Ill. soldier's family says pictures aren't porn

[Tez3]

I don't totally disagree with you. I just think that our rules of engagement set forth by politicians who don't know what it is like to face an opponent in battle are unrealistic.

Oh, BTW, I was an Army Combat Engineer and I still associate with many active duty and former Soldiers, Airmen, and Marines with the occasional Sailor.

Oh good lord you are going to have excuse my mind but when you said you associate with the occasional sailor I cracked up! I do know how you meant it though, it's my English squaddie-type mind, sorry!

Very often Americans think they will win a conflict by sheer force of numbers and it's doesn't always work that way. This is our third war in Afghanistan, the score is win one draw one so far, not sure how this one will work out. It's not just the politicians that need to rethink this it's also the way Americans conduct wars or even if they need to make war in the first place. I think you have learned little if anything from Vietnam. Your Army is fine for First World War type battles but guerilla warfare is alien to it. No, that isn't an insult to it's fine service people btw.

We need a massive hearts and mind operation in Afghanistan along with a security operation and we need to bear in mind that it won't be a military victory that will bring peace but a political solution. We have to, now we are there, to bolster the police and the political system and make sure it is a democratic one.

We also have to be seen to behave ourselves with the greatest propietry and humanitarism. If soldiers do wrong they should be punished not excused because they are at war. Our military regs have always banned pornography, generally though soldiers act with discretion and little is done about it. If, however, it's kiddie porn or as we've have had to deal with child sexual abuse, the full weight of the military disciplinary system is thrown as them as it should be. If we don't behave ourselves properly we have no right to try and tell others how to behave. We must be the example that others look to, for our sakes as much as theirs.

 

[TKDHomeSchooler]

Tez3, the more and more we talk the more we tend to agree. I agree we need SpecOps on the ground working on alliances and training. My main concern is the method in which our troops are neutered in battle by rules.

I'm sorry, but if someone fires at my squad from inside a mosque, it's gone. I would not advocate toasting a religious site, but when the enemy bunkers down inside it is no longer a religious site but a fox hole and is fair game.

I also agree we need to be perceived as better than them. That is why we don't use women and children as shields, that is why we won't enter certain places as they are holy to the countrymen we are protecting. But we are not fighting a war of religion, the way the Islamic extremists are. Those battles are hardly ever won without one side being exterminated.

 

[Carol]

I think this touches a few nerves.

One is the standards that are troops are held too abroad, and whether they are unreasonably strict.

Another is the view that people have of the military in the US. I think the majority of Americans are supportive of our armed services (support of their Commander in Chief varies ), but there are also people that will say "I support our troops" and then in the same breath say some very hurtful things about our men and women in uniform. I didn't serve, but my 19 year old (homeschooled btw) niece does.

 

[Tez3]

Tez3, the more and more we talk the more we tend to agree. I agree we need SpecOps on the ground working on alliances and training. My main concern is the method in which our troops are neutered in battle by rules.

I'm sorry, but if someone fires at my squad from inside a mosque, it's gone. I would not advocate toasting a religious site, but when the enemy bunkers down inside it is no longer a religious site but a fox hole and is fair game.

I also agree we need to be perceived as better than them. That is why we don't use women and children as shields, that is why we won't enter certain places as they are holy to the countrymen we are protecting. But we are not fighting a war of religion, the way the Islamic extremists are. Those battles are hardly ever won without one side being exterminated.

We don't use Spec Ops for alliances and training, we use the troops who have the best training for the job, our Spec Ops are used for covert ops.
I don't know what the story was about being fired on in a mosque but I can think of a couple of reasons for not firing back none of which involved being 'neutered'. there may have been innocent women and children in the mosque? I think such decisions are usually made by commanders on the ground and I wouldn't want to second guess them without any information.
In the British rules of engagement the first rule is the right of a soldier to use force for self defence, I can't imagine yours are any different?

I think in the first place what people need to do is not jump down on stories like the OP on one side or another but to take time to think and not make judgements without facts. Perhaps take a police officers eye to the story and look at it from all sides?

 

[FieldDiscipline]

Perhaps take a police officers eye to the story and look at it from all sides?

:roflmao:

 

[Tez3]

:roflmao:

Well he only needs one eye really lol!