Have you ever heard of the "Rules Of Engagement"? They never seen to discuss the "Rules Of Engagement" on the TV news, so I guess it is not common knowledge. It is my opinion that the "Rules Of Engagement" should be one of the first and most important things that should be discussed when it comes to dealing with terrorism or any other war or battle situation. If that is the case, then why have we been so silent on the subject? That is what this blog is all about.
Here is an example of the rules of engagement for two different groups. It is often the case that the different groups in a conflict do "not" have the same rules of engagement. Take a Christian and a Muslim. If you are a Christian and someone draws a unflattering picture of Jesus, you just ignor them. If you are a Muslim and some draws an unflattering picture of Mohamad, they try to kill you. Wouldn't you conclude that these two groups have very different rules of engagement?
Look at how we are dealing with terrorism and the civil war in Syria. Obama has laid down the rules of engagements for our military and they are conducting the war with in those rules of engagement. Per Obama, he wants to keep civilian casualties to the lowest level "possible". Remember some of my prior blogs where I pointed out that liberals only accept decisions or actions that are "perfect"? That being the case, when one of our bombers sees an oil tanker filled with oil on a road in Syria hauling oil to be sold by the terrorists, Obama wants us to drop leaflets so the driver of the truck, who may or may not be a terrorist, can stop and get out of the truck and hide in a safe place while we drop our bombs on the oil truck. Do you think that Obama's rules of engagement are totally stupid? Come on? You know they are stupid.
Russia dropped more bombs on targets in Syria in one week than we have dropped under Obama's rules of engagement in two years. It is a fact that we have flown a lot or "sorties", but 90% of the time, all we dropped were leaflets, not bombs.
In any war there are going to be people killed who are not armed, so get used to it. Just who is a combatant any way? Is a farmer growing wheat to feed the soldier a combatant? I would think so. What we need is to agree on some kind of simple "ratio" of bad guys killed vs noncombatants killed. We could start with "one for one" and go up from there to 10 bad guys per one non-combatant. Right now we have the ratio at "one bad guy to zero non-combatants" and you know how that is working out.
Our basic legal system has similar rules of engagement, only it is even worse. Our courts will let a million terrorists go free rather than convicting "one" who is not a terrorist. This type of rule of engagement may work for people who rob gas stations, but it is no way to deal with terrorists. Why else would the Radical Muslim Terrorist who shot up Fort Hood still not have been executed? I hope that you are starting to see how stupid our rules of engagement are when it comes to dealing with terrorists. Add to this the fact that fear of punishment has zero affect on reducing future acts of terrorism.
What we all need to start doing is to discuss "rules of engagement" with our friends and associates to see if we can get the ball rolling. In the final analysis, it is really up to us as individuals to get this country pointed in the right direction.
Here is an example of the rules of engagement for two different groups. It is often the case that the different groups in a conflict do "not" have the same rules of engagement. Take a Christian and a Muslim. If you are a Christian and someone draws a unflattering picture of Jesus, you just ignor them. If you are a Muslim and some draws an unflattering picture of Mohamad, they try to kill you. Wouldn't you conclude that these two groups have very different rules of engagement?
Look at how we are dealing with terrorism and the civil war in Syria. Obama has laid down the rules of engagements for our military and they are conducting the war with in those rules of engagement. Per Obama, he wants to keep civilian casualties to the lowest level "possible". Remember some of my prior blogs where I pointed out that liberals only accept decisions or actions that are "perfect"? That being the case, when one of our bombers sees an oil tanker filled with oil on a road in Syria hauling oil to be sold by the terrorists, Obama wants us to drop leaflets so the driver of the truck, who may or may not be a terrorist, can stop and get out of the truck and hide in a safe place while we drop our bombs on the oil truck. Do you think that Obama's rules of engagement are totally stupid? Come on? You know they are stupid.
Russia dropped more bombs on targets in Syria in one week than we have dropped under Obama's rules of engagement in two years. It is a fact that we have flown a lot or "sorties", but 90% of the time, all we dropped were leaflets, not bombs.
In any war there are going to be people killed who are not armed, so get used to it. Just who is a combatant any way? Is a farmer growing wheat to feed the soldier a combatant? I would think so. What we need is to agree on some kind of simple "ratio" of bad guys killed vs noncombatants killed. We could start with "one for one" and go up from there to 10 bad guys per one non-combatant. Right now we have the ratio at "one bad guy to zero non-combatants" and you know how that is working out.
Our basic legal system has similar rules of engagement, only it is even worse. Our courts will let a million terrorists go free rather than convicting "one" who is not a terrorist. This type of rule of engagement may work for people who rob gas stations, but it is no way to deal with terrorists. Why else would the Radical Muslim Terrorist who shot up Fort Hood still not have been executed? I hope that you are starting to see how stupid our rules of engagement are when it comes to dealing with terrorists. Add to this the fact that fear of punishment has zero affect on reducing future acts of terrorism.
What we all need to start doing is to discuss "rules of engagement" with our friends and associates to see if we can get the ball rolling. In the final analysis, it is really up to us as individuals to get this country pointed in the right direction.
