This sums why I sometimes hate DUmmies.

[Freeper]

NNN0LHI  Donating Member  (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author  Click to view this author's profile  Click to add this author to your buddy list  Click to add this author to your Ignore list      Mon Jul-26-10 02:15 PM
Original message
So, its been revealed we have been doing some pretty nasty stuff in Afghanistan, eh?
   
Well, I'm shocked. Aren't you shocked? I thought for sure we would be using only the civilized rules of war. Civilized rules of war. Civilized rules of war.

Shocked, I tell you.

Don

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8818696

They sit at their computer screens throwing their virtual crap at people who put their lives on the line.
The DUmmy didn't come out and say it but I know the thought is our fighting men and women are committing war crimes.

You know what DUmmy compare the tactics we use to those of al queda  and when we start ramming planes into buildings and strapping on bombs before going into pizza parlors then you can bitch.

[DumbAss Tanker]

In many cases, I don't draw the line at 'Sometimes,' i.e. for those among them who are sworn enemies of democracy, individual liberty, and a free enterprise economy.

[Airwolf]

WTF is a civilized war. By its very nature War is something that for all intentions means any chance of civilied talking or negotiations has failed and and the use of force is all thats left. Nothing in those documents so far that has been in the news is even close to breaking the UCMJ or the Geneva Conventions.

[Peter3_1]

The American ROE are so far past what the Laws of War require, we are contributing to an inflated casualty and KIA rate. The "civilians"s are fearful that the islamofascists will kill them if they don't become human shields. They know we will go to extraordinary lengths to avoid killing them , so despite the fact that those using the human shields are the war criminals, we accept "guilt" should they be killed.

This is the worst possible tactic and doomed to failure. My ROE would be to kill anyone not a uniformed ally carrying as "area" weapon. RPG, Morter, SAW, HMG, wearing a face mask, carrying hand grenades, accompanying Arty. of any sort etc.. Shoot feom a Mosque , it will be destroyed. Human shields in use, tjhe position will be attacked and any captures hostiles captured will be exectued on the spot.

AFTER

[DumbAss Tanker]

Yeh, well, actually you ARE goin' just a wee bit past what Geneva/Hague and the laws of war allow there, Rich.

Despite the Powell/Rumsfeld love affair with coalition warfare (And carried on by Clinton, W, and Obama), but also just in the nature of fighting someone else's war on their turf because you have a common enemy, once you enter that scenario there are going to be very restrictive rules of engagement if you are even going to try to pretend the war is for the benefit of the local populace and their legitimate government. 

Are the rules we are under too restrictive?  Yes, without a doubt, but in this kind of war it's never going to be like the Northwestern Europe or Southern Ryukyus campaigns in WWII, where civilians were a purely third-tier consideration.