I don't care if the insurgents gave up or not shoot their butt anyways they would most likely kill someone later if they got the chance.

I understand the need to address the situation when our or our allies troops cross a line, but what I want to hear is that the Afghans who turn on our troops are being dealt with. Unless our guys kill them on the spot, they always seem to get away. When is Karzai going to handle his two-faced douchbags. He does not seem to have a lot to say when Green on Green goes down.

I expect we will hear later it was an OVER KILL. People should not judge soldiers in war unless you have been in their shoes. May God Bless Brittish Soldier too.

There is one, and only one, solution to ending our war in Afghanistan:

Turn the entire country over to China and use their "expertise" in dealing with insurgencies, and use their mining and engineering skills to turn the Afghan economy from heroin production to rare-earth production.

Bill you are so right. Has the world gone mad. There is only one rule of engagement; kill the enemy. You are at war with a nation. If you are only at war with some insurgents and malcontents then send in the FBI, CIA, and a flat belly wagon full of guardsmen from Louisiana. I hated my tour in southeast asia over the same crap. America and allys do not sent soldiers to only shoot certain ones, h3ll we can't tell them apart. If you kill everybody you are sure to get the bad guys, sorry but that is war. Don't do it if you don't have the stomach for it. Don't tell anymore young men and women that you are going to send them somewhere to get killed while we play at war, it's not a freaking dance guys, let the soldiers do their job or keep them home.

Wars are won by inflicting great cruelty upon the "civilians" that aid and give shelter to the enemy. Killing the enemy in direct combat is important, but clearly you can't win a war until the civilian population has learned to hate itself more than it hates the actual enemy.

There's something very beautiful about bringing a nation of people to its very knees like we did with Germany and Japan; breaking it unto the point where it curses itself for getting involved, curses itself for choosing the wrong leaders, curses itself for ever daring to exist!!!

It's a shame some people can't see that and can't see what needs to be done over there. The answer is as clear as day...

WOW, Travis, well said my friend.

"Wars are won by inflicting great cruelty upon the "civilians" that aid and give shelter to the enemy. Killing the enemy in direct combat is important, but clearly you can't win a war until the civilian population has learned to hate itself more than it hates the actual enemy."

Spoken like a true historic illiterate. It's simply not true that "clearly you can't win a war until the civilian population has learned to hate itself more than it hates the actual enemy." Just ask Napoleon. Or, heck, ask George Washington-- did he win the Revolutionary War because the British learned to hate themselves more than they hated us? Absolutely not. It's a dangerous habit to assume that all wars have, will be, and must be total wars.

Every British Marine in the middle east should demand to be furloughed out of this mess! It is common knowledge that Americas insane rules of engagement openly traded the lives of Americans in order to placate the indigenous governments and the "bleeding hearts" around the world! Myself, I would rather see thousands of Afghans or Iraqis killed than even one American, that's what war is really about, not committing suicide!

Oh sure, I'll make sure to ask them! What other questions should me and Virgil ask in Dante's 3rd Circle of Hell - you think I should ask Lee Harvey who actually killed Kennedy?

Any other requests? I might be awhile...

Thanks for taking the time to craft such wise, compelling, and well thought-out response, Travis. My point remains unchallenged and undisputed. And you remain the kind of guy who likes making broad and demonstrably inaccurate statements to make your point.

Despite our disagreements, I hope things aren't too bad for you out in Soviet Occupied New England-- I've heard about the massive starvation deaths caused by the last Massachusetts Five-Year Plan and I can just imagine how hard life must be when you are in and out of interrogation rooms deep in the basement of the New Hampshire office of the KGB.

You are completely full of it, my friend.

"It is common knowledge that Americas insane rules of engagement openly traded the lives of Americans in order to placate the indigenous governments and the "bleeding hearts" around the world!"

Uh, no, this is not "common knowledge." It's actually what we call 'an extremely controversial and opinionated claim that directly contradicts the people very high up in the military who have embraced a philosophy of counter-insurgency that, in theory at least, seeks to limit civilian casualties.' You know, the hippie PC bleeding hearts with all the medals on their chests.

Bush & the UK turned the Afghanistan 'Nation Building' over to the UN and 52+other countries Dec 2001...

It was OBAMA that assumed the command, placing his hand picked General in charge. This was because the US did not want to abide by the Geneva Convention and other regulations that NATO was using. This was reported and then IGNORED by the US Media...

Obama then fired his first & then his second (hand picked) General, because they publicly stated the POLITICAL Conflict could not be won...

Obama doubled and again doubled the US Troop strength. While other nations were removing their troops and lowering their troop levels/support. The result; 1,500+additional US Troops dead, trillions spent, and ONE PERSON killed - OBL.

Which has resulted in NOTHING changing...

And you remain the kind of guy who likes making broad and demonstrably inaccurate statements to make your point.

You're absolutely right. Napoleon was renowned for his compassion and the colonists were very tolerant towards loyalists.

Thank you for that history lesson. Heck, maybe I'll go ask George Washington for some more lessons!!!

@Travis: I think you are a bit off the mark. Afghanistan is not analogous with Germany and Japan. Your comment about Germany and Japan actually has some truth to it, but Afghans are not Germans or Japanese. A war of this type requires a deep understanding of the culture of both the enemy with whom we are at war and the people with whom we are in alliance.

We know that both Germany and Japan had to be totally defeated in order to win WWII. In Afghanistan, we can defeat the Taliban only by totally winning over the Afghans - good luck with that. Murdering their civilians basically puts us on the same level as the Taliban and greatly exacerbates our ability to win.

I'm interested in knowing more. Specifically, what wars have ever been won by "winning over" a hostile population? Where would I find that information?

Again, I'm interested to know where that strategy worked because when some folks site Napoleon - a man whose actions resulted in the deaths of 5 million people - as evidence of the success of "nation building" I get the impression that we're less concerned about facts than we are with clinging to some philosophic ideal about how war "should" be executed.

So by all means, please point me in the right direction!

The point, genius, was that despite the fact that Napoleon's armies certainly killed their share of civilians, the strategy was never to terrorize the population through total war, which you've presented as the only way to win a war.

Something else we are putting our noses into that we do not need to. I'm sure their leader is fully capable for investigating it and handing out the necessary punishment if there is any to be had.

And why do they even post this so called "news" they had NOTHING to offer but a headline. How can anyone comment on this when there is NO substance to the report. God forbid they should wait until they have something, anything to ad. This isn't even a story.

@Travis: Do your own research on the issue of how to win a war, I'm not your secretary. Besides, you are arrogant and sarcastic, I've no interest in continuing on with you. Yeah, here comes the comment about how you won the argument. Like I said, arrogant and sarcastic!

Too soon, dude.

And not funny to boot.

I was not trying to be funny. Just pointing out the obvious. Modern-day Crusades.

War-Profiteering. Gotta test out all those new Weapon System's; and keep the Defence Contractors in business.

Transalphonda89..........you hit the nail on the head....as many generals have pointed out in the past "War is good business"

This is exactly the reason the taliban, insurgents and any terrorist organization will win in the end. The US and British troops have to follow the Rules of Engagement or face court marshall in the public eye, while the people they fight get to use any means necessary. What kind of @!$%# is that?!

Transalphonda89, Don't worry with a Romney win a new Syrian cow will be delivered.

All through the history of warfare there have been "insurgents".

Cliff------- Uh huh pick up the pieces of the guy that has had your back for a year or two and put them in a body bad, c'mom aback and talk to us.

We need to start the draft again, including women, way too many big mouths on here that know nothing, running their mouth.

Steve, your comment needs to be read by all Americans. You have hit the nail on the head. Good Job.

Steve hear hear, when you start a war, go in lay out everything you have and if civilians get killed, too bad, better than losing ours.

it's time to start hunting down the leftys that are willing to watch out troops die, to save the civilians.

Steve you are a man after my own heart and you are dead on right. War by its very definition is an ugly thing. It takes courage to win one. The courage to do the right thing and win the war as quickly as possible with the least amount of loss of lives both theirs and ours. Why can't we learn from history. In Germany and in Japan many civilians died at the hands of America and her allies. Look at them both today, helluva lot better off than Afganistan.

Amen Steve. War is brutal, ugly, and should be ended as soon as possible.... and you can't accomplish that when you're primary concern is proper "rules of engagement" and being politically correct. Get in there, do as much damage as possible as fast as possible, then get out and let them clean up their own mess.

When you invade a country, you will encounter guerilla fighters who do not conform to convention rules. If they were in our country, they would encounter the same. That doesn't mean a civilized military needs to stoop to their level and violate the rules. That doesn't give you the right to gun down a man waving a white flag...especially when you are also trying to win the hearts and minds of the people.

Yea because it SAYS they gunned down a man waving a white flag...........Oh it doesnt! just STFU and take your wannabe azz back to your video war game.

When the words "murder" and "insurgent" are in the same sentence, that is one of the most likely scenarios. I don't play video games. I am a veteran with a doctorate, yet I don't know the meaning of "STFU", but I presume it is something vile and childish since you talk to people like a rebellious teenager. But in about an hour, no one will have to read your comment because the more mature of us will have it collapsed or removed altogether.

Wrong again! Maybe you should go hang out with more "mature" people. Of course you won't.
Pricks like you can onlly feel superior amongst those of us with "lower intelligence" than you.
You don't know the meaning of STFU?
Must of had an MOS of @!$%#house mouse.

It's a no win war, because our whiny little leftys are willing to watch our troops die to protect the "civilians".

Go in with everything we have and clean it out, if they are all dead when we get done, too bad.

I love the use of "civilians" in scare quotes. For God's sake, a baby is a civilian. A little child is a civilian. An illiterate man who has worked as a farmer for his whole life and has never even heard of 9/11 is a civilian. Anyone who suggests otherwise is a truly sick and deranged human being.

Yeah, kill all them dirty kids! That will show them disgusting folks over there just how highly we here in America value life! Buncha savages, I say! The only question is whether we should just nuke them or ship them off to camps in cattle cars! Then we can just tell them they're taking a shower and hit them with the Zyklon-B! That'll solver our problems!

You disgust me.

You obviously disgust easily,so get used to it.

You obviously disgust easily,so get used to it.

Not really. There aren't too many things that are more disgusting than to hear my fellow citizens call for the extermination of millions of people.

Not a parking lot. Its too long a commute for us to use it.

That won't stop people from screaming from the rooftops that it's the left's fault, it's the neocons' fault, it's Bush's fault, it's Romney's fault, blah, blah.

Fact is there are no details in the story whatsoever - but a lot of people here that are making all kinds of assumptions about what happened. And aligning their made-up facts with their pre-existing opinions about what's going on and who's fault it is.

"They engaged an insurgent, and no civilians were involved. I don't see why there is a story here..."

Umm, maybe because they were arrested. That might tend to suggest that there is a little more going on here than "They engaged an insurgent..", would it not?

The people who came up with the rules are probably the same cretins who keep going on about words having correct spellings.

Satin is a fabric. Satan is a name for the devil.

"who came up with this crap rules " should be "Who came up with these crappy rules...?"

" o a muslim simp." This isn't even close to English.

"and we will loose more men and the conflict." This should be "we will lose more men..."

"Stupid stupid stupid morans." I wonder what you call a person who is too stupid to even spell the word "moron" correctly?

When in doubt correct their spelling. I will give you a point for cretin however.