BF2S Forums United States 'Rules of Engagement'...

So...if we aren't to follow the current ROE then what praytell do you suggest that we do? I'm honestly curious, how would you want our military personel to act? More like the terrorists? Anybody?

Fact Check:

Current Estimated Strength of Insurgency: 20,000+

Current Estimated Number of Foreign Fighters in Iraq: 800-2000

That's a heck of a difference between the "majority" of insurgents being foreign, in fact it looks like 10 to 1 on the high of the Foreign Fighter estimate. Oh...I've got a link. http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.htm

Maybe someone has a better idea of what our troops are supposed to do. Of course it pisses us off when the other guy doesn't play fair, we're in a game with very few to no rules. Therefore it seems illogical to play by our own rules when we're dealing with a ruthless determined enemy without any boundaries in relation to thier methods.

So I guess being a bleeding heart liberal means I've got no plan, no ideas better than invading Iraq. Oh, here's one...how about instead of invading Iraq we first capture/kill Bin Laden? Perhaps instead of invading Iraq we use our hyper intelligence gathering assets, highly trained special forces and stealth aircraft to hunt down and kill terrorists. If a nation has a terrorist we want and decides to harbor them, I'm not entirely sure that the security coucil would be too upset if the dude just happens to disappear. I'd be alot happier if terrorists simply dropped off the face of the planet with a calling card of the US left in thier beds.

As far as I'm concerned Iraq was the easy way out. It might have been the quickest or loudest response yet we have yet to prove that Iraq is a success. In fact who is really setting the standard for success in Iraq? Surely you've all heard of the PNAC, project for a new American Century, with members such as Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfwitz, Rove, Jeb Bush, I think William Kristol is in there too. They were the ones who in 1996 requested that Clinton invade Iraq by sending him a letter which outlined the need for a forced regime change towards democracy in the middle east while using the breech of UN resolutions as a catalyst. So why are we in Iraq? It's funny that many major players in the current administration had visions of a war in Iraq well before september 11th ocurred, in fact 5 years prior.

So does anyone have any suggestions to change our ROE's to better protect our troops or to better allow our troops to fight the insurgents? Landmine the sidewalks so that the terrorists have a harder time moving around? Shoot anyone between the ages of 16 and 60 who looks like they might be a terrorist? Drop bombs on appartment buildings if engaged from a third floor window of said building? Round up every Iraqi, ask them if they are terrorists and shoot any that say "yes"?

Scotch

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Konfusion0 wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

But that is supposed to be what separates us from them.  If we succumb to their tactics, then we are no better than they are.  Yeah it sucks, but if we want the world to accept us as a nation of ideals that walks the walk, and talks the talk, we have to take the high road.

Remember, we aren't out to intentionally kill civilians, and they could care less.  The ROE is there for a reason, and I believe we need to continue to adhere to it.

Yes, they have different principles, but animals? Surely you aren't that superior to everyone else...
They do not have the most ingenious people above, they have not grown up in the same enviroment, for christs sake, their country is a wreck! Do you honestly expect them to act the same as the US military does?

Excuse me, but WTF are you talking about?  Where did I say they were animals?  Where did I say we were superior?  I simply said that we need to take the moral high road and not resort to using the tactics that the terrorists are using.  As for using the same tactics as our military, again, WTF are you talking about.  I was talking about how the US military needs to behave, not the insurgents.

I'll cut you some slack because I'm guessing that English is not your first language, but you may want to try to better understand a post before you start such scathing responses.

I may have wrongly quoted, I'm sorry... I get that sometimes.... And, considering that english isn't my first language: I still write a whole lot better (grammar etc) than about 50% of the native english speakers on these forums, which of course isn't hard . Sorry again about the misquotation...

On to a new quote:

Pinto wrote:

This has no comparison to Veitnam.  Veitnam was not lost militarily but rather politically and through the media.  Furthermore, the US wasn't "invaders" as they were there to help the South Veitnamese.

Wasn't the US there to 'help' Iraq too?

Bubbalo wrote:

lowing wrote:

Iraq= a decade of breaking the UN resolutions that braught a cease fire during the beginning of the gulf war( which was '91 not '01).

Except that it turned out they hadn't broken the resolutions.

Bubbalo you need a serious fact check.........http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm



Now that you have been proven wrong I trust you agree with my statement fully.

That was pushed through by the US, based on the belief that they had WMDs.  They didn't.  The fact that the UN thought they breached obligations doesn't mean they did.

=JoD=Corithus wrote:

The fact that we have a set of principles and guidelines we follow, even in the heat of armed conflict is what sets us apart from these animals.  The wounded soldier you mention was no longer a threat to them or their goals, his execution is nothing but a perfect example of the lack of humanity these insurgent creatures have.

Very well said.  For example, when I was "over there" I was faced with a tough decision, keep in mind I am in the USAF, my trigger skills are NOT as well honed as a Soldier or a Marine's.  I had to drive a forklift to another part of the base to pick up some pallets.  I made it to a part that looked like it was desolate, but alas there were my pallets.  A rule for this place was all were to carry their weapons anywhere they went, so I get out of this forklift, had a bad uneasy feeling about me, so I loaded the weapon, charged the rifle.  I started to sweat a little worse than I already was, I felt like I was being watched.  I placed my weapon across my chest and gripped it a little tighter than normal.  I was thinking to myself that I had somehow wandered outside the wire, I was scared shitless.  Suddenly from behind a mound of rocks nearby I found myself facing the barrel of an AK-47, behind that was a man in a turban and their traditional clothing.  I instinctively turn and train my weapon on him only to be met with two more AK-47's and an AKS-74U.  They werent in military uniforms, I held my ground, one of them signalled for me to put my weapon on the deck.  I refused not moving or saying a word.  Slid my finger over my trigger and tripped it into burst.  I tell you I was sweating so hard I could have filled a gallon jug in the 3 minutes they had me there.  I was scared something new, I could smell my own fear bleeding out of my pores, shaking so bad I had trouble not pulling the trigger.  The 3 minutes felt like a lifetime, my mouth went dry, and I was trying everything in my power not to pass out.  Out of nowhere and I thank God for this everyday, a Special Ops Soldier, came out and told everyone to put their weapons down, turns out it was a training exercise I walked into for the Iraqi security Forces.  I tell you what I was scared out of my mind, I had the rules of Engagement in the back of my mind, and after that, even now I question it, because if I had waited for them to shoot first, and they were not who they were, I woulda been screwed to say the least.  So after I saw the familiar M-4 that the Spec ops troop was carrying, my eyes went black and I collapsed.  Come to think of it this is the first time I ever talked about it.  It is scary shit, especially knowing what the enemy does to prisoners and such.  I was ready just to take a few bullets and be done rather than getting my head sawed off by a dull ass knife.  The Rules of Engagement are their for a reason and I will always follow them no questions asked.  But yes the question does come up.  To me if they are man enough to hold a rifle and stand on the side of terror, they are an enemy.  Lay em down. Do not fire untill fired upon my ass, in my opinion they fired on us the morning of September 11, 2001.  Let hell break loose.

Bubbalo, if youre so antiwar, why do you even bother posting in war and military related threads?

I seriously think youre doing it just to spite the U.S. dude.

Last edited by d3v1ldr1v3r13 (2006-07-19 05:02:15)

So, the fact that I disprove of aggressive militancy means I shouldn't post in threads which discuss it?  That's like having an advisory council to discuss combating child pornography and filling it with pedophiles.

Last edited by Bubbalo (2006-07-19 05:10:41)

Bueler.....Bueler......

Does anyone have any suggestions of how our military should act? Second verse...same as the first.

I really don't believe that those who think "our dudes need to seriously just shoot the f'n A out of those camel toed dirkas" have any idea what they're arguing for.

Looking for one idea on how our forces can change thier behavior or how we can change the ROE's to allow them to more effectively fight the isurgents.

Scotch

aardfrith wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

Except that it turned out they hadn't broken the resolutions.

Bubbalo you need a serious fact check......... http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm



Now that you have been proven wrong I trust you agree with my statement fully.

Lowing, since you know about UN Resolution 1441, I trust you will remember what happened subsequently.

8th November 2002, Iraq accepted the terms of the resolution.

On 27th November, the UN weapons inspectors restarted their inspections.

On 7th December, Iraq handed over a 12,000 page document what it said is a current and complete declaration of all of its chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programmes. In the declaration, Iraq denied having any nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.

So, you see, Iraq complied fully with the resolution.  As we know, with the benefit of hindsight, Iraq had no WMDs.

Source: BBC News - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle … 773213.stm

So you must also remember that France admitted as of March 17th ( the deadline for disarming) that Iraq had not fully complied.....http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/iraq_03-10-03.html

So the rest is just a matter of deciding if you are going to act on promises made that action will be taken if they do not fully comply with 1441. The rest is history isn't it???

As always... As American's,  "we're held to a higher standard than other countries because of our history of democracy."
But War is War and its not nice in the Real World.  Or in game, but at least in game you have respawn.

lowing wrote:

If your country is so damned concerned about Africa, stand a fucking post there, if not stop bitching about what others are or are not doing there.

If you are not bitching about the US NOT in Africa and how we need to do something, you are bitching that the US needs to stop playing world police and mind our own business.So which is it today??

My country has nothing to do with anything. I am concerned about Africa as well as the rest of the world because your fucking government is fucking with all of us.

What is it today? Today the United States Government is trying to implicate Tehran with what Hezbolah allegedly are doing so they can invade Iran and steal their oil.

And if you have something to say that differs from my opinion just say it and stop bitching about how I'm supposedly bitching cause that only makes you look like a goddamn retarded redneck.

Alexanderthegrape wrote:

We would not have lost half the people we have if we weren't trying to uphold ROE moral standards.
I feel like the sacrifice is worth it. We must strive for moral high ground or we will lose this war.
It cannot be lost militarily, it can only be lost morally.
And as a side note, what does it say about American military that if we don't succeed in getting every part of our goals done the world will say we " lost the war" ala Vietnam?
It says we never really lose, we just quit fighting.

At the begining of this post I almost blew my load thinking someone would have an answer to my question...I guess not. I'm still waiting for one suggestion as to how the American forces in Iraq could be more effective with a change to the ROE.

I'm confused as to whether you are for maintaining the ROE so that we don't loose the moral highground or would rather see us act more akin to terrorists. It's not my intent to pick on you or single you out.

Anyone out there have a single suggestion for how the US ROE could be adjusted to create a more effective method of fighting the insugency?

Scotch