Combat Zone

I actually agree with his sentence on a legal basis. He broke the rules. He needs to face his punishment.

Now, what I disagree with is some of the Rules of Engagement (ROE) we have to deal with. Under the current ROE, a man can shoot at you, and then turn and run. Once he runs, he is not to be considered an immediate threat, so you can't shoot him.

With the situation in the story, you'd have a tough time proving those two were enemies. Motorcycles are VERY common in the Kandahar province. And many times the riders (up to 5 on a single motorcycle) will stop and watch us. If we shot everyone who stopped and watch, we'd kill hundreds every mission.

It's a rough situation, and unfortunate. But with the current information, I agree with the verdict.

 

Snapper .....are you on the front line?

 

Since the liberals are so adamant on keeping abortion legal, I suggest (against my standard revulsion of abortion) that this practice be applied to the current administration en toto ; ASAP!!!!:BangHead:

 

Well bless your little heart!

Romans 12:20 KJV
King James Version
Therefore if thine enemy hunger,feed him; if he thirst, give him drink : for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.

Now if you ever want start a petition to impeach BO, let me know......I'm in!

 

Absolute nonsense, Woody, and you know it. "Rules of Engagement" my rosy red rear end! And this?

Aerial surveillance supported Lorance's assessment:

And you know full well, from your experience there, motorcycles are used regularly by unarmed spotters to track enemy troop movements. Rules of engagement regarding suspiciously acting civilians, unarmed or not, are open to interpretation, and you know that. The military jury at Ft. Bragg is responding to political pressure from Washington, and it will not stand up to appeal. These arent' the first "civilians" to be killed for exactly the same behavior in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and they won't be the last. Yet Lt. Lorance is the one who gets singled out for two counts of murder? That's bogus male bovine ... etc., etc., and you know that, too.

In Vietnam, you didn't ask questions, you fired, and turned the body(ies) over to the family for disposition. Same in Desert Storm, though the incidents there were much fewer and far between than in Vietnam. You're wrong, even if technically correct. RofE have never been as stringent as this administration is making them, and if this is the way its going to be from now on, then I'd rethink staying in, if I was military right now.

Yeah, well, I don't, and I don't many with military experience that would

 

I agree that the ROE is wrong right now. But, they are what they are. And he broke them.

Yes, motorcycles are used as spotters all the time. So are white cars. So are children. We can't just kill all the kids because they're used.

I know the article said aerial Surveillance backed him up. How? They couldn't hear what was being said. They could have been two guys with nothing better to do than follow a convoy.

Look, I dont hate the guy. And I can't say I wouldn't have made the same decision. But the fact is he broke the rules.

And what ISN'T open to interpretation is that you can't shoot someone who's unarmed. Period.

I am not disagreeing with your assessment of the ROE. But I still agree with his verdict.

 

The front line of the front lines. I'm a route clearance engineer. My platoon goes ahead of the marines and the infantry to make sure it's safe for them. And I was in the lead truck with rollers, proofing the route for pressure plates.

So, short answer: yes.