The Best Intrest of Your Country

Buffalo Roam: "you seem to show no understanding of the fact that even under the Geneva Convention, a solider only has to believe their is a threat to his safety or the safety of his fellow soldiers and he is authorized to take action"

I'm beginning to doubt whether you read my posts as attentively as I yours. Consider my last for instance, where I stated "exceptions for force protection figure prominently in any ROE card". Surely you can understand this means self-defense.

Or consider my quote from the CFLCC ROE CARD in post # 492:
...2. The use of force, including deadly force, is authorized to protect the following:
# Yourself, your unit, and friendly forces...
Click to expand...

You can't reasonably say I show no understanding of self-defense. Similarly, you are claiming without basis that present ROE lack allowances for self-defense. Your appeal to the Geneva Conventions is admirable, especially if it's in good-faith advocacy of honoring all of America's GC commitments.

"now that tenant [self defense] of the G.C. has been bent all to hell"

I've not seen any ROE that neglect self-defense. Please show me an example that bends that tenet all to hell.



"if the troops are committed by the U.S. Government, to the task of securing the Borders of Iraq, to stop the smuggling, and are given ROE that allow them to operate as a War, not police or peace keepers, or baby sitters, we could choke off the terrorist, and support that is coming from Iran and Syria."

This is somewhat tangential, but don't forget Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, and any other points of origin for flights into the "sovereign" territories of Iraq and Kurdistan. Remember, we do not have the wherewithal to secure our own borders in the USA, nor do we have the forces present to make any serious attempt at securing the borders of Iraq- We can't even secure Baghdad. Further, you should be aware by now that the most violent opposition to the occupation -that is the most numerous and deadly attacks- originate from Iraqi Sunnis. And in case you never noticed, from the beginning of the occupation Iraq was flooded with arms, and explosives sufficient for years of armed opposition without need for resupply.

Anyway, why don't we stick to the Rules of Engagement. I think they pertain directly to the best interests of the United States regarding our foreign policy, and I would even include our diplomatic affairs in the Mideast, now that the face of America, or the primary impression Arabs are getting of Americans, is from our troops- for the first time in history. I'll try and find a more recent ROE Card as well, but I'm not expecting any dramatic departures from the 2003 CFLCC example.
 
Buffalo Roam: "you seem to show no understanding of the fact that even under the Geneva Convention, a solider only has to believe their is a threat to his safety or the safety of his fellow soldiers and he is authorized to take action"
Click to expand...

, and I am telling you from conversations with The troops, friends of mine, from the active Army, and the National Guard, that the REMF, make decision's that put that tenant, of the ROE and Geneva Convention in doubt, when you open fire on a ambush, and civilians die, you can end up with charges as in Haditha, everybody has a political ax to grind, The Terrorist, The Anti U.S., The Anti War, The Anti Bush, The Anti Military, The New Agency, and in all of this the Troops are forgotten, the guys that face the terrorist every day, under threat 24 hr, a day, for 365+ tours, we have forgotten that the war isn't over, we didn't finish it, and haven't finished it, but that doesn't me that we shouldn't finish it. If you get your wish and we pull out of Iraq, what is your vision for the future?

You want to go back to the subject of the ROE, well ok, here is a question, why can we not operate under the ROE of WWII? I can't find situation in WWII were the troops face charges for killing civilians during battle, and in clearing operations, as the Haditha Marines were.
 
Support for 'Unsavory' World Leaders

The U.S. supports Unsavory World leaders if it is in our national interests, has public support, and has an agreed upon methodology.

Unfortunately, the decision is often made by politicians who either accidently or deliberately confuse national interests with their own; or have misjudged public support; or have jumped into the swamp without any clear plan on how to get the alligators out and drain the swamp.
 
Buffalo Roam: "you can end up with charges as in Haditha"

Are you saying that the Haditha Charges are improper, or that the actions of Kilo Company (3rd Batt. 1st Div) on Nov 19, 2005 were proper?

The actions of those Marines did not further the interests of the United States, not to mention the interests of their innocent victims. Neither did the actions of American personnel who sought to cover up the incident further the interests of the United States. We are not a nation comfortable with murderous reprisals and cover-ups in our name. Incidents and cover-ups like this effectively strip us of our honor and legitimacy as a world power. Among the residents of Haditha, the actions of American forces, including American evasions of responsibility have forever damned us from any hope of being treated as liberators, even friends. The consequences of the grossly inappropriate response these Marines made to an IED attack will be extremely far-reaching.
 
Buffalo Roam: "why can we not operate under the ROE of WWII?"

Because we started this: That's why we can't justify the strategic bombing of Iraqi cities (for comparison with the largely incomparable circumstances of WWII). Should we escalate to that level in this context, we will be making an equivalent provocation to the world as did the Nazis and Imperial Japan.
 
Buffalo Roam: "If you get your wish and we pull out of Iraq, what is your vision for the future?"

I am certain that I will "get my wish" as you say, although my initial wish (because I like many others understood the dangers before it happened) was that we had never invaded Iraq. I expect that after our inevitable departure the Iraqi civil war will continue, but will take more decisive turns: Our presence is causing only stalemate and meaningless bloodshed. I expect that tensions will increase between the Shi'a majorities and their Sunni overlords all along the Western shores of the Persian Gulf. I expect that American Mideast hegemony will permanently decline.
 
hypewaders

Because we started this: That's why we can't justify the strategic bombing of Iraqi cities (for comparison with the largely incomparable circumstances of WWII). Should we escalate to that level in this context, we will be making an equivalent provocation to the world as did the Nazis and Imperial Japan.
Click to expand...

Were did I ever suggest that? All I called for was that the troops be given the same ROE to protect them, as was applied to our troops in WWII.

hypewaders

Because we started this: That's why we can't justify the strategic bombing of civilian targets in Iraq for example. Should we escalate to that level in this context, we will be making an equivalent provocation to the world as did the Nazis and Imperial Japan.
Click to expand...


hypewaders, we started this? your logic? From the reasent history: With Saddam,s Invasion Kuwait, and his failure to complie with U.N. resolution, I would say it was Saddam and his failures that are the cause.

http://www.mideastweb.org/iraqtimeline.htm

August 2, 1990 Iraq invades Kuwait. UN resolution 660 calls for Iraqi withdrawal. .....................

November, 2004....................
 
Buffalo Roam: "All I called for was that the troops be given the same ROE to protect them, as was applied to our troops in WWII."

Example, please.
 
Buffalo Roam: "Saddam and his failures ... are the cause [of the US invasion / occupation of Iraq]"

Please specify what legitimate threat Saddam presented to the USA, justifying the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
 
Last edited:
spuriousmonkey, but they are if a Cease Fire Agreement that they are part of isn't lived up to, the Cease Fire was also between the U.S. and Iraq.
 
Buffalo Roam said:
spuriousmonkey, but they are if a Cease Fire Agreement that they are part of isn't lived up to, the Cease Fire was also between the U.S. and Iraq.
Click to expand...

You claimed you invaded because of a UN resolution. Now it is because Iraq broke a cease fire between the US and Iraq. Make up your mind.

What did they do? Shoot down an airplane? Killed a US marine? Shouted infidel?
 
spuriousmonkey, no spuriousmonkey use your mind, The U.N. brokered a Cease Fire, the Cease fire includes all of the Members who participated in the war, it is a Cease Fire between all participants, Saddam didn't live up to the letter of the Cease Fire, when he signed the cease fire he was signing it not only with the U.N. he was signing it with all of the Coalition Forces that took part in the War and the Cease Fire Agreement, so any or all of the Superior Parties to the Cease Fire Have the Ability to make the Agreement enforceable, now when you reply please provide legal refutation of my points, not your opinion.
 
spuriousmonkey

Nations are not allowed to invade other countries based on their interpretation of UN resolutions.
Click to expand...

And your legal proof of said statements, Nations can invade Nations just on a whim if they so choose and have the resources to do so, What was Saddam legal Reason to invade Kuwait?, Iran? And the Fact is that we did have the power to interpret the Cease Fire as we were a signatory to it.
 
spuriousmonkey, you didn't answer the questions I raised, this is a debate, present you defense of your statements first then you may ask a question, other wise I have no reference point to continue the discussion on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top