Kevyn

You would be wrong, every nation who signed the Geneva convention follows rules of engagement. The purpose of them is as much to protect our own troops from mistreatment as it is to protect civilians.

Larai Loc: Fallon, NV

Jakebrake Loc: Broomfield, CO

Islam is a scumbag gutter religion. All one need do is read the tenants contained in the Koran. The eye opener for me, because I was somewhat ambivalent regarding the supposed religion, until I read the book 'Sword and Scimitar' by Raymond Ibrahim,

https://www.amazon.com/Sword-Scimitar-Fourteen-Centuries-between/dp/0306825554/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1ZTXO3F6XK7EA&keywords=sword+and+scimitar+raymond+ibrahim&qid=1569433672&sprefix=sword+and+sc%2Caps%2C171&sr=8-1

which chronicles the brutal conquest of the west including rape, s***ery, female m********n, torture and be headings just to name a few of the atrocities the reprobates who follow Islam have committed for 14 centuries. Islam should be exterminated simply because it will never coexist with western society~

Larai Loc: Fallon, NV

Semper Fi

Jakebrake Loc: Broomfield, CO

Thanks 'PRETTY LADY'~~~

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

The Geneva Conventions did not establish rules of engagement for troops in a combat or war zone.

The Geneva Conventions extensively defined the basic rights of wartime prisoners (civilians and military personnel), established protections for the wounded and sick, and established protections for the civilians in and around a war-zone. Moreover, the Geneva Convention also defines the rights and protections afforded to non-combatants, yet, because the Geneva Conventions are about people in war, the articles do not address warfare proper—the use of weapons of war.

Rules of engagement (ROE) are the internal rules or directives among military forces (including individuals) that define the circumstances, conditions, degree, and manner in which the use of force, or actions which might be construed as provocative, may be applied. They provide authorization for and/or limits on, among other things, the use of force and the employment of certain specific capabilities. In some nations, ROE has the status of guidance to military forces, while in other nations, ROE is lawful commands. Rules of engagement do not normally dictate how a result is to be achieved, but will indicate what measures may be unacceptable.

In Afghanistan, Obama's "hearts and minds" ROE was intended to prevent the k*****g of civilians and non-combatants, otherwise known as "collateral damage". Troops were prohibited from chambering rounds in their weapons until such time they had to engage enemies firing at them. This ROE even applied to troops on combat patrols.

Ambushes were common tactics of Taliban and insurgents, and when seconds counted, the time it took to chamber a round and engage an enemy could easily make the difference between life or death. In areas where civilians and non-combatants were present, the Taliban often opened fire on US troops, then dropped their weapons and blended in with the civilians. This tactic was intended to force our troops to fire on unarmed civilians. IOW, the Taliban tactic was a propaganda set up.

It was a rare combat leader who ordered his troops, especially those on combat patrols, to sally forth with an empty chamber. And, in those rare instances in which an officer or patrol leader ordered his men to abide by the ROE, the troops would find a way to chamber a round. They might lock back the bolt, drop the magazine, quietly slip a round from the mag and slip it into the chamber, then ease the bolt closed and slap the magazine back into the weapon. They did not like the idea of being caught in an ambush without the ability to respond immediately.

War is an unforgiving and brutal business, and in the history of warfare, it is rare to find an engagement or battle, large or small, where no civilians or non-combatants are in the k*****g fields. Off the top of my head, I can give two examples - the Battle of Iwo Jima and the Defense of Rorke's Drift. Although combat medics and corpsmen are considered non-combatants, such was not the case in these two battles. Navy corpsmen on Iwo often carried .45 cal pistols in order to defend the wounded Marines they were treating. And, the hospital stewards at Rorke's Drift fought like demons to save their wounded charges.

Then there is the issue of friendly fire. What can be said about the thousands of instances where troops were k**led by their own men? The Fog of War is a reality, mistakes are made, decisions are erroneous, orders are given that result in the deaths of friendly troops.

Now, we come to two t***hs in modern warfare in which ROEs are out the window. Islamic fundamentalism and nuclear war.

Outside of the war zones where Muslim fighters must engage uniformed troops, who are the primary targets of Islamic terrorists? CIVILIANS. Non-combatants. Innocent people. And the bastards are willing to k**l themselves in order to accomplish that.

Who were the targets on 9/11? Who are the targets of Hamas rocket attacks into Israel? Islamists have their own ROEs, k**l the infidels wherever you find them. What sort of ROE should we adopt to deal with that?

And, nuclear war? Such a horror is not unrealistic, it is a growing threat. Thermonuclear weapons have one purpose, they are indiscriminate mass k**lers. God forbid, should that ever happen, any rule of engagement would be meaningless.

Larai Loc: Fallon, NV

Thank you for clarifying!

Carol Kelly

And they did! Why can’t we do something now?

Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...

Good question.

We can, we have the military might, if we have the will to use it.

The question is why that never happens.

Mikeyavelli

America is supposed to take it, not dish it out.
We're too powerful to fight back.
Why, if we fought back, our enemies would h**e us.

Larai Loc: Fallon, NV

Awwww Poor ENEMIES!~ lmfao!!! And we are worried about this exactly Why??? Oh Noooo Say it ain't sooooo!!!! Boo Freakin Hoo!!

Mikeyavelli

At the end of WW2, the international left wanted Russia to sweep Europe and install C*******m. Europe was humiliated and war weary after 50 years of devastation and wanted the coziness and yet the misery of C*******m.
But the h**ed Americans stopped Russia at Berlin, and forced Europe to resurrect itself partially on their own efforts. Europe wanted defeat, and thus the rise of the existentialist American hating international left. And now, essentially, Trump has ended the Marshall Plan of subsidizing Europe, and they h**e it even more than they h**ed the subsidies. Nice people.

milamber

100% agree with that

Mikeyavelli

Morality is only important in times of peace and prosperity.
It sets the rules to keep the peace and prosperity.
But, adhering to morality in war will only beget the morality of your conqueror.