Bubbalo, if an explosive device has the force to descimate and flip several tons of military grade armored vehicle, the damage it would do to a human body would be extreme, too extreme for that body to continue operating in any significant fashion, and damned well too extreme to allow combat action. And in your, heh, "statement" about the Iragi militaries combat experience, you, again, fail to recognize a simple fact, the fact that prior to US involvment, those forces had overran the country of Kuwait in a decidely small amount of time. It's kinda hard to annihilate ANY soverign nations military if all your experience comes from, quoting you, "driving around avoiding airstrikes." What, did the Iraq military drive circles around the Kuwati defenders till they got dizzy an fell down? Once again, Bubbalo, your amusingly inept attempt at intelligent debate leaves us with only one conclusion, that you are, " a few marbles short."
when a force can not take on a formal army, like ours, they resort to gerilla warfare. there are no rules outside of making life of your opponent as horrible as possible. they will use you own eithics against you while braking the eithics on their side.
it is never good be responcible to a set of rules that your oponent not only does not follow but uses against you.
storgion, d.j.
e3
da nang 1968
it is never good be responcible to a set of rules that your oponent not only does not follow but uses against you.
storgion, d.j.
e3
da nang 1968
Maybe you'll just go back to repeating this bullshit the second anybody who knows better turns their back, but this has been shown to be false over and over again. Foreign fighters are estimated to make up no more than 5-10% of the insurgency. Read this for specifics...lowing wrote:
...the terrorist/insurgents are from surrounding countries NOT there to defend Iraq but to make sure Iraq does not become a free society and stable, and you damn well know it. So you can get off the soap box about the poor Iraqis defending their homeland against the evil Americans scenario.
http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/060 … layers.pdf
There's also a lot of good in-depth info on various aspects of Iraq's insurgency here...
http://www.csis.org/component/option,co … 04/type,1/
Bear in mind the CSIS is a pretty conservative organization -- so don't take it as gospel -- but it's a good start.
Anyway, I don't mean to hijack the thread or nuttin' -- just can't stand to see shit that's been proven wrong a million times getting repeated all over the place.
No, it shows that in my opinion, from a purely tactical standpoint, it was the right move. From a moral standpoint, I consider it the wrong move. I would place moral values ahead of tactical considerations.
Corinthus: By your logic, he should have been a fine red mist. Your statement sounds reasonable, until you consider the fact that that machine was between the soldier and the explosion, protecting him from it.
And as to the Iraqis defeating Kuwaitis: This would have given them little experience, given that they had fought Iran, a much stronger enemy. And regardless, given how easily they were sent packing, I doubt they were a significant threat. And I have yet to see why they would return.
Corinthus: By your logic, he should have been a fine red mist. Your statement sounds reasonable, until you consider the fact that that machine was between the soldier and the explosion, protecting him from it.
And as to the Iraqis defeating Kuwaitis: This would have given them little experience, given that they had fought Iran, a much stronger enemy. And regardless, given how easily they were sent packing, I doubt they were a significant threat. And I have yet to see why they would return.
Last edited by Bubbalo (2006-07-18 04:26:08)
WTF you talkin about 'Free World'?????lowing wrote:
and you have no idea under what circumstances the Gitmo prisoners were captured under, but you seem excited to give the enemy of western civilization the benefit of the doubt. How sad for the free world.Havazn wrote:
There is a difference between executing detainees which are of no threat, and executing a soldier with the weaponry to kill 50 people at once. Stryyker did not post the video nor did he elaborate whether or not the wounded soldier was firing or posing a threat. It is just unknown whether they had a reason to kill him or not. However, Bubbalo is explaining the tactics used, not whether it was a 'civilized engagement'.lowing wrote:
Ahhh so you can justify the terrorists killing in cold blood as "tactically" sound, but you CAN NOT justify the detention of people with possible terroristic ties until their involvement is proved or disproved, cuz that is just cruel?? By your argument you are saying that it would be tactically correct to just kill them, instead of hold them. I guess it all depends on which side you are though huh?? Bubbalo, you are one twisted individual.
You can't take the position "We are going to invade your country and kill you if you resist, but you cant shoot us when we are down."
I am not justifying the insurgents actions, simply stating that you cant expect to start a war and expect them to follow your rules. You are fighting a desperate people with almost no military capability to form any kind of absolute resistance. They are going to kill everyone of your soldiers given the chance.
With your ideas its not really a free world.
In a free world everyone get the benefit af the doudt
When I was in Iraq (4/2003-8/2004) the ROE allowed one to fire if one felt threatened. Of course, one might have to justify why they felt threatened, but that isn't hard in Iraq. I think that ROE is pretty good, and if it hasn't been made more restrictive, I don't see any need for a change.
They may be the minority, but they certainly are there, and they have an impact far greater than their numbers would imply. The Iraqi insurgents seem, for the most part, happy to plant IED's and blow up American convoys - as you probably know several groups of them have indicated they might be interested in a cease fire. The foreign jihadis are not intersted in cease fire, only in creating as much chaos, death and destruction as they can. Downplaying their contribution to the problems in Iraq is a mistake of great proportions.
It isn't just a question of how many they are, it is also a question of what they are doing. Clearly, even though they are the minority of insurgents, the foreign fighters are some of the most bloodthirsty types there. It is the foreigners who were doing things like beheading people, and it is the foreigners who are targeting Shiites in large numbers to foster animosity.spastic bullet wrote:
Maybe you'll just go back to repeating this bullshit the second anybody who knows better turns their back, but this has been shown to be false over and over again. Foreign fighters are estimated to make up no more than 5-10% of the insurgency.
They may be the minority, but they certainly are there, and they have an impact far greater than their numbers would imply. The Iraqi insurgents seem, for the most part, happy to plant IED's and blow up American convoys - as you probably know several groups of them have indicated they might be interested in a cease fire. The foreign jihadis are not intersted in cease fire, only in creating as much chaos, death and destruction as they can. Downplaying their contribution to the problems in Iraq is a mistake of great proportions.
Last edited by whittsend (2006-07-18 07:39:55)
Excuse me, but WTF are you talking about? Where did I say they were animals? Where did I say we were superior? I simply said that we need to take the moral high road and not resort to using the tactics that the terrorists are using. As for using the same tactics as our military, again, WTF are you talking about. I was talking about how the US military needs to behave, not the insurgents.Konfusion0 wrote:
Yes, they have different principles, but animals? Surely you aren't that superior to everyone else...Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
But that is supposed to be what separates us from them. If we succumb to their tactics, then we are no better than they are. Yeah it sucks, but if we want the world to accept us as a nation of ideals that walks the walk, and talks the talk, we have to take the high road.
Remember, we aren't out to intentionally kill civilians, and they could care less. The ROE is there for a reason, and I believe we need to continue to adhere to it.
They do not have the most ingenious people above, they have not grown up in the same enviroment, for christs sake, their country is a wreck! Do you honestly expect them to act the same as the US military does?
I'll cut you some slack because I'm guessing that English is not your first language, but you may want to try to better understand a post before you start such scathing responses.
Its well proven that Iraqi had no ties with the ppl who flew the planes into the twin towers. Stop dragging this up in every thread when the entire world agrees that there was no Iraqi involvement in 911. Infact Saddam and Osama hated each other.lowing wrote:
You mean " lawfully" defend your country as in when your enemy starts a war by flying airplanes into buildings?? Oh wait that must be different.
Regarding the topic.
I feel for the solider who died for his countries illegal foreign policies. I have however seen at least 3 videos all linked from these boards of US solders and Air men gunning down wounded Iraqis. It works both ways in modern warfare unfortunately.
Yes the ROE have changed over the years. It was us, the allies in ww1 & 2 that changed them the most. Attacking civilian targets. The Insurgents are like any guerrilla army when faced with such a well equipped and maned regular army. If they stood up and fought man to man they would be wiped out. Hence the "cowardly" tactics used today. Anyone who thinks they can defeat this kind of army is sorely mistaken. History has proven this.
I don't think we need new ROE, more like a whole new approach to this kind of situation, like keeping our nose out of other peoples business is a start. Politics, no matter how annoying & slow to the gun hoe generals and leaders of the coalition is the only way forward. When the Coalition is done polarizing Iraqi against the west, the same thing will happen in neighboring Arab countries until we have Crusades mark2. Hell Israel has opened up another front.....................
We might not end up with WW3, but at least we will have created a long lasting divide between Muslims and Christian across the globe.
The United States Army invaded their land for no apparent reason - since no WMDs were found.Pinto wrote:
They're animals for hiding amongst women and children.
They're animals for blowing up their fellow citizens, many women and children, who did not "invade" their land.
They're animals for beheading their captives rather then quickly killing them.
Preemptive warS? Again, please tell me the other preemptive wars the US has gotten involved.
This has no comparison to Veitnam. Veitnam was not lost militarily but rather politically and through the media. Furthermore, the US wasn't "invaders" as they were there to help the South Veitnamese.
Hiding amongst civilians? They have no alternative other that guerrilla warfare since your numbers and arsenal are far greater. You are killing these people remember, so it is a matter of survival. No code of honor applies for the 1 man when being attacked by 100 men.
Blowing fellow citizens? I wonder where you heard that from. So stupid I won't bother to answer.
Yes, they are animals for beheading captives. But even a dog is not evil until you teach it to be. They were not born animals remember, it is you who made them by invading their country.
The US Government soon after 911 declared that they would from then on embark on preemptive strikes against any country they believe harbors "terrorists".
So. The war in Afghanistan was a preemptive war, since there are no evidence whatsoever linking the country of Afghanistan with the strike on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.
Same goes for the war in Iraq. Prior to the war, President Bush and Prime Minister Blair both stated that they were convinced of the existence of WMDs and of a link between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist strikes against the USA. Later, after the army had already moved in they conveniently changed their mind just like that.
Result: Hundreds of American soldiers dead.
Thousands of Iraqi and Afghan soldiers and civilians dead.
As for Vietnam, there is a characterisation for it in Greek. Its called "πύρρειος νίκη". This is a victory with so many losses, one wishes they had never won.
Vietnam was not lost politically, its just that the US was losing so many people and money that even if they eventually won the war, they would gain nothing out of it. Thus, political pressure for ending the war was just a way out of a lose - lose situation.
ƒ³
these beheading happy terrorists are not from iraq, they are from, iran, syria, jordan, egypt, and such, we did not invade their country, and when we went into iraq it was in part because saddam was telling the world he still had his wmd capabilities, which he did, and to enforce his surrender agrrement, you should really quit trying that argument since it always ends up with someon posting the exact names of the violated resolutions and surrender agreements so that you can see for yourself your argument is wrong, and let's just say for the sake of argument that Hussein did have the full support of his citizens, they should know better than to invade neighboring coutries general, much less ones that have ties to the UK and the US
Please explain cause you're not making much sense.kr@cker wrote:
these beheading happy terrorists are not from iraq, they are from, iran, syria, jordan, egypt, and such, we did not invade their country, and when we went into iraq it was in part because saddam was telling the world he still had his wmd capabilities, which he did, and to enforce his surrender agrrement, you should really quit trying that argument since it always ends up with someon posting the exact names of the violated resolutions and surrender agreements so that you can see for yourself your argument is wrong, and let's just say for the sake of argument that Hussein did have the full support of his citizens, they should know better than to invade neighboring coutries general, much less ones that have ties to the UK and the US
Saddam allowed the UN to inspect his arsenal but USA did not allow them to do their job. And since no WMDs were found, did you think that maybe Saddam was lying about his WMD capabilities?
And it is you who should know better than invade other countries. After all Saddam was just a fart in the wind compared with your WMD capabilities. Maybe the rest of the world should invade you.
ƒ³
Iraq was the only preemptive war. Going into Afghanistan was due to them refusing to give up Al Queda, who was responsible for 911. Yes, there was proof and they admitted it.oug wrote:
The United States Army invaded their land for no apparent reason - since no WMDs were found.Pinto wrote:
They're animals for hiding amongst women and children.
They're animals for blowing up their fellow citizens, many women and children, who did not "invade" their land.
They're animals for beheading their captives rather then quickly killing them.
Preemptive warS? Again, please tell me the other preemptive wars the US has gotten involved.
This has no comparison to Veitnam. Veitnam was not lost militarily but rather politically and through the media. Furthermore, the US wasn't "invaders" as they were there to help the South Veitnamese.
Hiding amongst civilians? They have no alternative other that guerrilla warfare since your numbers and arsenal are far greater. You are killing these people remember, so it is a matter of survival. No code of honor applies for the 1 man when being attacked by 100 men.
Blowing fellow citizens? I wonder where you heard that from. So stupid I won't bother to answer.
Yes, they are animals for beheading captives. But even a dog is not evil until you teach it to be. They were not born animals remember, it is you who made them by invading their country.
The US Government soon after 911 declared that they would from then on embark on preemptive strikes against any country they believe harbors "terrorists".
So. The war in Afghanistan was a preemptive war, since there are no evidence whatsoever linking the country of Afghanistan with the strike on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.
Same goes for the war in Iraq. Prior to the war, President Bush and Prime Minister Blair both stated that they were convinced of the existence of WMDs and of a link between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist strikes against the USA. Later, after the army had already moved in they conveniently changed their mind just like that.
Result: Hundreds of American soldiers dead.
Thousands of Iraqi and Afghan soldiers and civilians dead.
As for Vietnam, there is a characterisation for it in Greek. Its called "πύρρειος νίκη". This is a victory with so many losses, one wishes they had never won.
Vietnam was not lost politically, its just that the US was losing so many people and money that even if they eventually won the war, they would gain nothing out of it. Thus, political pressure for ending the war was just a way out of a lose - lose situation.
How is blowing up fellow citizens an idiotic comment? There are articles on it daily when some terrorist blows up a Shiite Mosque or some public area killing scores of Iraqis. I love how you refuted a statement with nothing.
Why are you lecturing me on the Iraq war? I wasn't defending it--merely pointing out there are differences between the insurgents and the US forces and was correcting your obvious misstatements. Please leave your factually and logically incorrect and immature anti-US bias off of this board. At least people like CameronPoe and Bubbalo have some logic and facts to back their statements.
explain what
660, 678, 687, 1441 and the letters "U" and "N" will get you all the explanation you need
since you seem to have a short memory, Kuwait was invaded, US was asked to help, US tried to do things the UN way, Hussein was left in power, Hussein did not allow full access to all facilites, nor did he provide ample proof that existing stores (like the several hundred arty rounds full of nerve agents that were pushed to the back page of the NYT not too long ago) were destroyed, UN failed to enforce surrender for over a decade, US picked up where the UN left off and explained how surrender agreements work to Hussein, quite simple really
invade us? bring it bitch
660, 678, 687, 1441 and the letters "U" and "N" will get you all the explanation you need
since you seem to have a short memory, Kuwait was invaded, US was asked to help, US tried to do things the UN way, Hussein was left in power, Hussein did not allow full access to all facilites, nor did he provide ample proof that existing stores (like the several hundred arty rounds full of nerve agents that were pushed to the back page of the NYT not too long ago) were destroyed, UN failed to enforce surrender for over a decade, US picked up where the UN left off and explained how surrender agreements work to Hussein, quite simple really
invade us? bring it bitch
Last edited by kr@cker (2006-07-18 10:44:13)
The idea of invading the united states is just as good as pulling off a heatsink on a cpukr@cker wrote:
explain what
660, 678, 687, 1441 and the letters "U" and "N" will get you all the explanation you need
since you seem to have a short memory, Kuwait was invaded, US was asked to help, US tried to do things the UN way, Hussein was left in power, Hussein did not allow full access to all facilites, nor did he provide ample proof that existing stores (like the several hundred arty rounds full of nerve agents that were pushed to the back page of the NYT not too long ago) were destroyed, UN failed to enforce surrender for over a decade, US picked up where the UN left off and explained how surrender agreements work to Hussein, quite simple really
invade us? bring it bitch
Al Queda was only the excuse. Look at CameronPoe's latest sig regarding president Bush's attitude towards Al Queda and their leader and you will see what I mean. But hey, fuck that... lets go along for the sake of the argument. What you're saying is that your country is responsible for only one preemptive war... and that is ok?Pinto wrote:
Iraq was the only preemptive war. Going into Afghanistan was due to them refusing to give up Al Queda, who was responsible for 911. Yes, there was proof and they admitted it.
How is blowing up fellow citizens an idiotic comment? There are articles on it daily when some terrorist blows up a Shiite Mosque or some public area killing scores of Iraqis. I love how you refuted a statement with nothing.
Why are you lecturing me on the Iraq war? I wasn't defending it--merely pointing out there are differences between the insurgents and the US forces and was correcting your obvious misstatements. Please leave your factually and logically incorrect and immature anti-US bias off of this board. At least people like CameronPoe and Bubbalo have some logic and facts to back their statements.
"blowing up their fellow citizens"? So these "terrorists" are killing their own? I'm sorry but that just does not make sense.
I was not lecturing you about anything. I am just questioning your attitude towards these people. You said they are animals because they do not dispose of their enemies quickly enough... I mean, yes they are fanatics, yes they are inhuman, but who the hell made them so? Who is ultimately responsible for these atrocities? Because blaming it all on them is just not fair.
ƒ³
yes, it's not Dahmer's fault that he ate people, it was all because he walked in on his parents doin it
Funny how your country doesn't give a shit about all those other countries that are being invaded... They were so sensitive about Kuwait, one would expect them to react likewise in other cases as well. Or maybe it was the oil... I'm just saying...kr@cker wrote:
explain what
660, 678, 687, 1441 and the letters "U" and "N" will get you all the explanation you need
since you seem to have a short memory, Kuwait was invaded, US was asked to help, US tried to do things the UN way, Hussein was left in power, Hussein did not allow full access to all facilites, nor did he provide ample proof that existing stores (like the several hundred arty rounds full of nerve agents that were pushed to the back page of the NYT not too long ago) were destroyed, UN failed to enforce surrender for over a decade, US picked up where the UN left off and explained how surrender agreements work to Hussein, quite simple really
invade us? bring it bitch
Bitch??? hahaha how old are you anyway?
ƒ³
make up your mind, you're jumping from "you're bad for doing ______" to "you're bad for not doing ______" what other countries are you referring to? the only other conflicts I can think of are some civil wars in africa, it is overly simplistic to try to apply the same standards for such disparate situations
and if it was for oil, how is the price still increasing for us? The president's tax returns are also public record every year, shouldn't be too hard to illustrate his sudden increase in shares of OPEC oil.
and if it was for oil, how is the price still increasing for us? The president's tax returns are also public record every year, shouldn't be too hard to illustrate his sudden increase in shares of OPEC oil.
wordkr@cker wrote:
make up your mind, you're jumping from "you're bad for doing ______" to "you're bad for not doing ______" what other countries are you referring to? the only other conflicts I can think of are some civil wars in africa, it is overly simplistic to try to apply the same standards for such disparate situations
and if it was for oil, how is the price still increasing for us? The president's tax returns are also public record every year, shouldn't be too hard to illustrate his sudden increase in shares of OPEC oil.
The oil price is increasing for everyone at the moment due to the instability in the region. But not all of us are installing friendly and controlled governments in the world's second oil producing country. Your government is planning for the future.
Yes I am referring to some poor countries in Africa. Please explain why it is different there. Innocent people are dying everywhere yet you are only interested in the middle east and the rest of the oil producers like Venezuela.
Yes I am referring to some poor countries in Africa. Please explain why it is different there. Innocent people are dying everywhere yet you are only interested in the middle east and the rest of the oil producers like Venezuela.
ƒ³
like I said before ....they are not fighting Iraqis in Iraq, the Iraqis for the most part are on the side of the coalition. I have never ever said without exception that Saddam and Iraq were responsiblr for 911 I defy you to prove me wrongJahManRed wrote:
Its well proven that Iraqi had no ties with the ppl who flew the planes into the twin towers. Stop dragging this up in every thread when the entire world agrees that there was no Iraqi involvement in 911. Infact Saddam and Osama hated each other.lowing wrote:
You mean " lawfully" defend your country as in when your enemy starts a war by flying airplanes into buildings?? Oh wait that must be different.
Regarding the topic.
I feel for the solider who died for his countries illegal foreign policies. I have however seen at least 3 videos all linked from these boards of US solders and Air men gunning down wounded Iraqis. It works both ways in modern warfare unfortunately.
Yes the ROE have changed over the years. It was us, the allies in ww1 & 2 that changed them the most. Attacking civilian targets. The Insurgents are like any guerrilla army when faced with such a well equipped and maned regular army. If they stood up and fought man to man they would be wiped out. Hence the "cowardly" tactics used today. Anyone who thinks they can defeat this kind of army is sorely mistaken. History has proven this.
I don't think we need new ROE, more like a whole new approach to this kind of situation, like keeping our nose out of other peoples business is a start. Politics, no matter how annoying & slow to the gun hoe generals and leaders of the coalition is the only way forward. When the Coalition is done polarizing Iraqi against the west, the same thing will happen in neighboring Arab countries until we have Crusades mark2. Hell Israel has opened up another front.....................
We might not end up with WW3, but at least we will have created a long lasting divide between Muslims and Christian across the globe.
Last edited by lowing (2006-07-18 18:21:02)
They're precisely like the Vietnamese were in 'Nam. They'll hide everywhere and use any force necessary to kill an american soldier.
Your reference to 9/11 as a reason to go to war with Iraq implicates Iraq had something to do with it. He is simply saying that they didnt.lowing wrote:
like I said before ....they are not fighting Iraqis in Iraq, the Iraqis for the most part are on the side of the coalition. I have never ever said without exception that Saddam and Iraq were responsiblr for 911 I defy you to prove me wrongJahManRed wrote:
Its well proven that Iraqi had no ties with the ppl who flew the planes into the twin towers. Stop dragging this up in every thread when the entire world agrees that there was no Iraqi involvement in 911. Infact Saddam and Osama hated each other.lowing wrote:
You mean " lawfully" defend your country as in when your enemy starts a war by flying airplanes into buildings?? Oh wait that must be different.
Regarding the topic.
I feel for the solider who died for his countries illegal foreign policies. I have however seen at least 3 videos all linked from these boards of US solders and Air men gunning down wounded Iraqis. It works both ways in modern warfare unfortunately.
Yes the ROE have changed over the years. It was us, the allies in ww1 & 2 that changed them the most. Attacking civilian targets. The Insurgents are like any guerrilla army when faced with such a well equipped and maned regular army. If they stood up and fought man to man they would be wiped out. Hence the "cowardly" tactics used today. Anyone who thinks they can defeat this kind of army is sorely mistaken. History has proven this.
I don't think we need new ROE, more like a whole new approach to this kind of situation, like keeping our nose out of other peoples business is a start. Politics, no matter how annoying & slow to the gun hoe generals and leaders of the coalition is the only way forward. When the Coalition is done polarizing Iraqi against the west, the same thing will happen in neighboring Arab countries until we have Crusades mark2. Hell Israel has opened up another front.....................
We might not end up with WW3, but at least we will have created a long lasting divide between Muslims and Christian across the globe.
If your country is so damned concerned about Africa, stand a fucking post there, if not stop bitching about what others are or are not doing there.oug wrote:
The oil price is increasing for everyone at the moment due to the instability in the region. But not all of us are installing friendly and controlled governments in the world's second oil producing country. Your government is planning for the future.
Yes I am referring to some poor countries in Africa. Please explain why it is different there. Innocent people are dying everywhere yet you are only interested in the middle east and the rest of the oil producers like Venezuela.
If you are not bitching about the US NOT in Africa and how we need to do something, you are bitching that the US needs to stop playing world police and mind our own business.So which is it today??
I said a thousand times, Iraq had nothing to do with 911Havazn wrote:
Your reference to 9/11 as a reason to go to war with Iraq implicates Iraq had something to do with it. He is simply saying that they didnt.lowing wrote:
like I said before ....they are not fighting Iraqis in Iraq, the Iraqis for the most part are on the side of the coalition. I have never ever said without exception that Saddam and Iraq were responsiblr for 911 I defy you to prove me wrongJahManRed wrote:
Its well proven that Iraqi had no ties with the ppl who flew the planes into the twin towers. Stop dragging this up in every thread when the entire world agrees that there was no Iraqi involvement in 911. Infact Saddam and Osama hated each other.
Regarding the topic.
I feel for the solider who died for his countries illegal foreign policies. I have however seen at least 3 videos all linked from these boards of US solders and Air men gunning down wounded Iraqis. It works both ways in modern warfare unfortunately.
Yes the ROE have changed over the years. It was us, the allies in ww1 & 2 that changed them the most. Attacking civilian targets. The Insurgents are like any guerrilla army when faced with such a well equipped and maned regular army. If they stood up and fought man to man they would be wiped out. Hence the "cowardly" tactics used today. Anyone who thinks they can defeat this kind of army is sorely mistaken. History has proven this.
I don't think we need new ROE, more like a whole new approach to this kind of situation, like keeping our nose out of other peoples business is a start. Politics, no matter how annoying & slow to the gun hoe generals and leaders of the coalition is the only way forward. When the Coalition is done polarizing Iraqi against the west, the same thing will happen in neighboring Arab countries until we have Crusades mark2. Hell Israel has opened up another front.....................
We might not end up with WW3, but at least we will have created a long lasting divide between Muslims and Christian across the globe.
911=Afhanistan/taliban
Iraq= a decade of breaking the UN resolutions that braught a cease fire during the beginning of the gulf war( which was '91 not '01).