1911Forum banner

1 - 20 of 38 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,283 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I'm not sure if this fits the rules, but it might be a way to understand our current governments view of self defense, and could impact our 2nd amendment rights.

From Backpacker.com; (http://www.backpacker.com/cgi-bin/forums/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=116108449;t=9991124425)

"Recently on ABC television news, one of their videos showed a U.S. Marine hunkered down in Afghanistan complaining on camera that he was not allowed to shoot back when under fire. This situation resulted from Obama’s new rules of engagement from his new Afghanistan commander. General McChrystal explained it to BBC news that they are now advising troops to break off from firefights with the Taliban, "If you are in a situation where you are under fire from the enemy... if there is any chance of creating civilian casualties or if you don't know whether you will create civilian casualties, if you can withdraw from that situation without firing, then you must do so”

Basically people, we can't win, winning is wrong somehow, losing is good, dying is what good Americans should strive to attain. :barf:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
120 Posts
That is ridiculous... And I had a problem with the ROE of don't shoot unless they are CLEARLY shooting at you....

How can he tell our soldiers to not defend themselves... and to turn tail and run and risk getting shot in the back...

What is this country coming to:confused:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
330 Posts
That is quite possibly the single most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of. Send in armed troops and tell them not to return fire if there is even the slightest inkling of civilian casualties. Why even give them weapons then? This is a war, and every war has civilian casualties. Optimistically this would never happen, but it's a fact of unconventional warfare. Someone needs to pull there head out of their ass.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,703 Posts
I wonder if the people protecting the POTUS are instructed to follow the same rules
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,139 Posts
Next they will be sent on patrol w/o ammo. We can write this one off as a loose, as soon as the Taliban figures this out they will be hiding behind civilians every where our troops go. This is NOT how you win a war, but it is how you lose a war. Have we forgotten what war is about and how to win? I think the answer is clear. It is a shame and should be a crime for our troops to be given orders such as this.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,046 Posts
Next they will be sent on patrol w/o ammo. We can write this one off as a loose, as soon as the Taliban figures this out they will be hiding behind civilians every where our troops go. This is NOT how you win a war, but it is how you lose a war. Have we forgotten what war is about and how to win? I think the answer is clear. It is a shame and should be a crime for our troops to be given orders such as this.
It is.

Can we try him now?

:(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
465 Posts
Just out of curiosity, if a soldier held these guidelines in the same opinion as it seems we all do and returns fire in the classic (or "rational" sense), suppresses the enemy, and maybe a civilian gets hurt because of it, what's the recourse on the soldier?

News like this shaves months off my lifespan.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
15,298 Posts
I'm not sure if this fits the rules, but it might be a way to understand our current governments view of self defense, and could impact our 2nd amendment rights.

From Backpacker.com; (http://www.backpacker.com/cgi-bin/forums/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=116108449;t=9991124425)

"Recently on ABC television news, one of their videos showed a U.S. Marine hunkered down in Afghanistan complaining on camera that he was not allowed to shoot back when under fire. This situation resulted from Obama’s new rules of engagement from his new Afghanistan commander. General McChrystal explained it to BBC news that they are now advising troops to break off from firefights with the Taliban, "If you are in a situation where you are under fire from the enemy... if there is any chance of creating civilian casualties or if you don't know whether you will create civilian casualties, if you can withdraw from that situation without firing, then you must do so”

Basically people, we can't win, winning is wrong somehow, losing is good, dying is what good Americans should strive to attain. :barf:
I don't see any problem with that.......as long as both sides play by the same rules. Of course we all know how well that works with terrorists. They aren't terrorists because they play by rules or follow any protocol.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
731 Posts
By the end of my second tour in Vietnam we were required to account for each round of ammunition, and to radio for permission to return fire when engaged.

Deja vu, all over again.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
231 Posts
I am frustrated beyond words. What do we do? WHAT DO WE DO? Aside from waiting for elections to roll around and try to get these commies out of their positions. From the White House on down to the school board. In St. Paul, MN. there is a woman by the name of Ann Carol, she is on the city councel, that wants us to stop using the term citizen, because it might offend someone.
Someone tell me, what do we do. HELP
:bawling::bawling:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
65 Posts
That is the sort of arrant political interference, - the "kill them just a little bit" type of mentality - that made Viet Nam air strikes and combat engagements such a ludicrous hazard for U.S. troops. The type of mentality designed to lose, not win. And not by accident, I'm sure. Ten years from now the next Francis Ford Coppola will be basing the next Apocalypse Now on such policies as this. Oh, wait - they won't be making those type of movies or writing those types of books anymore, soon.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,836 Posts
Old news, like from July.

We should spray Roundup on all the poppy fields, bring our guys home and just warm up the bombers.



claire
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,283 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
These kind of orders come from a "leadership" that is more afraid of the media and courts than of the enemy. In short, someone has forgotten his oath of office.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
73 Posts
No wonder why morale is low!!!

Army says morale down among troops in Afghanistan
By PAULINE JELINEK (AP) – 2 hours ago

WASHINGTON — Morale has fallen among soldiers in Afghanistan, where troops are seeing record violence in the 8-year-old war, while those in Iraq show much improved mental health amid much lower violence, the Army said Friday.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iLmRkfT24zTMruiXbxn_MOwO21CgD9BUOJ4G1
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,785 Posts
So...An American soldier's life is worth less than the citizens of a foreign country who apparently allow people to stand next to them and shoot at Americans.

We might as well just leave from other there if they are not allowed fight.

I'm sure they are taught to keep innocents out of the line of fire if possible, and I would hope they attempt that anyway.
 
1 - 20 of 38 Posts
Top