Why is it that in a war, the terrorist can play by whatever rules they want but we have to play by the rules of engagment? Why dont the politicians let us fight the damn war to win, and then they could all come home! What do you think? I think, then certain politicians wouldnt have anything to cry about then!
2006-09-13 06:27:16 · 11 answers · asked by airgame12 2 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
Then how do you propose to win a war???? If you can shoot a terrorist that just shot you comrade and then ran in a mosque, or is shootiung from the top of a school because they know you wont fight back, tell me how you win then?
2006-09-13 06:44:43 · update #1
Can should be cant
2006-09-13 06:45:19 · update #2
Shiites slaughter 65 Sunni (shouting...
Allah Akbar..
Next day Sunni slaughter 50 Shiites (u guessed
it,) Allah Akbar...
and we're not even talking about Ali Baba....
When one enters a Looni-BIN ,expect
Surprises !
Meanwhile, the Kurds are grateful ....
2006-09-13 07:15:32 · answer #1 · answered by Moonlite gambler 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think that you need to look at the moral or ethical reasoning behind this. Some would say that if we mimic those we are trying to eliminate that we become the same. In one sense, I wonder why do people pick and choose when to utilize the "Rules of Engagement" theory when it suits them. It is acceptable losses at one time and a terrible horror another time. Pick one thermometer for violence and stick with it. The ethical standard needs to be the same applied to both sides. Imagine a headline that read.
"Today terrorists unleashed a travesty of epic proportions when they tortured and brutally murdered in cold blood 65 of their own women and children."
I think you will find it really difficult to find this in any newspaper or magazine. If we (good guys) kill 65 civilians and 2 bad guys this would be the headline but when it is the other way around there is nothing about the grotesque violence. Perhaps the finger could be pointed at the media that is supposed to be reporting the news not reporting personal opinion. If I want your opinions (insert media icon here) I will ask for it. Otherwise... just the facts man!
2006-09-13 06:39:04 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The rules of engagement were agreed upon after World War II. It is to hold rogue states accountable for crimes against humanity. If we violate those rules, we will be held accountable by the world for our conduct.
The main reason we have not gone in and made beach front property of Iraq is because of the lessons that America learned after World War I. During World War I the Allies humiliated the German militarily. That humiliation gave rise to the Nazi Movement. After World War II, the United States helped rebuild the German economy. We now have a strong world ally in the German government.
2006-09-13 06:46:18 · answer #3 · answered by mediahoney 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
this is a new type of regime. when Hitler tried to take over Europe he did it with force and brutality. eventually enough countries will got together to stop his regime. the u.s., not one to learn from history, actually has learned that if they can invade and disrupt enough governments under the radar and under the 'presumption' of 'leading the world against terrorism', then they are seen as fighters for the good. in fact if you look at all the disruptions around the world during the last 50 years, the u.s. has had a hand in either directly or indirectly (by training local forces and militias and giving them weapons) instituting those conflicts.
this is a politician controlled conflict, you're right...and it is killing thousands of innocent Americans as well as Iraqis. the military leaders have their hands tied.
I'm all for the freedoms we have in America, but we have to look at the laws and bills that are being passed through our own government more than search for a ghost. let's fix what here first.
2006-09-13 06:46:16 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I understand how you feel. Very aggravating. I think USA tries to abide by certain rules as to not anger other countries, not necessarily the terrorists. If we play by the rules, they have to. That's why the rules of engagement were put in place, and NATO was put in place, and so forth and so on. It keeps the decent countries decent, and avoids chaos. If everyone just blew stuff up and asked questions later, we'd all be in trouble every time we had a disagreement.
2006-09-13 06:36:36 · answer #5 · answered by still waiting 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
As much as I agree with what you propose, you have to remember that we are a civilized nation. At the end of the day we have to live with our choices. You do not take the high road because it is high, but rather because it is the right thing to do. If we adopt their tactics then in the end we are no better than what we are fighting.
2006-09-13 06:36:48 · answer #6 · answered by Bryan 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I applaud the restraint we show by not carpet bombing certain areas. However, if we catch a known terrorist, forget the rules, do anything needed to prevent more deaths or to find other terrorists. I am so over the political correctness and appeasement crowd!
2006-09-13 06:37:14 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
You want to talk about rules of engagement do you? try watching the following documentary that proves that the FBI murdered the Women and children at WACO. it is in 2, 1 hour parts. Guess which order I have placed them in below.
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=4298137966377572665&q=Waco
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-1755692679103175934&q=Waco
2006-09-13 06:36:57 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Can't shoot civilians, can't blow up a block to kill a suspected enemy, and we can't just shoot first and ask questions later. I know the frustration you feel, and have often thought we should just wipe the country off planet, then pave it. We can't though.
2006-09-13 06:30:54 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No hint of your Rules of Engagement should be discussed here, full stop!
2006-09-13 12:05:42 · answer #10 · answered by Ross 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋