bpang1

iTrader: (25)

Hey kinda like in WWII when it was either USSR of US?

Bleh...I make no sense.

Anyways, I think that if our forces are either getting shot at or being run from...they should be allowed to blow the mo fos up...TWICE!

Unregistered

Isn't it more about how we are looked at? On the field of combat I think anything goes. (To a extent, but honestly if my life is in danger I'll do whatever I have to live.) But once you get off the field of combat with captured individuals I believe we should treat them with accordance to the Geneva Conventions.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

We do and this is exactly the point I'm trying to make. We don't saw off peoples heads in captivity and get coined as revolutionary by some on the extreme left.

And if we do have a few bad seeds in the ranks they'll get 10 years in an a Federal Prison for playing pin the electrode to the *****. There's a huge difference in how we conduct ourselves.

gpatmac

iTrader: (3)

There's no denying that it is perception management, but you know many of my friends would be offended at the way y'all are presenting the definition or connotation of ROE. It is a controlling measure that better helps our soldiers define what is right and wrong. To help them understand that they are soldiers and not animals. To ensure that the world knows that we aren't an imperialistic, cruel nation that attacks viciously and kill, maim, and torture all without bias.

Speaking of appearances, do you think that a priest is ever so cautious about his demeanor? Now, I have seen some liquor guzzling, foul-mouthed priests in my day, but I guarantee that they wouldn't present themselves in that manner when they are around their older parishioners.

Back to the ROE definition, on the field of combat when your life IS on the line (not when it's about to be, nor when it may be) you are authorized to do most anything to those who intend you harm.

Take the case of Lt. Robert Calley. His platoon was outside of a ville in some sort of defensive posture and was taking sporadic, but effective and deadly fire from the village. After a long, tortuous few days of this withering fire, and mounting losses, he made the decision to go into the village and raze it. I don't know his original intent, be it to just sieze the village, kill or capture any threat in there, and then leave; but his soldiers, so high on hatred and the hope to avenge their buds who they had just sat by and watched get sniped to pieces; were overcome and went on to kill everyone and burn everything in that village.

Did they apply the appropriate amount of force?

Did they attack a military objective?

The courts said no and no, but I believe that Mr Nixon later pardoned him. (You can still meet him at a particular jewelry store that he owns in Columbus, GA.)

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...calleyhtml.htm

Bottom line. I believe most soldiers to be like me. We want to accomplish our mission and bring all of our soldiers home to their wives, children and parents. Accomplishing the mission; and by that I mean that it's not considered a mission accomplished if you met your objectives but didn't follow the ROE, comes first. A favorite saying in the Army is 'Mission first, people always'.