Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm so glad you Rep/Cons live in a mind set where it's 1874 and we're all in a wild west town with cowboys and injians.
Is it possible that soldriers should be recgonized for things other than killing. The soldriers you will ever hear about are the courageous ones. They should be honored.
But I'm not surprised you Cons are upset that restraint should be awarded. Shoot 'em up! Right?
I'm so glad you Rep/Cons live in a mind set where it's 1874 and we're all in a wild west town with cowboys and injians.
Is it possible that soldriers should be recgonized for things other than killing. The soldriers you will ever hear about are the courageous ones. They should be honored.
But I'm not surprised you Cons are upset that restraint should be awarded. Shoot 'em up! Right?
So I'll ask you. You accept our soldiers taking casualties to save even just 1 civilian life?
do you support warfare without regard to civilian lives?
in war everyone gets killed. should a soldier, any soldier on either side be able to shoot who ever they want when ever they want?
???? I support our guys being able to return fire from the area that they are being fired on from. If the enemy is using civilians as shields so be it, they get shot too and it is the enemy that got them killed.
???? I support our guys being able to return fire from the area that they are being fired on from. If the enemy is using civilians as shields so be it, they get shot too and it is the enemy that got them killed.
obviously I am all for our guys being able to do their jobs. the people to truly answer this question are people who really have been in combat and been shot at. not just military people but combat vets.
I don't know the answer I am not a military strategist. combat has lots of emotion, some of it uncontrolled and clouded by having people shoot at you to kill you, seeing your buddies die and having to kill people yourself just to try to survive.
perhaps more than worrying about who and when our soldiers can shoot, we need to stop sending them on endless deployments. one after the other after the other. some of these guys have been there 3 and four times and not by choice but because of duty.
are we still giving up the areas we just secured by firefight, losing men and then just moving on?
you think the civilians don't start hating us more when we kill innocents either on purpose or accident, which makes them more sympathetic to our enemies?
not a military strategist but it is more complicated than most of us know or can imagine.
I agree. But as far as this conversation goes, it is just another red herring. We are talking about the rules of engagement in Afghanistan....
No we're not. We're talking about the validity of a "Courageous Restraint Medal" or lack thereof. You seem to be more interested in attacking the posters, not making any kind of case for or against it, which is a shame because if you really do have the experience you claim to, you could provide a worthwhile opinion. Alas, knowing your track record here on the forum I won't expect much from you...
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
and you seem to be saying both that it is wrong to kill innocent civilians, and that we should not care whether we kill them or not.
Maybe it's just me, but I can't see how you hold both opinions in one skull at the same time.
From red herring to straw man! An inspired leap to avoid actually answering the question.
Well, here's how:
If I understand you correctly, you believe the rules of engagement should be and are religiously applied to the current war. But I am arguing that is clearly not the case, nor is it particlarly practical to fight a successful war that way. In fact, hesitation and/or a half-ass strategy will only get more of your guys killed.
But on the flip side, I am making a clear observation of how horrible, cruel and unfair war is, especially to the civilian population.
Two different perspectives, sure, but I don't have to pick sides here. There is no black and white, especially about something like this. It is not a strawman argument to see and understand both perspectives.
So with the "big picture" in mind, my only real agenda here is to show war is not worth the costs to humanity. The only real benefactors are the elite who instigate wars and will never be found dying in the trenches. Everyone else... in uniform or not, killing or being killed... is a victim.
Nobody's saying that it is possible to avoid all civilian casualties.
Nobody's saying that civilian casualties must be avoided at all costs.
This proposal for a medal isn't even an order, it's an idea for a way to honor some soldiers who act in accordance with the law of war and the principles that have been inculcated in them by the United States government.
obviously I am all for our guys being able to do their jobs. the people to truly answer this question are people who really have been in combat and been shot at. not just military people but combat vets.
I don't know the answer I am not a military strategist. combat has lots of emotion, some of it uncontrolled and clouded by having people shoot at you to kill you, seeing your buddies die and having to kill people yourself just to try to survive.
perhaps more than worrying about who and when our soldiers can shoot, we need to stop sending them on endless deployments. one after the other after the other. some of these guys have been there 3 and four times and not by choice but because of duty.
are we still giving up the areas we just secured by firefight, losing men and then just moving on?
you think the civilians don't start hating us more when we kill innocents either on purpose or accident, which makes them more sympathetic to our enemies?
not a military strategist but it is more complicated than most of us know or can imagine.
We shouldn't worry if the civilian population likes us or not because our troops are defending themselves, that is the nature of the beast. I agree about the endless deployments. I also believe that if our guys are going to continue to be neutered in defending themselves, we should just get them all home, we are wasting lives with that method.
unfortunately you do have to worry about how the civilian population views us. right, wrong or indifferent, they are the ones who home we have invaded, their children, parents and siblings we are killing. they are also the ones who either aide the enemy or join their ranks. so yes we do have to worry about them. war waste lives period. I agree we should just bring them all home
unfortunately you do have to worry about how the civilian population views us. right, wrong or indifferent, they are the ones who home we have invaded, their children, parents and siblings we are killing. they are also the ones who either aide the enemy or join their ranks. so yes we do have to worry about them. war waste lives period. I agree we should just bring them all home
I think you missed my point. We shouldn't worry if they get angry because our troops are DEFENDING themselves, if they don't want to be harmed then get the hell out of dodge and stop letting insurgents use you and your home as a shield/base. One civilian life IS NOT worth 1 life of one of ours. The only civilians worth having a US soldier die for is an American citizen.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
