That if our Military has to abide by the Rules of Engagement then the enemy has to also?
And if the enemy refuses to then our Military shouldn't have to either?
Does it make any sense for our Military to have to fight with one arm tied behind their back while the enemy takes full advantage of it by not having any rules at all?
Can we win the war the way we're going about it?
Would we have won World War 2 if we had fought this way against Hitler?
What would Gen.Patton have said if he was forced to fight this way?
2007-09-06 20:23:41 · 11 answers · asked by Adelaide B 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Acrobatic
We could start by bombing the Sunni Triangle and then the Terrorist Camps because our Government knows where they are.
Then we could allow our Soldiers to fight when fighting is called for.
Did you know under the Rules of Engagement our Soldiers are not allowed to fire their weapons until they've been shot at first?
So if they see a Terrorist walking towards them with his gun drawn and pointed right at them there's nothing they can do until the Terrorist shoots first.
Does that sound right to you?
How would you feel if you were walking down the street and a criminal accosted you and was going to shoot you but you knew you had to wait until you were shot first before you could fire back in self defense?
If your a sane person you wouldn't like it at all.
And I'm sure our Military doesn't like it either.
But the enemy does.
2007-09-06 21:45:18 · update #1
Meant to say "Terrorist Training Camps".
not 'Terrorist Camps'.
2007-09-06 21:46:14 · update #2
Whcwarrior10
Do you mean that our Politicians are trying to destroy our Military so they can overthrow the people and have absolute power over its citizens?
Wouldn't they need the military to achieve this?
How can they subdue an entire country without military might?
Or are they going to use a different type of military?
Such as what's brewing at Islamberg?
Wow,that would be awful.
2007-09-07 04:29:46 · update #3
We are not supposed to win dear, can't you see that?We are being set up to fail and allienate our past allies as we fall, so when they come in to take us over with the military weakened and the illegals all over in our country we lose before it starts then the rest of the countries will fold without even putting up a fight. Then the globalization takes over, we will be slaves and live in camps I wish it wasn't true but bush has done his job well and we let him do it. I am an educated woman and not easily frightened ,,,,,,,,but I am frightened now.
2007-09-06 20:35:20 · answer #1 · answered by sosueme534 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Let me ask you this: what is your EXACT plan for our troops to fight with both arms freed? What would this specific solution look like to you?
If you think the US gov't should truly fight fire with fire, I'm afraid you'll need to strap yourself with explosives and blow yourself up, along with any suspicious Arab citizens who may or may not turn out to be "the enemy". And I don't recommend that.
Problem is, this never really qualified as a war: not in the way that WW2 was. And nuking entire populations, including innocent citizens (like John suggests), will make desparately violent people even more violent and willing to collectively tear the US off the map. We're not as popular as we were during WW2, and pulling a stunt like Hiroshima will not earn us anything but a global death warrant issued against us.
2007-09-07 03:40:24 · answer #2 · answered by acrobatic 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Unfortunately, our enemies don't think as we do!! They are a totally different culture. Every war we have been involved with has been different, and against different countries and cultures, so you can't say that what we are involved in now is the same as say, WWII. I am having trouble thinking that this (being in Iraq) the right thing to do anymore. We have too little troops, and they are tired and overworked. Iraqis need to get their own act together so we can get out of there, and deal with the terrorism that is everywhere else, esp at home here.
I pray for our troops all the time. I hope everyone does, no matter what they think of the war!
(BTW--JMO--Gen Patton would not have dug this Iraq business.)
2007-09-07 03:34:07 · answer #3 · answered by Carol K 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
War is war, if the enemy doesn't recognize the geneva conference then neither side should have to. Fairness in war only costs lives and time. We need to turn Bagdad into a glass bowl. The bombs on hiroshima and nagasaki ended ww 2 and saved lives over all. Collateral damage is sometimes unavoidable but dallying around is even worse in any theatre of war. Either fight to win decidedly or forfeit the game.
2007-09-07 03:36:35 · answer #4 · answered by John S 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
You are absolutely right. Its not fair. They can barely even defend themselves at this point. I say you fight fire w/ fire, thats the only way to win. They shouldn't have to worry about being sued because they were doing there job, or defending there life.
2007-09-07 03:28:24 · answer #5 · answered by KC 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Democratic controlled congress does not want victory in Iraq, and they have made that very clear. They are not interested in what is fair, they seek defeat for our troops, to gain a political edge.
2007-09-07 07:33:07 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Even with all of this we have protesters calling our young men "baby killers" for protecting the very babies that they are accused of killing.
2007-09-07 12:08:34 · answer #7 · answered by Caveman 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i know we should have the same rules as the enemy does
2007-09-07 03:28:17 · answer #8 · answered by vandamme's girl 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nothing is fair in love, or war.
2007-09-07 03:29:43 · answer #9 · answered by Thoughtfull 4 · 0⤊ 3⤋
We don't want to sink to their level.
2007-09-07 03:31:55 · answer #10 · answered by barbara 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋