NationStates Jolt Archive

BGW, you are assuming guilt right fucking now. You don't even see, or acknowledge the immense hypocrisy of your statements.

Its an alleged al-queda training camp. Not only are you assuming that it is in fact one, but that every male of military age is a terrorist.

You are the one assuming guilty until proven innocent.

You want these soldiers to have a fair trial, yet you say nothing about giving the people on the island a fair trial. They could have captured the people there, the ones who were unarmed. They could have given them trials. But instead, you are supporting executions without a fair trial.

You have no highground here.

aha but you are making the classic mistake of the far left. You are putting moral equality on the following:
U.S. Soldier ------alleged al-queda
court room--------battlefield

there is no time in the heat of battle to hold a trial...highground or not.

aha but you are making the classic mistake of the far left. You are putting moral equality on the following:
U.S. Soldier ------alleged al-queda
court room--------battlefield

there is no time in the heat of battle to hold a trial...highground or not.

And you are making the common mistake of a racist

"But they're inferior to us, so the same rules don't apply!"

There isn't moral equality between an alleged al-queda and an alleged mass-murder or person ordering mass murder? They both indiscriminatly kill people, whether or not they are really soldiers. That is, if the allegations are true.

Both the alleged mass murders and alleged al-queda were on the battlefield. Why not arrest both sides on suspicion, and give them trials?

Nobody is saying hold a fucking trial on the battlefield. If the person isn't attacking or threatening the soldiers, they could arrest them, tie them up and take them back to base to be given fair trials.

There is a moral equivilence to innocent iraqi's and lawful US soldiers, and there is a moral equivilence to al-queda and US soldiers killing civilians indiscriminatly.

And by the way, far left? You want to support that with some assertions? Something to combat having actually had firsthand military experience, supporting the death penalty, supporting many types of wars, etc? What exactly has made you think I'm far left?

And you are making the common mistake of a racist

"But they're inferior to us, so the same rules don't apply!"

There isn't moral equality between an alleged al-queda and an alleged [B]mass-murder or person ordering mass murder? They both indiscriminatly kill people, whether or not they are really soldiers. That is, if the allegations are true.

Both the alleged mass murders and alleged al-queda were on the battlefield. Why not arrest both sides on suspicion, and give them trials?

Nobody is saying hold a fucking trial on the battlefield. If the person isn't attacking or threatening the soldiers, they could arrest them, tie them up and take them back to base to be given fair trials.

There is a moral equivilence to innocent iraqi's and lawful US soldiers, and there is a moral equivilence to al-queda and US soldiers killing civilians indiscriminatly.
And by the way, far left? You want to support that with some assertions? Something to combat having actually had firsthand military experience, supporting the death penalty, supporting many types of wars, etc? What exactly has made you think I'm far left?

Your comments in bold make you far left. Al-queda is not a race ( *chuckle), first of all. Second, the killing of two men ( both of whom were suspected al-queda) is neither mass murder or a commander ordering soldiers to kill an innocent person.....it is called killing an enemy during wartime. You do not arrest the enemy when he is sniping you...as the men on this Island were doing. You shoot back. The far left does not get that. Neither do you. No civilians were killed. Nothing was indiscriminant except your willingness to bring up these loaded words to make a political point at the expense of men who did not get a trail yet. Really....its hard to even believe.

Your comments in bold make you far left. Al-queda is not a race ( *chuckle), first of all. Second, the killing of two men ( both of whom were suspected al-queda) is neither mass murder or a commander ordering soldiers to kill an innocent person.....it is called killing an enemy during wartime. You do not arrest the enemy when he is sniping you...as the men on this Island were doing. You shoot back. The far left does not get that. Neither do you. No civilians were killed. Nothing was indiscriminant except your willingness to bring up these loaded words to make a political point at the expense of men who did not get a trail yet. Really....its hard to even believe.

Al-queda isn't a race. Arabs are. Why is an alleged arab of a lower moral standing than an alleged caucasian, or on a more nationalistic sense, alleged american?

Intent to kill is just about the same thing as actually doing it. Going into a place, intending to kill massive amounts of people, is mass murder, when you don't know if the person is an enemy or not, and you aren't defending yourself, is close enough.

The commander who allegedly ordered his men to execute all military males in the area, regardless of threat or knowledge of who or what they are, is reckless endangerment at the very least. About the same as firing a rocket into a city, and because its an enemy city, it will likely hit enemies.

Again, you are calling them the enemy without proof. You are assuming them guilty until proven innocent, showing your hypocrisy again.

You don't arrest enemies shooting at you, no. You arrest people not shooting at you, if you suspect them of a crime.

The people killed by the soldiers weren't shooting at them when they got killed. Just because someone shot at you before(which didn't happen; special forces were allegedly shot at), doesn't mean you have the right to execute them at a later time. The soldiers were in the room with the men, who were unarmed. Shooting them wouldn't fly as self defense in any court. It would be revenge shooting. Even if the men "attacked them", which is not proven, there's also appropriate reaction. Four US soldiers with guns can't subdue three iraqi's who are unarmed, without killing them all?

I don't get this? You are telling someone with actual, firsthand military experience about this? Who the fuck are you to tell me this crap?

"No civilians were killed" Prove it. Hell, have someone else prove it, and link it. I don't care. Unless you know they weren't civilians, and you can prove it, this is a bullshit claim.

Nothing was indiscriminant? Do you not understand the word? Saying "Shoot abdul al-marzani" is discriminant. Saying "Shoot any male who isn't a young child or a senior" is completely indiscriminant. It doesn't discriminate between civilians and non-civilians. Are you not from an english speaking country/family?

Al-queda isn't a race. Arabs are. Why is an alleged arab of a lower moral standing than an alleged caucasian, or on a more nationalistic sense, alleged american?not once did I mention race. You did.:rolleyes:

Intent to kill is just about the same thing as actually doing it. Going into a place, intending to kill massive amounts of people, is mass murder, when you don't know if the person is an enemy or not, and you aren't defending yourself, is close enough.
it was an Island in a canal that was a training ground for al-queda and people were sniping soldiers from it. Mass murder of civilians? :rolleyes:
The commander who allegedly ordered his men to execute all military males in the area, regardless of threat or knowledge of who or what they are, is reckless endangerment at the very least. About the same as firing a rocket into a city, and because its an enemy city, it will likely hit enemies.
he knew who was there and protected the babies and women who were civilians. Attacking an Island in a canal that is filled with al-queda snipers is the same as firing a rocket into a city? Did I mention somthing about the far left?:rolleyes:

Again, you are calling them the enemy without proof. You are assuming them guilty until proven innocent, showing your hypocrisy again.
They were firing on American soldiers from a small Island that contained a training base for al-queda. Innocent until proven guilty plays no role on the battlefield. Remember my last post? It belongs in the courtroom:rolleyes:

You don't arrest enemies shooting at you, no. You arrest people not shooting at you, if you suspect them of a crime. the guys on the Island were shooting.:rolleyes:

The people killed by the soldiers weren't shooting at them when they got killed. Just because someone shot at you before(which didn't happen; special forces were allegedly shot at), doesn't mean you have the right to execute them at a later time. The soldiers were in the room with the men, who were unarmed. Shooting them wouldn't fly as self defense in any court. It would be revenge shooting. Even if the men "attacked them", which is not proven, there's also appropriate reaction. Four US soldiers with guns can't subdue three iraqi's who are unarmed, without killing them all?"Michael Waddington, Hunsaker's civilian lawyer, said his client followed orders and killed the detainees in self-defense after he and Clagett were attacked.
" from the article:rolleyes:

I don't get this? You are telling someone with actual, firsthand military experience about this? Who the fuck are you to tell me this crap?

"No civilians were killed" Prove it. Hell, have someone else prove it, and link it. I don't care. Unless you know they weren't civilians, and you can prove it, this is a bullshit claim.

Nothing was indiscriminant? Do you not understand the word? Saying "Shoot abdul al-marzani" is discriminant. Saying "Shoot any male who isn't a young child or a senior" is completely indiscriminant. It doesn't discriminate between civilians and non-civilians. Are you not from an english speaking country/family? and the rest is curse words and silly ranting insults...:rolleyes: :p

I don't get this? You are telling someone with actual, firsthand military experience about this? Who the fuck are you to tell me this crap?

He's showing symptoms of the Corneliu Disease, a common Bushevik ailment. Symptoms include acting, talking and thinking like you know more about military and political situations tham people who are actual military or political figures who were at the conflict zone. Classic example, Corny thinks that because his parents are in the military, he studied military history and happens to be in the Civil Air Patrol that he qualifies as a military expert who can say that soldiers who actually served in the Middle East, Colin Powell, and the retired generals who criticized Rumsfailed are all talking out of their asses.

Time for bed...as you compare another person to a disease. God bless and good night.

:p

Nice way to make it really hard to reply.

I never said you said anything about race. I implied you were a racist.

It was an island in a canal that was an alleged al-queda training camp. Besides, as someone as ignorant as you about actual military matters is, there are plenty of civilians in american training camps, depending on which ones, and other circumstances. If my most recent one got attacked with the same ROE, the attackers would get war crimes at a trial, no doubt.

Again, are you not an original english speaker? Its an analogy, of indiscriminant attacks because you might kill the right people. Just because somebody fired at US forces from the general area, doesn't mean its fair game for every teenage and adult male to get executed. The men did not know who was there, how the hell could they? Thermal imaging with 24 hour surveillance, over a very long period of time? By the way, the article doesn't say its the same men who were killed, were the ones sniping. They simply mentioned that somebody said that special forces were shot at by insurgents from there.

Prove it was the same people. Not that it matters too much; they weren't a threat at the time. They had no right, moral or legal, to shoot these people who were not a threat.

The guys who were on the island were unarmed and not shooting when the soldiers came. They posed no threat. That makes it revenge killing. Not self defense.

Ohh, the guys lawyer claims they were defending themselves. Even if its true, which may or may not be, its not appropriate reaction. Four soldiers with guns can't defend themselves from three non-military types without guns, without killing them? Bullshit.

The rest you conviniently ignore. How is "I don't get this? You are telling someone with actual, firsthand military experience about this?" an insult? Wow, I used one curse word in the next sentence, invalidates it entirely!

You are using double standards, and refuse to admit it. The people in the island are assumed guilty until proved innocent(You are just taking the soldiers words on their guilt), yet professing the soldiers should be considered innocent before proven guilty.

He's showing symptoms of the Corneliu Disease, a common Bushevik ailment. Symptoms include acting, talking and thinking like you know more about military and political situations tham people who are actual military or political figures who were at the conflict zone. Classic example, Corny thinks that because his parents are in the military, he studied military history and happens to be in the Civil Air Patrol that he qualifies as a military expert who can say that soldiers who actually served in the Middle East, Colin Powell, and the retired generals who criticized Rumsfailed are all talking out of their asses.

To be fair, I wasn't actually in Iraq or Afghanistan, so that part doesn't apply to me at least.

DM: Don't you dare give me that trigger shy BS. You want to know the truth? I was terrified. If that was the big one, it wasn't the only one who'd get wasted: my ship and my crew would have been right there with me. But there's a little thing called training that kicks in when fear shows it's ugly head. If it wasn't for that one little thing, I would have been nailed for murder. It's easy to say "I would have done it this way if I was there". But until you're the one staring that one moment in the face, you have no clue how you'd react. Trust me on this.

You're arguing with a 101st Keyboarder, all talk and no walk. In his own words, DM stated that he'd never join the armed services. I suspect that under such pressure, he would break.

Afghanistan is wide, open terrain

And DM demonstrates that he either never took, or consistently failed Geography.

The officer gave orders only to kill the military aged males ( not the civilians.)

Apparently you lack reading comprehension. Or perhaps just the mental capacity to make the connection. Let's look at the attributes listed. For the sake of simplicity, lets limit the definitions to humans.

1: Male. That means anything with a penis.

2: Military age. That means anything between 14-65. Varies a bit depending on the military, but about the same.

Combine the two and what do we get?

Anything with a penis between 14-65 years of age.

Does that mean all terrorists have a penis between 14-65? If yes, are you a male?


I really am let down by the left.

The only thing that has left you down, is your own mind. Which is sad really, watching it's pathetic attempts to blame everything and anything on a political spectrum.

You are very capable of not supporting your own.:upyours:

It is inter-service rivalry Barry. Everyone knows that the Army and Marines are a bunch of panzies. I mean. Why do you think they serve in holes in the ground :D

Would you report it to a higher up? Or would you wait until later to tell it to the media? How do you feel about the man who gave the order being assumed to be guilty of the murder of innocent people without proven evidence of that? How do you feel about the political left exploiting this situation to make up for a lack of a plan of action for Iraq?


Well, I would wait to see who it came from, I have a very close friendship with my LT and my CAPT, if it came from either of them, I would confront them about it, and "persuade" them to change the order.

It is inter-service rivalry Barry. Everyone knows that the Army and Marines are a bunch of panzies. I mean. Why do you think they serve in holes in the ground :D

Psshhhh, you can go back to your Chair Force, have a nice hot cup of coffee, and real food. Because you know that there are Army and Marine grunts in the field, eating shit, protecting your prescious chair force.

Ordered to kill? Makes them no less than a Nazi soldier.

Ordered to kill? Makes them no less than a Nazi soldier.

What? You think that the military's only use is to dig major cities out when there's a bit of a snowfall before the snow plowing contract kicks in?

Following orders, so long as they are lawful, that's what soldiers do.

Killing, unfortunately, is also part of what we soldiers do. We train hard for it, we prepare for it as best we can. But it doesn't mean that we actually want to do it. I for one am hoping that in my lifetime I will never have another human being in my sights. you can't believe how often that one moment ran back in my head afterwards.

Bloodthirsty soldiers usually succeed at doing one or both of the following: give their whole military a really bad name and/or coming home in a steel box.

I am a serving member of the Canadian Forces. I have already given 6 years of my life to the service, and I'm planning to give many, many more still. This choice I made, with one hand on the Good Book and the other raised is the one I'll never regret. I am proud of wearing the uniform because I know the tradition of excellence, valour, honor and courage that it comes from. I know that this country needs every good soldier it can have, but it's when there is someone who treats us like we are no better than the guys who slaughtered millions of innocents in WW2 that I realize one thing: it's because of soldiers who served and died, who are serving and dying, and who will serve and die that people here back home can enjoy the freedom to talk about their soldiers that way and not be shot for it.

Give us all the BS you want, it's your right. But remember that this right was bought at the price of the lives of thousands of soldiers who were fighting so people back home would be safe and free to bitch about them afterwards.

I've been talking to my recruiter about joining the Marines next summer after I graduate. My buddy is Army right now, so I've got to One-up him. Not to mention those Dress blues look incredible, and the Class A/B uniforms look tight.
I'm planning to join the Marines too. Just as soon as I finish school, which will be in 1 years.

Hey, good luck!

I love my country, and I love being in the Army, I respect the men I work with, and for the most part I respect all soldiers (unless they do something criminal), but this story sounds odd, If my CO asked me to tell my platoon to kill all elidgable men, I would certainly think twice about that order.
Yea, that's sort of a common sense thing there. And as others have already pointed out, these guy's changed their testimony, and we still don't have confirmation of the "kill all males" order, which leads me to believe its bogus, honestly. I think these guys need to be made an example of, and I just don't trust their story.

And the Chair Force is usually better at hitting US than the enemy, but I guess its getting harder to find pilots that can fly while reading a magazine.;)

And DM demonstrates that he either never took, or consistently failed Geography.

Umm.....What exactly is wrong with that statement?


I got a B+ in Geography, BTW.

I'm planning to join the Marines too. Just as soon as I finish school, which will be in 1 years.

Hey, good luck!

I'm going for next summer. I am going to be beefing up and working out like a cracka this whole next year. Running, pumping iron, and getting some practice time in on my AR15. I will have my college degree and then some by then, so hopefully that will count for something, maybe a little extra bonus? I'm pretty sure the WOT will still be going on, so maybe we'll see some action? Who knows. It's a once in a lifetime opportnuty

An alledged training camp does not justify indiscrimintately killing all military aged males. Perhaps if you got out of your armchair and actually spent time in the military, you'ld know that.

Whether they were ordered to or not, doing it was a crime.

So is the island now clean of all military age males?

Doesn't sound like it, I guess they need to go back and finish the job.

The Roe-Military age males-Al qaeda traning camp

Conclusion: ANY military aged man may be a threat. Hadj doesn't wear a uniform, he just wears civilian skivvies. It's TOUGH to distinguish between the two. If he makes a bad move....

:eek:

Being told to kill all "military aged males" is an illegal order.

Not if you're in a Hadj breeding ground. Do the AQ soldiers wear little red flags on them to tell the others they are soldiers? No. Any male between 15-50 or so CAN be an AQ foot soldier.

So is the island now clean of all military age males?

Doesn't sound like it, I guess they need to go back and finish the job.

The Roe-Military age males-Al qaeda traning camp

Conclusion: ANY military aged man may be a threat. Hadj doesn't wear a uniform, he just wears civilian skivvies. It's TOUGH to distinguish between the two. If he makes a bad move....

:eek:

The bolded part being the key part. If they're threatening at all they're certainly fair game. Until then they are noncombatants.


Not if you're in a Hadj breeding ground. Do the AQ soldiers wear little red flags on them to tell the others they are soldiers? No. Any male between 15-50 or so CAN be an AQ foot soldier.

They CAN be, but that doesn't mean that they are. Again, simply being a military aged male isn't threatening enough to justify killing them.

Yea, that's sort of a common sense thing there. And as others have already pointed out, these guy's changed their testimony, and we still don't have confirmation of the "kill all males" order, which leads me to believe its bogus, honestly. I think these guys need to be made an example of, and I just don't trust their story.

And the Chair Force is usually better at hitting US than the enemy, but I guess its getting harder to find pilots that can fly while reading a magazine.;)

HAHA, when I need CAS desperatly in the field, I would much rather see a Army Apache Gunship flying over head, than a National Guard F-15.

Not if you're in a Hadj breeding ground. Do the AQ soldiers wear little red flags on them to tell the others they are soldiers? No. Any male between 15-50 or so CAN be an AQ foot soldier.

DM, there are plenty of civillians mixed in with situations liek these, especailly since the enemy likes to hide behind them, you cannot simply tell your men to kill all military aged men, it should be up to the individual soldier to distinguish between combatant, and non-combatant, however hard that might be in some situations it must be done.


And, got those pics of AF women yet? Army girls are kinda...well.... you know. But nobody beats the IDF.

DM, there are plenty of civillians mixed in with situations liek these, especailly since the enemy likes to hide behind them, you cannot simply tell your men to kill all military aged men, it should be up to the individual soldier to distinguish between combatant, and non-combatant, however hard that might be in some situations it must be done.


And, got those pics of AF women yet? Army girls are kinda...well.... you know. But nobody beats the IDF.

:)

One thing I like about the national guard

Most of the women are actually pretty hot. All the ones I saw at MEPS who were attractive, with the exception of one air force girl, were national guard.

To be honest, there is precedent for an order like this. I read about this the other day, and I find it quite amazing that many in the discussion about the relevant wiki page still can't accept what happened. The US Military values the lives of its soldiers more highly than the life of innocent civilians (that is a fact, don't argue). I can't agree with that, but unfortunately I think most militaries would probably think the same way, if put in that sort of situation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/29/AR2006052900485.html
U.S. Policy Was to Shoot Korean Refugees
By CHARLES J. HANLEY and MARTHA MENDOZA
The Associated Press
Monday, May 29, 2006; 2:44 PM

-- More than a half-century after hostilities ended in Korea, a document from the war's chaotic early days has come to light _ a letter from the U.S. ambassador to Seoul, informing the State Department that American soldiers would shoot refugees approaching their lines.

The letter _ dated the day of the Army's mass killing of South Korean refugees at No Gun Ri in 1950 _ is the strongest indication yet that such a policy existed for all U.S. forces in Korea, and the first evidence that that policy was known to upper ranks of the U.S. government.

"If refugees do appear from north of US lines they will receive warning shots, and if they then persist in advancing they will be shot," wrote Ambassador John J. Muccio, in his message to Assistant Secretary of State Dean Rusk.

The letter reported on decisions made at a high-level meeting in South Korea on July 25, 1950, the night before the 7th U.S. Cavalry Regiment shot the refugees at No Gun Ri.

Estimates vary on the number of dead at No Gun Ri. American soldiers' estimates ranged from under 100 to "hundreds" dead; Korean survivors say about 400, mostly women and children, were killed at the village 100 miles southeast of Seoul, the South Korean capital. Hundreds more refugees were killed in later, similar episodes, survivors say...

To be honest, there is precedent for an order like this. I read about this the other day, and I find it quite amazing that many in the discussion about the relevant wiki page still can't accept what happened. The US Military values the lives of its soldiers more highly than the life of innocent civilians (that is a fact, don't argue). I can't agree with that, but unfortunately I think most militaries would probably think the same way, if put in that sort of situation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/29/AR2006052900485.html

A LOT has changed since the days of WW2 and the Korean War, buddy.

A LOT has changed since the days of WW2 and the Korean War, buddy.
Evidently not.

To be honest, there is precedent for an order like this. I read about this the other day, and I find it quite amazing that many in the discussion about the relevant wiki page still can't accept what happened. The US Military values the lives of its soldiers more highly than the life of innocent civilians (that is a fact, don't argue). I can't agree with that, but unfortunately I think most militaries would probably think the same way, if put in that sort of situation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/29/AR2006052900485.html

It makes sense if you think about it though. Very few people would feel good about joining a millitary that put the lives of foreign (often enemy) non-combatants above their own.

This kind of thing is probably needed for morale.

Umm.....What exactly is wrong with that statement?


I got a B+ in Geography, BTW.

Afghanistan is mostly mountainous terrain NOT open wide terrain.

Afghanistan has a very diverse terrain, take it from someone who has been there. From sprawling urban areas like Kandahar, to incredibly tall mountians in the Helmund province, to wide flat open areas that are covered with Wadis (dry riverbeds, and the going is rough over those) that provide no shade, and temeratures reach 120 degrees daily, and rarely dip below 100 at night. (Which is really fun when you have body armor on, 100 pound rucksack, and are not allowed to take your damned helmet off!)

Of course in the mountains the temp is well below freezing.

HAHA, when I need CAS desperatly in the field, I would much rather see a Army Apache Gunship flying over head, than a National Guard F-15.

I'd much rather see a few missiles inbound :D

Of course, even better, Marine air support ;)

Afghanistan is mostly mountainous terrain NOT open wide terrain.

There is a lot of space between those mountains.

a LOT.

Kandahar is plains, most of the border regions are mountainous.

:D I'd much rather see a few missiles inbound :D

Of course, even better, Marine air support ;)

Marine Air Support? Marine pilots dont even know what way is up ;) There is a reason the Marines still use outdated Cobras, because the DoD doesnt want to take the chance of risking the expensive Apache, in the hands of a Marine Aviator,

But hey, launching Mortars is kinda fun too! :D

DM, there are plenty of civillians mixed in with situations liek these, especailly since the enemy likes to hide behind them, you cannot simply tell your men to kill all military aged men, it should be up to the individual soldier to distinguish between combatant, and non-combatant, however hard that might be in some situations it must be done.


And, got those pics of AF women yet? Army girls are kinda...well.... you know. But nobody beats the IDF.

I haven't found it yet.

If I come across a group of AQ trainees, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say they are all fair game. Ducks in a tiny pond...

It's all about YOUR life and if you feel threatened-the #1 ROE.. I'd be a whole lot less likely to fire if I see a young girl or old woman making threatening gestures than a military aged guy. I'd have a tough time shooting a young kid or an old person, toughest decision EVER, although I hope I'd walk away OKAY.

Evidently not.

Apparently so...

I guess the lesson learned there is not to march on a few hundred spooked Army troops when they tell you to halt....

:D

Marine Air Support? Marine pilots dont even know what way is up ;) There is a reason the Marines still use outdated Cobras, because the DoD doesnt want to take the chance of risking the expensive Apache, in the hands of a Marine Aviator,

But hey, launching Mortars is kinda fun too! :D

Man, you ARE out of the loop!

Super cobra. Gnaaarly!

The apache doesn't fare well in Marine enviroments because of the corrosion it's subjected to. It's not built for naval use, however, the cobra is. The USMC still use the Cobra and Huey because both have a 70% parts commonality, and that's important on a small ship. The Brits modified the APache heavily to get it to work on Ships.

You know, it's really popular nowadays for companys to support the troops. So Dr pepper launches it's new 'Dr pepper' 23 flavors special, in honor of the Army's recruiting slogan-be ALL you can be with an IQ of 23 :p

I haven't found it yet.

If I come across a group of AQ trainees, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say they are all fair game. Ducks in a tiny pond...

It's all about YOUR life and if you feel threatened-the #1 ROE.. I'd be a whole lot less likely to fire if I see a young girl or old woman making threatening gestures than a military aged guy. I'd have a tough time shooting a young kid or an old person, toughest decision EVER, although I hope I'd walk away OKAY.

I know what you mean by that, the decision to shoot anyone, is the toughest decision ever, I see a lot of new guys try to be all Gung-Ho and shit, truth is there is nothing cool about shooting someone, its not something to be proud of when you take another persons life, even being a soldier, firing your weapon is only a last resort, and is something to be taken seriously.
There have been quite a few situations in which I would have been authorized to use deadly force, but chose not to, and it turned out that just a little diplomacy worked. But when you do end up killing someone, do not regret it, dont think back on it, you will tear yourself apart if you do that. Also, I dont know you personally, and you dont seem like the type to go gung ho and shit, but when you get into the USMC, you will be much more respected if you dont brag and go gung Ho. Actions speak louder than words, and your superiors will know that.

Anyway, now that my "serious" talk is over, lets go back to talking about fun shit! ;)

Hey man, I woulda joined the Marines, but my ASVAB score was way too high!


Muscles
Aare
Required
Intelligence
Not
Expected.


Not sure if I shared that one already, but im too lazy to look through the thread.