Why don't the Abrams tanks or others just blow up any trucks?

Question

before they get close to any public or populated places in Iraq.
After giving fair warning first. just like we will blow a jet out of the sky that is too close to Washington D.C. or the Superbowl??

Answer 1

Yes, the answer is "the gloves" We have been fighting with the gloves on ( Rules of Engagement formed by the wrong people.) Many of the casualties, ours and civilian, could have been prevented with a heavier hand ( yes, I acknowledge that the some of the resultant deaths would be that of innocents).
I concur with you

Duriel, I am pretty sure the only Abrams we lost in the Gulf War were lost to "friendly fire".

Answer 2

Abrams tanks are vulnerable in urban, and tight hard to mobilize areas, even though its well armoured and has a good record. Refer to its performance in the first Gulf War.

Quite a number of those tanks were destroyed by RPGs and IEDs.

*Jetero, I never said that Abrams were bad in the first Gulf War, its performance was good in that environment. I am refering to the current guerilla war in Iraq. Many US armoured vehicles were lost. Quite recently, a few choppers were downed by insurgent fire.

Answer 3

The Abrams tanks will blow up many trucks beyond Iraq. 16:16.

Answer 4

Um, because the trucks being used by insurgents are identical to those used by civilians going about their daily business. I know you've been brainwashed to think otherwise, but the US is really not into blowing up non-combatants willy-nilly. Efforts to control and monitor vehicle traffic for suspicious activity are known as 'checkpoints' - maybe you've heard of them?

Answer 5

The rules of engagment do not allow arbitrarily destroying civilian property. Just sitting there does not pose an imediate threat therfore we are not authorized to engage.

Plus the M1 round is very expensive.

Answer 6

I Agree its time to take off the gloves no more Mr nice guy just blow the be jabbers out of the assholes