I really hope you're joking. If not.....you are advocating genocide on a greater level than the holocaust.

No, I'm not. WWII wasn't a genocide, was it? We helped the USSR win it by destroying Germany and killing anyone who picked up a gun. Now, we have to wait for someone to shoot at us, then request permission to fire back. If somebody doesn't have a gun, then there's no reason to kill them. Hence, removing the ROE will save more American lives, and maybe end this quicker

No, I'm not. WWII wasn't a genocide, was it? We helped the USSR win it by destroying Germany and killing anyone who picked up a gun. Now, we have to wait for someone to shoot at us, then request permission to fire back. If somebody doesn't have a gun, then there's no reason to kill them. Hence, removing the ROE will save more American lives, and maybe end this quicker

So going by your logic its completely valid for armed personnel to shoot an innocent child who so happens to pick up the weapon? They may never have seen one in their lives and are interested in the design. I'm not saying they wouldn't fire at our troops, because they do, but its highly rare for a child to commit such an action.

You are advocating the murder of millions of innocent men women and children for your conveniance. Also, I said the nazi holocaust not WWII as a whole.

All I'm saying is resort back to pre-Vietnam tactics before all these ROEs and "hearts and minds" bullshit came around. I know you said the holocaust, and I said WWII was not a genocide, because they used these tactics.

Do I support blowing the middle east off the map? Yes, definatley. Do I support the US worrying about other people's business and bitching to our allies? No. The US should either destroy the middle east (remove ROE entirely). That's what wins wars. We began trying to "win hearts and minds" in Vietnam, and look where it got us. We're fighting an unknown enemy, and Iraq collapsed years ago. The US needs to back out and worry about problems here.

I'm not trying to offend you or anything but I don't think you know how bad, destructive, and dangerous war is. I served on the front-lines for 4 full tours and about to serve my 5th. War isn't fun dude, I see people I've known for ages get killed and be gone like that. Next time think about what your posting before you post it. I will state again from my past post on this topic, war should be a last, last resort for world disputes.

Edited April 8, 201214 yr by wmai20

I know it isn't fun, I'm joining the Marines in a few years. I never said it was fun, all I said was a change of tactics is needed. The stupidity of the US Military's chain of command should end, and instead of waiting for clearance to fire back, I said that tactics should change to those of World War 2. No more waiting for permission, but instead firing back BEFORE more men get killed. It would save American lives, and kill the enemy effectively, instead of the other way around.

By not agreeing with this, you're pretty much saying you want to see more of your friends killed. Think before you speak.

Edited April 8, 201214 yr by Marine831

I know it isn't fun, I'm joining the Marines in a few years. I never said it was fun, all I said was a change of tactics is needed. The stupidity of the US Military's chain of command should end, and instead of waiting for clearance to fire back, I said that tactics should change to those of World War 2. No more waiting for permission, but instead firing back BEFORE more men get killed. It would save American lives, and kill the enemy effectively, instead of the other way around.

By not agreeing with this, you're pretty much saying you want to see more of your friends killed. Think before you speak.

Again, you fail to see that by your logic that any armed personnel can shoot at any innocent civilians such as children just because they are holding a gun. Like I said, they could have seen it on the floor and thought it was some sort of toy.

Think before you speak.

Edited April 8, 201214 yr by Harper

Both of you think before you speak. How many German children were killed during WWII? Why should we even care? Why does it matter? It doesn't. That's a good thing. Instead of worrying about saving our enemy's lives and letting our own get killed, we should stop caring so much about an enemy that's brainwashed to hate the very ground we walk on.

Both of you think before you speak. How many German children were killed during WWII? Why should we even care? Why does it matter? It doesn't. That's a good thing. Instead of worrying about saving our enemy's lives and letting our own get killed, we should stop caring so much about an enemy that's brainwashed to hate the very ground we walk on.

I can't believe what I've just read.

We are not fighting the country, we are fighting the countries Government and the soldiers that are commanded to fight us.

Take for instance the American soldier that shot a bunch of innocent civilians a few weeks ago, there was a huge public uproar and now the taliban are swearing revenge on all armed service personnel unless he is brought to justice.

By reverting to WWII tactics, you are creating more problems and losing more lives.

Both of you think before you speak. How many German children were killed during WWII? Why should we even care? Why does it matter? It doesn't. That's a good thing. Instead of worrying about saving our enemy's lives and letting our own get killed, we should stop caring so much about an enemy that's brainwashed to hate the very ground we walk on.

Mate, I don't want to start an argument, but I think I would would know better. I agree with Harper.

Edited April 8, 201214 yr by wmai20

No, Afghanistan and Iraq are our allies. We're fighting an organization, like a private military corporation. We lose more of the enemies' lives, and less of ours. That's how it should be in war. It isn't a nice little place where our soldiers and marines should be letting themselves get killed because we don't want to kill the very enemy that's trying to kill us. In my opinion, that Marine should have nothing brought against him. In WWII in Germany, every German citizen was the enemy. Now, it's whoever kills a soldier or Marine. We wait until it's too late, not before.

No, Afghanistan and Iraq are our allies. We're fighting an organization, like a private military corporation. We lose more of the enemies' lives, and less of ours. That's how it should be in war. It isn't a nice little place where our soldiers and marines should be letting themselves get killed because we don't want to kill the very enemy that's trying to kill us. In my opinion, that Marine should have nothing brought against him. In WWII in Germany, every German citizen was the enemy. Now, it's whoever kills a soldier or Marine. We wait until it's too late, not before.

I do not consider Al-qaeda a "private military company" because they simply aren't. By US Military definition they are a terrorist organization and pose a threat to the Afghan people. The reason we care so much about shooting the enemy is simply due to the fact that they ARE just another human. They are just like us, following their leader's orders. Yes I do realize some wish harm to those who want to help them but some of them simply want an end to the war but are forced to obey orders. Replying to your WWII comment I totally disagree. You do realize that not all Germans belonged to the Nazi Party? Some simply stay because they could not afford to evacuate to safety or simply they waited too late to escape. I studied WWII History when I spent my time in Officer's school so I have decent knowledge of the situation.

Edited April 8, 201214 yr by wmai20

The fact of the matter is, we've been at war with the taliban for a number of years.

Tell me, how many civilian's have been killed by fire from us?

Almost none.

Thats because the tactics we have at the moment are fine, we see an enemy, we confirm visual contact, radio command for permission to fire and fire.

In some cases, we'll send a UAV predator drone out to eliminate a group of miltants and even still there are no non-hostile deaths recorded.

We have spent years trying to become friendly with the locals, we want them to be able to tell us where the Taliban are rather than hate us and leave us to be ambushed.

I haven't been in the army, nor do I intend to join, but I've had friends and distant relatives sign up.

One of them had to carry his dead best friend on his shoulder for miles.

By the time we get permission to fire, there's multiple casualties on our side. That's the problem. How many civilians have died from us? Thousands and thousands and thousands.

@Wmai

The Nazi Party has nothing to do with it. Germans are Germans. Not all Americans are democratic, but we're still Americans, right? Wars go by country, not by political stance. Right now we're fighting and organization which Afghanistan and it's people support. That's why we need to get rid of them.

We spent over 11 years in Afghanistan so far, and 9-10 in Iraq fighting an unorganized group of religious extremists. After 4 years of fighting the two most powerful countries on the planet, WWII ended. We've been in the middle east since the 80s, and we shouldn't be there still. We lost Vietnam the same way we're losing Afghanistan and probably lost Iraq.

Edited April 8, 201214 yr by Marine831

By the time we get permission to fire, there's multiple casualties on our side. That's the problem. How many civilians have died from us? Thousands and thousands and thousands.

We don't lose a life every time we engage in a gun battle. Troops are trained to the highest of standards and therefore know exactly what to do when under fire. At most they encounter one or two taliban at one time, excluding IEDs.

We don't lose a life every time we engage in a gun battle. Troops are trained to the highest of standards and therefore know exactly what to do when under fire. At most they encounter one or two taliban at one time, excluding IEDs.

The taliban know the land, and they're usually hidden and nearly invisible. We don't lose a life EVERY time there's a firefight, but we do lose too many lives.

One of them had to carry his dead best friend on his shoulder for miles.

I can relate to your friend or relative mate. When I was deployed to Afghanistan around my 4rd tour, I was stationed in a valley base. I was then assigned a mission to conduct and later that day my best friend was shot in the head. His injuries were very severe as they were caused by a high caliber round. I had to "fireman-carry" him all they way back to base as there was no luxury of vehicle transportation available. By the time I got to the base, I had lost him. He had died due to major trauma to his brain caused by the gun wound. As commanding officer of my platoon, I was responsible for writing his discharge letter. I then was sent home to deliver the letter myself and to attend his funeral. His funeral was about a month ago and now he rests in peace. Peace which he most definitely deserved.

The taliban know the land, and they're usually hidden and nearly invisible. We don't lose a life EVERY time there's a firefight, but we do lose too many lives.

That is not true, where ever you got that information from is incorrect. We train our troops with the finest training on the planet and they know what to do when they take fire. Simple textbook protocol and your gut feeling keep you alive.

Edited April 8, 201214 yr by wmai20

"As of 3 April 2012, there have been 2,853 coalition deaths in Afghanistan as part of ongoing coalition operations"

"In 2010, there were 7,228 IED Attacks on friendly forces, 280 of those were fatal. Insurgents planted 14,661 IEDs in 2010, a 62% increase over the previous year"

I think that's a damn good achievement. Yes, I do sympathise for the soldiers already killed, but look at those numbers and you'll see that the tactics already implemented are already doing a damn good job.

"As of 3 April 2012, there have been 2,853 coalition deaths in Afghanistan as part of ongoing coalition operations"

"In 2010, there were 7,228 IED Attacks on friendly forces, 280 of those were fatal. Insurgents planted 14,661 IEDs in 2010, a 62% increase over the previous year"

I think that's a damn good achievement. Yes, I do sympathise for the soldiers already killed, but look at those numbers and you'll see that the tactics already implemented are already doing a damn good job.

Our engineers are constantly researching for new ways to counter IEDs. Some have already been deployed on the field. This is the MRAP, its body deflects the explosion away from the vehicle minimizing the casuaties.

Over 16,000 killed in Iraq, over 30,000 wounded. In Afghanistan, over 2,000 dead and over 22,000 wounded. In total, this "war on terror" has taken over 18,000 lives. That's too many for an unorganized and weak enemy like the Taliban and Al Qaeda. According to wikipedia, over 40,000 insurgents were killed in Afghanistan, which is no where near enough. The entire Afghanistan nation support these organizations, and are against the US. They hate us, they don't have limits on who they kill. If they see a medic or a corpsman in the field, they don't hold their fire, they shoot. If they see POGs, they fire. If we see someone shooting at us, we wait for up to HOURS before we fire back.