Now in iraq and modern war the soldiers must call in to see if they can return fire. My friends brother was in the army and they were driving along and bam a carbomb hit. They were in a town and being fired at. Their humvey was flipped over. They called in for permission to return fire and the answer was no. They had to sit there and get shot. The reason the answer was no was they were in a town. Now years ago like in previous wars they didnt have to sit there and just get shot. Is this messed up?
2007-02-26 14:07:18 · 9 answers · asked by rockinrocco33 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Its my friends brother and i agree polititions do have too much control
2007-02-26 15:06:43 · update #1
My friends bro died when the humvy flipped over
2007-02-27 15:46:01 · update #2
No, this is urban war. If the army returns fire civilans will notice this action and may also turn against the U.S. This is tatic not kill and run.
2007-02-26 14:10:51 · answer #1 · answered by Sk8terMov 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In previous wars, we were actually in a war. That is, Congress declared war against another government for something that it actually did. That's not the case here. We aren't at war; that ended 3 1/2 years ago, remember? (mission accomplished)
In other conflicts, like Korea and Viet Nam, we did shoot blindly and kill lots of civilians. How'd those two turn out for us? Maybe the Pentagon has learned from its past mistakes, unfortunately, it just hasn't learned enough not to get into them in the first place.
2007-02-26 22:20:16 · answer #2 · answered by normobrian 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The reason that this war is taking so long is because politicians have too much control over the war. Anymore, people expect to fught wars where nobody gets hurt. Back in the day, CO's didn't listen to everything politicians said. Look at Patton; he was always pissing off politicians and at the same time he was one of America's greatest Generals.
Another reason is that if te media finds out that a buch of civilians were killed in a firefight, they will be all over it and depict it as a masacre.
Media has changed how wars are fought. In WWII and Korea war was war. Then, in Vietnam, everything changed
2007-02-26 22:16:54 · answer #3 · answered by ryan 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Our rules of engagement were pretty clear.
You can only fire if you are being fired upon, and you can ensure that you have positive identification of the target. And if there is civilians in the area, we had to break contact. It does suck, some of the rules placed upon us, make it very difficult to survive and accomplish our mission, and the insurgents are aware of this. They enter mosques, knowing we can not enter due to our ROE. If we could fight as we are capable, there would be no issue.
2007-02-27 10:25:51 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
This story seems to be lacking in reality a bit. If troops are under fire they don't need permission to defend themselves. Of course anyone can come on here and claim that they know someone who was just there and he says......
Sorry but I am skeptical of your story's veracity.
2007-02-26 22:26:04 · answer #5 · answered by Jacob W 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Your brother should have followed the Rules of Engagement. Regardless of where you are or who your commander is, you have the right to defend yourself. It is up to the theater commander to decide what those rules are. I would have shot the crap out of the people shooting at me. But I guess that is just me.
2007-02-26 22:11:27 · answer #6 · answered by darkhelmet29 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I say, if such an event of extreme prejudice were to occur, Americans being decimated should have the authority to kill anything in range and let God sort them out. Welcome to a "political" war...it makes me puke!
2007-02-26 22:19:48 · answer #7 · answered by Dr. J 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
this is not new in Nam we put up with the same thing
2007-02-26 22:28:52 · answer #8 · answered by Pat B 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes it is messed up
2007-02-26 22:10:32 · answer #9 · answered by ams 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋