The Insanity of the U.S. Military's Rules of Engagement

[padisha emperor]

The subject of this thread is the rules of engagement of the US army.

people can think at the upper level of the scale : the engagement of the war.

This war is totally against the rules about war. It is in contradiction and violation with the international rules, edicted by the UN and the States, where we find the USA.
USA are guilty of violation of several major treaties and rules about the war law, rules that they made in cooperation with the other States.

Sometimes illegal things are pretty good : the Kosovo war in 1999, lead by OTAN, with massive air strikes by the US Air Force, the French Armée de l'Air, the RAF and other air forces, was illegal. But it was good, and the situation is now better than before. And it was to stop a genocide.

The Iraqi war was not made to stop a genocide. The reasons were not so "nice", fair than in 1999.

With a jurist point of view, these 2 crisis are illegal. But one was accepted by the international community because it was right. The other is not.

Here is the main problem.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Sure it does, the church practices bigotry against Gays, how can we support a bigotry and why should the public be forced to? Dont we say terrorists supporters are JUST AS GUILTY as the terrorists? Why would support of bigots be different?

They also practice discriminatory hiring practices, why should we support THAT when we have deemed that such things are illegal and immoral in public life. The reason they can get away with it is because they are a PRIVATE organization free to practice their beliefs but NOT FREE to force the public to support them (especially since some of the acts and beliefs are illegal in the public domain).

Well, I guess it takes a crazy liberal to understand a crazy liberal.

Your argument about bigotry is silly because we have not agreed on the fundamentals. You claim one opinion (anti-homos) is bigotry. I can claim the opposite (anti-religion) is bigotry. You liberals still don't understand that most Americans are not pro-homo to the extent that you'd like. Not to mention we are catching on how you are using the homo agenda to spread your own leftist anti-god agenda.

Ah, I knew criticism of religious groups hiring practices would surface eventually. That's one of the reasons why some religious organizations are hesitant to accept any funds even though it would do so many people so much good. Just another example of how the homo agenda hurts people. Not to mention how the left is marginalizing the freedom of religion.

There are numerous muslim ones, we arent funding them via faith based initiatives.

Yes, I would make sure that christianity never was able to do anything remotely related to GOVERNMENT. Its called seperation of church and state.

Do the Muslims have significant charities out helping the general public? Since Muslims only make up less than 2% of the population and pretty much keep to themselves, I doubt that is true.

You'd also probably support not allowing Christians to hold government jobs or offices, judgeships, Representative or Senatorial seats, or the Presidency either. Your name Ruby is quite appropriate for a leftist.

 

[Ruby]

You would be incorrect. The US didn't help create Israel. The Balfour Agreement did, and it was the doing of the Brits, not us. The US opposed the formation of Israel and lifted not one finger to help in its formation.

Not even a good try.

Incorrect that the US had no role. The US certainly did and it was quick to RECOGNIZE Israel.

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

It was obvious that the US needed to play a role and be supportive for Israel to be successful. If the US were not a key player then those working towards the goal wouldnt have bothered with the US and had so many meetings with the US president.

The bit about us OPPOSING it is completely false, Truman did have some issues with it but he went along and supported it.

From the point of view of the Americans, and world opinion, the creation of Israel was a more or less conscious and willful act that was meant to compensate for the Holocaust. This view has been accepted by the Arabs, who protest that the Palestinians should not have been made to pay for the Holocaust. For his part in the drama, Harry S Truman is revered by Zionists and hated by Arab partisans.

The link gives a pretty good insight to US attitudes at the time. While the US showed some reservations, ultimately they HELPED in very material ways. It was apparent that Israel wouldnt be able to get the support from the brits it needed and it was obvious they would need on-going help and it was the US who was gonna have to provide it...and guess what? WE HAVE!

 

[Ruby]

We were the first to recognize her though as a legal Country, which was the right thing to do since they followed the procedure established BY the UN. And eventually we did begin military aid, though not for a long time. Unofficially American officers released or retired from the service, joined the Isreali military. In fact their first overall commander was a former US Army Officer. He was instrumental in swaying the decision of the US to recognize though not support the Nation.

The first vote went AGAINST them. It was pressure from the US, the brits (the more powerful nations in the UN) that got it passed. Its never right to go displace an entire group of people so you can take their land and homes.

Even Israeli historians have come out with the truth and its acknowledged what they REALLY did and what REALLY WENT ON.

http://www.democracynow.org/finkelstein-benami.shtml

You can here it directly from the mouth of the former Israeli foreign minister.

SHLOMO BEN-AMI: Well, you see, there is a whole range of new historians that have gone into the sources of — the origins of the state of Israel, among them you mentioned Avi Shlaim, but there are many, many others that have exposed this evidence of what really went on on the ground. And I must from the very beginning say that the main difference between what they say and my vision of things is not the facts. The facts, they are absolutely correct in mentioning the facts and putting the record straight.

My view is that, but for Jesus Christ, everybody was born in sin, including nations. And the moral perspective of it is there, but at the same time it does not undermine, in my view, in my very modest view, the justification for the creation of a Jewish state, however tough the conditions and however immoral the consequences were for the Palestinians.

He acknowledges the consequences (the genocide) of the palestinians and how immoral that is...his justification is that all nations are "born" in sin. Its a lousy justification but he at least acknowledges the facts.

How can we legitimately expect that the middle eastern region see us doing ANYTHING in good faith when we have supported this harm done to them for so many years and continue to do so?

More settlements keep being built taking more and more land that makes the potential for the two state solution impossible...so how can we pretend that we are in favor of a solution while supporting actions that make such a solution impossible?

So again, to pretend they are religious zealots while we take land from them on the basis of giving it to people of a particular religion is just dumb. We even seem to support apartheid practices in the name of the religion as well there. If apartheid policies are wrong, why do we support them there?

 

[Ruby]

Well, I guess it takes a crazy liberal to understand a crazy liberal.

Your argument about bigotry is silly because we have not agreed on the fundamentals. You claim one opinion (anti-homos) is bigotry. I can claim the opposite (anti-religion) is bigotry. You liberals still don't understand that most Americans are not pro-homo to the extent that you'd like. Not to mention we are catching on how you are using the homo agenda to spread your own leftist anti-god agenda.

I am not anti-religion, nor is it anti-religion to want seperation of church and state. You will have to point out to me when I said I wanted religions outlawed....oh wait, I didnt say that at all.

It dosent matter if a majority like gay folks are not, its not good cause to deny them equal rights to hetero-sexuals and certainly it isnt right to do so on a religious premise.

Ah, I knew criticism of religious groups hiring practices would surface eventually. That's one of the reasons why some religious organizations are hesitant to accept any funds even though it would do so many people so much good. Just another example of how the homo agenda hurts people. Not to mention how the left is marginalizing the freedom of religion.

Of course discriminatory hiring practices should surface and would surface, its GOVT FUNDS they are getting while violating federal guidelines.

There is no reason the people needing the help cant get it, the money can be channeled to secular charities that just leave the religious aspect out and focus 100% on the actual needs of the people they serve. They should also then be able to abide by federal guidelines in all areas 100% as well (not practice discrimination on hiring OR on giving).

Do the Muslims have significant charities out helping the general public? Since Muslims only make up less than 2% of the population and pretty much keep to themselves, I doubt that is true.

You'd also probably support not allowing Christians to hold government jobs or offices, judgeships, Representative or Senatorial seats, or the Presidency either. Your name Ruby is quite appropriate for a leftist.

LOL, they "keep" to themselves? Exactly what does that mean? They live in caves away from the rest of the population. They do charity work that serves communities inside and outside the nation...why are they not getting any faith based initiative monies? Its because we are favoring one religion above others.

I never said that any believer of any religion should be discriminated against and be blocked from any job, including govt jobs. Religion just shouldnt be a basis for ANY PUBLIC monies, ANY PUBLIC policies, ANY PUBLIC laws etc.

Your "probably" missed by miles.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The "FACTS" are that the Arabs had a choice to make. The UN plan called for 2 States and an open Jerusalem. The Jews took the opportunity to create their State. The Arabs chose to listen to the surrounding nations which had no desire for a new State or two. Those Countries intended to divide up Palastine for themselves.

The Facts are that Israel was created within the legal frame work authorized by and endorsed by the UN. The FACTS are that the Arab nations threatened any Arab that remained that they would be killed as collaberators if they did not flee before the Invasion.

The FACTS are that for 60 years the Arab Countries have refused to assimilate the so called Palastinians , most of whom were originally citizens of those countries. The Arab countries have bottled them up in squalled camps and kept them poor and desperate while arming them and teaching them hate. And this has bitten those countries in the ass more than once.Most of them expelled the palastinians because they were a danger to the country.

 

[Ruby]

The "FACTS" are that the Arabs had a choice to make. The UN plan called for 2 States and an open Jerusalem. The Jews took the opportunity to create their State. The Arabs chose to listen to the surrounding nations which had no desire for a new State or two. Those Countries intended to divide up Palastine for themselves.

The Facts are that Israel was created within the legal frame work authorized by and endorsed by the UN. The FACTS are that the Arab nations threatened any Arab that remained that they would be killed as collaberators if they did not flee before the Invasion.

The FACTS are that for 60 years the Arab Countries have refused to assimilate the so called Palastinians , most of whom were originally citizens of those countries. The Arab countries have bottled them up in squalled camps and kept them poor and desperate while arming them and teaching them hate. And this has bitten those countries in the ass more than once.Most of them expelled the palastinians because they were a danger to the country.

You dont really expect people to give up their homes for a bunch of immigrants from Europe do you? They had as much choice as the native americans did.

Much of the rhetoric you just spouted off has been soundly debunked and the people who did most of the debunking are the Israeli historians who are using Israeli govt documents to do so.

There are definitely arab nations that DONT HELP at all and have denied palestinians fair and equitable treatment but that has little to do with the act of displacing a large community of arabs from their land to give it to immigrating euro jews.

The palestinians had been fighting against the british for YEARS on this already....it was never "right" that britain dicated to those people the laws of their land or forced mass immigrates on them who intended to deny them their rights over their own land.

The UN did sanction it after much pressure from the west (US included) but again we see even that was not enough and Israel has never stopped expanding and creating facts on the ground that have one goal in mind...to make sure no palestinian state ever becomes a reality.

The "choice" you think the arabs and palestinians had are to just quietly allow others to strip them of their rights, their homes, their farms, their communities...what group of human beings would do so willingly? What moral standard claims this is ever the RIGHT thing to do?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You dont really expect people to give up their homes for a bunch of immigrants from Europe do you? They had as much choice as the native americans did.

Much of the rhetoric you just spouted off has been soundly debunked and the people who did most of the debunking are the Israeli historians who are using Israeli govt documents to do so.

There are definitely arab nations that DONT HELP at all and have denied palestinians fair and equitable treatment but that has little to do with the act of displacing a large community of arabs from their land to give it to immigrating euro jews.

The palestinians had been fighting against the british for YEARS on this already....it was never "right" that britain dicated to those people the laws of their land or forced mass immigrates on them who intended to deny them their rights over their own land.

The UN did sanction it after much pressure from the west (US included) but again we see even that was not enough and Israel has never stopped expanding and creating facts on the ground that have one goal in mind...to make sure no palestinian state ever becomes a reality.

The "choice" you think the arabs and palestinians had are to just quietly allow others to strip them of their rights, their homes, their farms, their communities...what group of human beings would do so willingly? What moral standard claims this is ever the RIGHT thing to do?

What a pack of nonsense. So let me see if I have this right...

The Arab nations did NOT invade Israel?

The Arab nations did not threaten Arabs living in Palestine to flee?

The British aided the Israelis in immigrating to Palestine?

The Israelis attacked the Arabs in 1948 1956 and 1967 to grab land?

There are no Arab citizens of Israel?

Jews never lived in Palestine?

Millions of Arabs lived in palestine before the Jews kicked them out?

The Grand Mufta of Jerusalem did not order the purging of Jews from Palestine? He did not advice Arabs to NOT form a State?

The Arab States around Palestine had no intention of dividing the land up amongst themselves?

 

[Ruby]

What a pack of nonsense. So let me see if I have this right...

The Arab nations did NOT invade Israel?

Fighting off the british backed invasion of mass immigrating jews had been going on for years.

The Arab nations did not threaten Arabs living in Palestine to flee?

No, they were never directed to abandon their lands and hand them over to Israel. I am sure that many families did flee the violence but I am not sure how this is sopposed to justify taking their lands from them.

The British aided the Israelis in immigrating to Palestine?

Yes they did, do you actually NOT know this. Ok maybe you will believe the Former Israeli foreign minister.

http://www.democracynow.org/finkelstein-benami.shtml

Quote from the link
SHLOMO BEN-AMI: Well, for all practical purposes, a state existed before it was officially created in 1948. The uniqueness of the Zionist experience, as it were, was in that the Zionists were able, under the protection of the mandate, of the British mandate, to set up the essentials of a state — the institutions of a state, political parties, a health system, running democracy for Jews, obviously

The Israelis attacked the Arabs in 1948 1956 and 1967 to grab land?

You seem to want to characterize acts of self-defense against people mass immigrating and stealing your land via violence an invasion...I dont.

There are no Arab citizens of Israel?

There are and they remain treated as second class citizens and are often even re-located to occupied territories.

http://www.fromoccupiedpalestine.org/node/736

In 1948, only about 150,000 Palestinian Arabs remained in the area that became the state of Israel. They were granted Israeli citizenship and the right to vote. But in many respects they were and remain second-class citizens, since Israel defines itself as the state of the Jewish people and Palestinians are non-Jews. Until 1966 most of them were subject to a military government that restricted their movement and other rights (to speech, association and so on). Arabs were not permitted to become full members of the Israeli trade union federation, the Histadrut, until 1965. About 40 percent of their lands were confiscated by the state and used for development projects that benefited Jews primarily or exclusively. All of Israel's governments have discriminated against the Arab population by allocating far fewer resources for education, health care, public works, municipal government and economic development to the Arab sector.

Jews never lived in Palestine?

There were, they were about 12% of the population in 1900 and remained a small percentage who did live peacefully with arabs. This sitation changed with the onslaught of mass immigration by zionists. Most of the jews who DID live in the area were not zionists and did not support the movement.

http://www.democracynow.org/finkelstein-benami.shtml

Quote from the link

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Well, I agree with the statement that there is very little dispute nowadays amongst serious historians and rational people about the facts. There is pretty much a consensus on what happened during what you can call the foundational period, from the first Zionist settlements at the end of the 19th century 'til 1948. There, there is pretty much of a consensus. And I think Mr. Ben-Ami, in his first 50 pages, accurately renders what that consensus is.

I would just add a couple of points he makes, but just to round out the picture. He starts out by saying that the central Zionist dilemma was they wanted to create a predominantly Jewish state in an area which was overwhelmingly not Jewish, and he cites the figure, I think 1906 there were 700,000 Arabs, 55,000 Jews, and even of those 55,000 Jews, only a handful were Zionists. So that's the dilemma. How do you create a Jewish state in area which is overwhelmingly not Jewish?

Millions of Arabs lived in palestine before the Jews kicked them out?

Yes they did. Here are a list of the numerous districts that contained numerous towns that no longer exist due to the creation of Israel

http://cooperativeresearch.org/phorum5/read.php?4,105,105

Here is just ONE district

District of Acre.

'Amqa
'Arab al-Samniyya
Dayr al-Qasi
Iqrit
'Iribbin, Khirbat
Jiddin, Khirbat
Kafr 'Inan
Kuwaykat
Mi'ar
Nahf
Sakhnin
Sha'ab
Suhmata
Suruh
Tarbikha
Tarshiha
Umm al-Faraj
al-Bassa
al-Birwa
al-Damun
al-Ghabisiyya
al-Kabri
al-Manshiyya
al-Mansura
al-Nabi Rubin
al-Nahr
al-Ruways
al-Sumayriyya
al-Tall
al-Zeeb

The Grand Mufta of Jerusalem did not order the purging of Jews from Palestine? He did not advice Arabs to NOT form a State?

While there are many things he said and did that I am not in agreement with, his statements to purge the lands of those who came to wipe them out is reasonable. It is self defense of your home and life.

The Arab States around Palestine had no intention of dividing the land up amongst themselves?

They may have! It would be an internal problem for that region to work out their borders. It changes NOTHING in the crimes of Israel or the crimes they committed against the Palestinian people.

 

[padisha emperor]

The Grand Mufta of Jerusalem did not order the purging of Jews from Palestine?

And ?

The great rector of the mosquee of Damas call to stop the terrorist attacks and attempts from islamists, because such guys will never go to the muslim paradise if they kill.
Several high muslim religious, like this great rector, blame the attempts, and say that these terrorist acts are against the Islam faith.

KNow that for Islam, Jews and Christians have to be respected, not less than the muslim. The "People of the Book" can't not be killed without consequences for the murderer, if he's muslim. It's why, with other reasons, you were able to see christian people in Bagdad, during Middle Age. Were people able to see muslim persons in the Christianity at the same time ? No.

This prooves that Islam is not this religion full of hate that people believe, and that Islam don't call to the murder of all the non-believers.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

LOL, they "keep" to themselves? Exactly what does that mean? They live in caves away from the rest of the population. They do charity work that serves communities inside and outside the nation...why are they not getting any faith based initiative monies? Its because we are favoring one religion above others.

I never said that any believer of any religion should be discriminated against and be blocked from any job, including govt jobs. Religion just shouldnt be a basis for ANY PUBLIC monies, ANY PUBLIC policies, ANY PUBLIC laws etc.

Your "probably" missed by miles.

Muslim immigrants do not seem to integrate as well as other groups as their religious background is so different. They need to modernize their religion and join mainstream society. For instance, it is estimated that at least one third of Muslims will refuse to get conventional mortgages because they violate shariah law. Another problem area has to do with womens' rights. Especially in Europe, Muslim enclaves have kept separate from the countries they inhabit. Intermarriage and integration are not happening.

Actually, Muslims have received federal faith-based funds. Right from the start Bush included Muslim leaders as well as Jewish leaders in his faith-based initiatives. Imam Hassan Qazwini of the Islamic Center of America in Detroit received funds even though Qazwini's receipt of federal funds should be disturbing to all Americans as described by Debbie Schlussel. The largest mosque in America applauds Farrakhan and his spewing hatred of Jews and calls for jihad. CAIR has denounced Pat Robertson for his hateful comments regarding Mohammed and have protested his getting federal funds but of course they have never denounced Farakkhan and his hate speech. Frankly, because of such infighting I agree with you that federal funds and religious groups should probably not mix - unless there are no strings attached. I support less interfereing government. The government should not become a "director" of religious speech or any speech. Unless it threatens America, religious groups (or anybody) should be free to say whatever they want.
So, are you Muslim?
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_1_118/ai_69404489
http://wnd.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=22069
http://www.cnsnews.com/Culture/archive/200210/CUL20021007a.html

 

[Ruby]

Muslim immigrants do not seem to integrate as well as other groups as their religious background is so different. They need to modernize their religion and join mainstream society. For instance, it is estimated that at least one third of Muslims will refuse to get conventional mortgages because they violate shariah law. Another problem area has to do with womens' rights. Especially in Europe, Muslim enclaves have kept separate from the countries they inhabit. Intermarriage and integration are not happening.

Seriously, this is just classic bigotry talking. We have numerous sub-cultures within a culture and they dosent mean they dont integrate well. There is intermarriage...making such a statement thats so easily refuted just dosent seem wise.

I would agree about banks and mortgages...they have been a problem since ancient times. For me it has nothing to do with religion though.

Actually, Muslims have received federal faith-based funds. Right from the start Bush included Muslim leaders as well as Jewish leaders in his faith-based initiatives. Imam Hassan Qazwini of the Islamic Center of America in Detroit received funds even though Qazwini's receipt of federal funds should be disturbing to all Americans as described by Debbie Schlussel. The largest mosque in America applauds Farrakhan and his spewing hatred of Jews and calls for jihad. CAIR has denounced Pat Robertson for his hateful comments regarding Mohammed and have protested his getting federal funds but of course they have never denounced Farakkhan and his hate speech. Frankly, because of such infighting I agree with you that federal funds and religious groups should probably not mix - unless there are no strings attached. I support less interfereing government. The government should not become a "director" of religious speech or any speech. Unless it threatens America, religious groups (or anybody) should be free to say whatever they want.
So, are you Muslim?
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_1_118/ai_69404489
http://wnd.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=22069
http://www.cnsnews.com/Culture/archive/200210/CUL20021007a.html

I dont think a publicity move with ONE token muslim recipient can actually qualify that there is any equality given in faith based initiative funds. I also think a world net daily view isnt somthing I find myself ready to rely on. I would like to see true details. Are muslims given money in equality with christian groups, are jewish groups? We can certainly even calculate it based on population of those groups and see that the funding reflects that. I see no such information presented...just a token publicity stunt that lacks any substance.

I would support a complete end to ALL faith based initiate funding, to ALL religions.

I am not muslim nor christian nor jew. I am an atheist.

 

[trobinett]

How much more stupid can this country get? These guys are fighting a WAR for goodness sakes! Anyone happen to see Luttrell's interview on Fox cable this week?

Death by Rules of Engagement
By Diana West
August 17, 2007

Now that Marcus Luttrell's book, "Lone Survivor: The Eyewitness Account of Operation Redwing and the Lost Heroes of SEAL Team 10," is a national bestseller, maybe Americans are ready to start a discussion about the core issue his story brings to light: the inverted morality and insanity of U.S. military rules of engagement.

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/DianaWest/2007/08/17/death_by_the_rules_of_engagement Scroll down to Diana West

This "whole" rules of engagement issue is lame, has been since Korea.

Ask any Vet from the 'Nam fiasco about "rules of engagement", ask ME, it cost US thousands of lives.

I don't know where such a term came from, but I would suggest, and I'm sure would be right, that some fucked up political dick head first suggested the term.

War is War, there are rules, but they DON'T encompass engagement. If the enemy is on the left side of the road, he or she is fair game, if the enemy is on the RIGHT side of the road, again, fair game, any other rules is total bull shit, and will only cost US soldiers lives.

How simple is this?

 

[PMZ]

Are you keeping track of the thread at all? Who ever said that the US RoE allowed for killing innocents where there are no military targets?

The US RoE (if the initial link is correct) prohibit killing innocents, even if their continued existence might jeopardize the mission (excluding bombings, that is). I agree with such rules. You were the one to bring in AQ and OBL, in posts 4 and 8. [Note where I point out this is random in post 5]. I don't see why they have anything to do with the question.

Yes, our rules of warfare are different than AQs. I am glad that we both agree this should be the case.

Since we are talking about the US RoE vis-a vis non-combatants, I really don't think reminding everyone what the enemies' RoE is is really all that random. How do you feel about Al-Qaeda's RoE anyway because their choice of terrorist tactics is at the very heart of this war.

We govern government. Those that have been unable to resist it have been issued the opinion that ignorance is common sense. So desperate are they for affirmation that their stunted education is not stupidity that they follow the pied piper of politics, demonstrably no better informed than they, blindly. It's the biggest threat that democracy has ever faced.