ROEs and fighting Extremists while bound by the Geneva
- Locked due to inactivity on Aug 4, '16 4:33pm
Thread Topic: ROEs and fighting Extremists while bound by the Geneva
-
-
If you don't know, the ROEs (Rules Of Engagement) are a set of rules stating in what situations American soldiers are able to engage in combat with a non friendly person. The Geneva Conventions were a set of articles that bind American military soldiers and others who signed it to a strict set of rules about hospitable human rights that includes treatment of prisoners of war. If violated and called guilty in a court of law of doing the actions a soldier may be sentenced a lifetime behind bars. American politicians govern these rules and constantly change them for non military political purposes, making soldiers job even harder, thus making it harder to defend the country they are paid to defend! Those fatties sitting behind desks should leave war to those who are trained for that one purpose, let the admirals and generals decide how to do their own job and we will win wars in a matter of weeks! The ROEs used in the war in Iraq would say that if an armed man entered your house, killed your family and threw down his gun you were required to gently take him into custody.
-
If the military are going to put their lives at risk to save the country. The country can at least loosen the reins. Why would someone think that if a certain person is in a life threatening situation, do you think that person is going to follow rules? Nonetheless, if a man entered my house, and killed my family. I would have picked the gun up, and shoot his knee caps out, to be completely honest. And why gently, is the judge going to be gentle on his trial? The ROEs are ridiculous, the people sitting behind the desks making orders without moving a finger should try be in war. Try having your life be threatened with every step you make. I bet after that experience, you would rethink these rules for war.
-
Thank you!
-
Your welcome. But after reading this, I am kind of infuriated with the government.
-
I will post more tomorrow but I think I might pass out soon
-
Yeah. You're weak when it comes to staying up all night. You might want to get a higher staying up at night tolerance.
-
Now slow down there, Whiplash, you're talking about committing war crimes.
It's not like the rules are incredibly convoluted lawyer jargon that people can't understand. They're all rather simple. Don't shoot someone who's surrendering, don't shoot innocents, don't steal s---. Simple s--- like this.
If a man does break into your house and kill your family before surrendering, then he'll face trail and receive the appropriate punishment for it. Not the mention that fact that the RoE specifically state that you can use force to stop him at any point up to his surrender.
And it's a terrible idea to give the military power over the military. That's how s--- like Guantanamo Bay happens. The 'fatties sitting behind their desks' are there to prevent corruption and god damned war crimes from occurring.
For f---s sake, are you actually advocating that we return to pre-RoE days? Where innocents were raped and massacred on mass, PoW's were starved to death or executed where they stood and mustard gas was legal? What is wrong with you? -
You kill someone only when they pose a threat to you. A man who puts down his gun is no threat.
"Gently take him into custody"
If he is surrendering and is willingly letting himself get taken into custody you have no need to beat the s--- out of him to do it. -
I feel as though, regardless of whether or not a man surrenders after slaughtering your family, you should be able to kill him. Or better yet, beat him until he's so injured he retains a coma.
This is because soldiers need some ventilation. A man walks into your house, rapes and slays your wife, tortures and kills your children, and then says "lol y'know what I'm in the mood for a summer BBQ m90" and then cannibalizes their corpses. Extreme situation I know, but active soldiers encounter extreme situations nearly on a daily basis. Especially during war. Are you not going to be mad? You are. Of course you are, you're human. I think.
Soldiers who are forced to gently take the transgressor under custody while throwing him to the judges whom let him sit upon a fanciful bench for a few weeks before sending him to federal prison (with his cannibal buds) are going to suffer unventilated stress. This means less concentration on war, and more concentration on the ways you'd flay that f---er alive.
Now I don't mean that soldiers should be given free will to do what they see fit to aggression (since they're likely to "flay that f---er alive"), however I do not see how soldiers who are literally taking bullets for the rest of us should be tried, court-martial-ed and hanged (military executions are more intense than civilian executions) simply because they decided to put an end to a mass-murderer's spree. Perhaps a month or so in relative seclusion to get it through their head that they shouldn't do that, but a right person doing the right thing to the right criminal in the bad way shouldn't have to face such severe repercussions.
But still, never give one power over theirself, they'll become infinite. -
If a soldier needs to kill to vent out anger he needs to be taking out of a warzone immediately and sent to a therapist for their PTSD.
-
The grieving and wishes of revenge for the horrendous deaths of your family are not going to be cured by mediation of PTSD, and is going to take a very rigorous, violent, and long time for even the most experienced (without manipulation tools) therapists. Things like that tend to never go away, and only dissolve after a range of years. Not saying "hey, that guy should kill that guy", I'm just saying "hey that soldier shouldn't die because he killed that serial killer".
-
Also, I think we're being a little sexist, where does the woman come in this story? A dead damsel-in-distress is cliche and no fun.
-
Do you even know what a damsel in distress is, or are you just parroting something you've read? Because I don't see how this could be constructed as a damsel in distress in any way, shape or form. Also, how is it sexist to include a damsel in distress at all? By that logic, wouldn't it be equally sexist to include a dude in distress?
Where does the soldier dying come from? You realize that if the soldier did break the RoE and kill a surrendering man, he would face trail and most likely go to jail.
And, if your grieving can't be cured by trained therapists and medication, I doubt it will be cured with bloody revenge. -
A damsel is a young woman, usually a subordinate of a male. Distress is negative stress. A damsel in distress is a young woman, likely a subordinate of a male, in negative stress.
Holy damn if I had a vagina and tits I'd absolutely love being violated and then mutilated by some terrorist while my kids are being cannibalized I can't wait, Bruce Jenner here I come.
And where the hell did I mention "soldier dying"? I know that disrespect to your peers results in military eviction and long whiles in prison, so killing a "surrendering" unarmed man? To hell...
Also, it won't be cured by bloody revenge but it will provide some sort of closure. As I said, it can only truly heal (it never really does but eh) after a long period of time. I mean, I still haven't gotten over my dead dog and he's a dog.
If an absolutely fantastic dog.
Pages:
- 1
- 2
This thread is locked, therefore no new posts can be made.
