Monday, December 14, 2009

Obama to troops: don't shoot first!

According to U.S. Army and Marine sources on the ground in Afghanistan, American troops have been placed under a strict Rules of Engagement policy which many believe will cause the death of more U.S. servicemen. These new Rules of Engagement have been approved by President Barack Obama after the insistance of Afghan President Hamid Karzai. The rules include:

• No night or surprise searches

• Villagers are to be warned prior to searches

• Afghan National Army, or ANA, or Afghan National Police, or ANP, must accompany U.S. units on searches

• U.S. soldiers may not fire at insurgents unless they are preparing to fire first

• U.S. forces cannot engage insurgents if civilians are present

• Only women can search women

• Troops can fire on insurgents if they catch them placing an IED but not if insurgents walk away from where the explosives are

One would think we learned valuable tactical lessons during the Vietnam War. For the generals to bow to this sort of political dictate is troubling. If we are not in Afghanistan to win (whatever that may mean) then our valiant troops are merely being led to slaughter. How can an American president put our young men and women in harms way with such a decidedly tactical disadvantage? It appears as if President Obama is more interested in what the intelligencia of the United Nations thinks of us than he is protecting American lives. Add this to the long list of emasculating policies Obama and his political cronies are subjecting the United States to. Outrageous is an understatement.

Read more about this outrageous implementation of political correctness below:

The mainstream media won't touch this so it's incumbent upon us to let people know about this misuse of American lives. Please click the link and print the PDF below, cut at the dotted horizontal lines and post copies of this everywhere you can think of!



  1. if u dont shoot first u get shot first right? i really hate this guy, dont shoot first. Are u kidding, these guys are putting there ass on the line and u tell them to no shoot first. Did we elect these people, are we really that stupid? these people are morons, who the hell are u to say one word on how a solider should act when all u have done ur whole life is sit behind a freakin desk. Im 16 and i can tell there is something wrong here. Its so aggrivating to see these idiots screw up what our founding fathers belived in. Are we becoming a moralless people, are we becoming slefish self centered, and oblivious to everything around us? to all the facts? What wrong with u America?. The Problem with our enemy is that they have no se uniform, therefore a civlian looks much like a terroist. Stay safe soliders. Semper Fi

  2. Schocking! What is next?

  3. I see nothing wrong with those rules of engagement as long as they are also applied to the Secret Service agents who guard the President....

  4. nothing like trying to fight a war w/your hands tied. this president is a moron - he needs to go.

  5. I love how at the top of the heading it says Obama wanted this, but in the articles (the "correctness below") it states nothing about Obama's agenda, and yet he was thrown into the heading as if he wanted this.

    Interpretation can mean anything. We could say that the house voted for this, yet it doesn't say who exactly implemented this process, more like who wants it to 'try' to happen. It could have been the head(s) of the military itself. If you want America back, you are going to have to stop blaming the president for all that is wrong with the U.S. I just find it funny that Obama, in no way, was even mentioned in the article, but yet it's the title blames it specifically on him.

    Funny right, but in the second paragraph it's this guy, who wanted to impose this legislation (so that civilians will not die)"U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal." It never said its military law, which soldiers have to follow.

    If I'm correct, it was the senate who appointed McChrystal last year. Not Obama. His previous branch of command, he was appointed by Bush. So Bush was the proximate cause of this "outrageous implementation."

    If you want America back, learn how to properly analyze material, instead of lying. Lying causes ignorance, which makes us weak as a country. I don't want to fail as a country because of nonsense you people bring to the table. God says liars burn in hell (oh wait, that's just what I feel the bible should read).

    P.S. I didn't even vote for Obama, lol. So get your panties out of a wad.

    (facebook: kienan)

  6. Thanks for the time you put into responding to this post. However, you have two key facts wrong.

    The president is the commander-in-chier and thus, ultimately responsible for the rules of engagement of our armed forces. The buck stops with Obama, no?

    While the Senate provides approval of the president's nominees, when it comes to military leadership, they act as little more than a rubber stamp. McChrystal and the Joint Chiefs serve at the pleasure of the president. The president either approves requests (troop surge), permits policy (rules of engagement and interrogation), or implements new policy (withdraw of "Don't ask, don't tell").

    In this case, who else could be ultimately responsible but the president? Certainly, McChrystal should and could shoulder responsibility for these rules of engagement. McChrystal does not answer to us, the voters. The president does. Just because a newspaper article doesn't mention the president, doesn't absolve him of the responsibility for military policy in the field. Just ask George W Bush.

  7. "The president is the commander-in-chier and thus, ultimately responsible for the rules of engagement of our armed forces. The buck stops with Obama, no?" The protection of innocent lives is what McChrystal is trying to protect, and still capture the terrorists. Stretching the truth and the main comments made to this blog, does not absolve the right to relate nonsense to Obama. Rules of engagement are most often decided upon by battle space commanders and are created to carry out and fall in-line with over-arching orders or goals from higher command. No one actually votes on it in the house.

  8. Why not just ask all of them over for beer in the Rose Garden?