3
3
0
how do you feel about rules of engagement my fault is engaging into battle you destroy eliminate the enemy with all the tools that you have not going into battle with one arm tied behind your back what are your thoughts
Posted in these groups: 
Rules of Engagement (ROE)
Rules of Engagement (ROE)
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 5
2
2
0
If you are a hunter, the rules of engagement open up the legal hunting grounds.....(also in line with the laws of war)
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
SPC (Join to see) I've thought about this quite a bit. I look back at Vietnam, and what I have read of the conflicts/wars before my time. The USA used to go to war to win. We dropped a nuclear device on Japan because that was deemed the only way to defeat them.
What is collateral damage in war? You are in a combat zone, you are a player or a supporter. I remember a case in Iraq, an IED takes out a hummer. The IED was buried in the road 20 yards or so from a house. The Marines that survived the IED went to question the occupants of the house. Can anyone really claim they are innocents? You are either a player or a supporter!
What is collateral damage in war? You are in a combat zone, you are a player or a supporter. I remember a case in Iraq, an IED takes out a hummer. The IED was buried in the road 20 yards or so from a house. The Marines that survived the IED went to question the occupants of the house. Can anyone really claim they are innocents? You are either a player or a supporter!
(1)
(0)
CPT Lawrence Cable
I think we need to look seriously at the nature of the conflicts we have entered since WWII. To often, we are engaged in areas that may not have a viable military solution, or at least one that we are willing to contemplate. Using Afghanistan as an example, the most successful conquest of the area was by the Mongols, they just killed anyone that gave them trouble and everyone associated with them. Today we want to pretend that we are only killing the bad guys and such actions would be socially and politically unacceptable.
I am of the opinion that we shouldn't commit US Troop unless we are willing to kill any that opposes us without regard to "collateral damage". We suck at being World Police and we such even worse at nation building.
I am of the opinion that we shouldn't commit US Troop unless we are willing to kill any that opposes us without regard to "collateral damage". We suck at being World Police and we such even worse at nation building.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
In a less civilized world yes. However, without rules of engagement the unnecessary crimes against combatants and civilians would be egregious. In these most recent wars we have been fighting against extremism, partially due to their vast human rights violations. Extremists groups like the Taliban and al'Qaida don't follow an ROE like we do, but I think that is because we come from a more civilized society with a higher code of ethics and sense of honor. The ROE is one of the directives that give our Soldiers their left and right hand limits. I don't always agree with it, but it's not my place to challenge what the rules are, it's my place to enforce them and execute the mission.
(1)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
I didn't think about the possibility of war crimes I just assume that most of us would keep our honor clean but sometimes I guess we have malfunctions thanks for the answer
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google