Liar

Rick finally explained his "rules of engagement" argument. Lets examine it, shall we?

Sky Dive Rick said...
No thesis. It is simple. If the enemy has an intent to harm, and you sense that intent based on visual evidence and your past experiences as a soldier, you respond. Current rules require the soldier to wait until fired upon. In this case, you will be dead before you get a shot off. Poor rules of engagement, if you ask me.

Sounds reasonable, doesn't it? Except he's lying, or he simply doesn't know.

I looked up the actual "ROE" for our soldiers in Iraq;

Issued by U.S. Central Command Combined Forces Land Component Commander

A laminated card with the following text was distributed to all U.S. Army and Marine personnel in Iraq.

CFLCC ROE CARD

On order, enemy military and paramilitary forces are declared hostile and may be attacked subject to the following instructions:
a) Positive identification (PID) is required prior to engagement. PID is a reasonable certainty that the proposed target is a legitimate military target. If no PID, contact your next higher commander for decision

b) Do not engage anyone who has surrendered or is out of battle due to sickness or wounds.

c) Do not target or strike any of the following except in self-defense to protect yourself, your unit, friendly forces, and designated persons or property under your control:

Civilians

Hospitals, mosques, national monuments, and any other historical and cultural sites.

d) Do not fire into civilian populated areas or buildings unless the enemy is using them for military purposes or if necessary for your self-defense. Minimize collateral damage.

e) Do not target enemy infrastructure (public works, commercial communication facilities, dams), Lines of Communication (roads, highways, tunnels, bridges, railways) and Economic Objects (commercial storage facilities, pipelines) unless necessary for self-defense or if ordered by your commander. If you must fire on these objects to engage a hostile force, disable and disrupt but avoid destruction of these objects, if possible.

The use of force, including deadly force, is authorized to protect the following:

Yourself, your unit, and friendly forces

Enemy Prisoners of War

Civilians from crimes that are likely to cause death or serious bodily harm, such as murder or rape

Designated civilians and/or property, such as personnel of the Red Cross/Crescent, UN, and US/UN supported organizations

3. Treat all civilians and their property with respect and dignity. Do not seize civilian property, including vehicles, unless you have the permission of a company level commander and you give a receipt to the property’s owner.

Detain civilians if they interfere with mission accomplishment or if required for self-defense.
CENTCOM General Order No. 1A remains in effect. Looting and the taking of war trophies are prohibited.
REMEMBER

Attack enemy forces and military targets.
Spare civilians and civilian property, if possible.
Conduct yourself with dignity and honor.
Comply with the Law of War. If you see a violation, report it.
These ROE will remain in effect until your commander orders you to transition to post-hostilities ROE.

Notice the part in the ROE that I highlighted is EXACTLY what Rick describes;

If the enemy has an intent to harm, and you sense that intent based on visual evidence and your past experiences as a soldier, you respond.

That is, nearly word for word, what the current ROE covers.

So, go back to the original idea of why I asked Rick for an explanation. The loons frequently say we need to "take the gloves off" and other such flexing. They insist that we are not "losing" the war because occupations have never worked, they claim it's because the rules imposed by George Bush, in his attempt to appease the liberals, effectively hand-cuff the military. They claim that we would "win" the war (without describing what winning the war actually means) if only we didn't have these restrictions.

Well, guess what... the military doesn't have these restrctions that Rick, and Doug, and other loons like them claim. This is why I pushed to get Rick to put it in writing. It's why he's either woefully ignorant, or just simply lying.

Which is it Rick?

Rick goes on to add;

And don't talk like you know what the fuck you are talking about. You, I doubt, have ever looked down the barrel of a weapon poised to kill you, nor will you ever (unless, of course, your kind gets its wish and lets down America's defenses - then you may face such a situation in your own town).

I looked up the actual ROE you stupid fuck. I wasn't sure you were lying or not, so I checked... and not surprising.. you're a lying fuck.

What difference would "looking down a barrel" make? This is a matter of military policy. No.. I've never been threatened with a gun, thank god. That has nothing to do with anything, you lying fuck.

See below, Greenwalds post about the pantloads. Rick is concerned I might face such a barrel in my "own town". I don't fucking piss myself over those thoughts day and night Rick. There is no Islamic boogeyman coming to take away our system of government.

God damn you are a crazy fucking lying lunatic.