2007-11-10 04:49:25 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
No, we do not have to. There are situations that we do not have to wait. We go through a lot of training to know when or when not to shoot. For an easy example, all Iraqis are allowed to have 1 AK47 per house. But if someone not in a uniform is walking around with one, that is against the law. More then likely we will not shoot first, but try to ask why he has it out and try to confiscate it. If he attempts to use it, we can fire before he does. Anyone carrying an RPG is completly wrong.
So its not cut and dry like in a regular war with uniforms, but we do not have to wait for them to fire. Since they hide with the civilians though, we often have to.
2007-11-10 05:16:31 · answer #1 · answered by mnbvcxz52773 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Yes. The current ROE requires that you take fire and have PID (positive identification) before you can engage. Of course there are exceptions to the rule. You may get a shoot on sight order for certain groups or individuals from day to day in the intel briefings. Guys in black pajamas are always fair game though, ha ha ha.
2007-11-10 08:04:59 · answer #2 · answered by voelker_n 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not in every situation. However, most of the time the Americans are shot at first so it appears the Americans are waiting for someone to shoot first.
2007-11-10 05:02:11 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
depending on the scenario.
I mean if your on a search and destroy mission youre not going to wait for someone to shoot at you, but you do try to go in and not just shoot at everything that moves...because of the possibility of women and children.
But unless someone points their weapon in your direction, youre not authorized to shoot them
(but then the circumstances surrounding why the weapon is in their hand has alot to do with it as well)
once engaged, it turns to survival, and you pretty much say anyone with a weapon in the area of a threat is getting shot at.
But technically, if an armed suspect is running away from you, you arent suppose to engage them.
If that guy just shot your buddy, what do you think youre going to do?
Like police officers in firefights, our soldiers behavior in the heat of battle goes often overly criticized.
The ROE of the current battelfield have put our troops at a terrible disadvantage..and any Commander in Chief who knew anything about war, would not have them the way they are now!!!
Its insane.
Shot at from both sides...cant shoot until fired upon...
Bush would know this had he s4erved honourably in vietnam,
2007-11-10 04:55:33 · answer #4 · answered by writersbIock2006 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I believe it depends on the circumstances at the time. Some situations require that they seek out and destroy certain places in which Al-Qeada is hiding. At that point they have the right to shoot and kill anyone fleeing from that place for they are considered enemy but in most cases they can't shoot unless they are fired upon which is most of the time.
2007-11-10 05:16:53 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes. Soldiers are trained to wait for the enemy to engage them, as not to give away the number of troops or their positions. Its less likely that you will sustain collateral damage as well.
2007-11-10 04:55:26 · answer #6 · answered by McCains InSane 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes--unless they are guarding something and someone gets to close and they are warned to back off and do not.
2007-11-10 04:55:39 · answer #7 · answered by Angela J 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
yes, if it wasnt that way there would be a high risk of shooting civilians
2007-11-10 04:54:13 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
yes, they are not blackwater.
But a warning shot to the chest does happen
2007-11-10 04:54:47 · answer #9 · answered by Edge Caliber 6 · 2⤊ 4⤋
yes i believe they do
2007-11-10 04:52:48 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋