomatic foundations with. I am one of many with frustrations over the situation but the left is always talking about the need to talk and for diplomacy! Well that is what we have been doing with the Govt. in Afghanistan.
Under Clinton it was different because at that time we were not going to have diplomatic ties with the Govt. and the shot should have been taken. No ties, in camp.
You are arguing that the Karzai government would have objected to killing 190 Taliban fighters? I highly doubt that given the growing danger the Taliban represents.
I would bet that Hamid Karzai and the Afghan government would express their thanks, not raise a diplomatic fuss.
We are also directly and openly fighting the Taliban now. We were not officially at war during Clinton's presidency. If anything, the shot should have been taken now.
Post a Comment
<< Home