ATTENTION ALL COLLEGE STUDENTS

[Judge Faust]

As a libertarian I do not believe foreign war is something that we should be taking part in. Since the age of empires transitioned to an age of economic empires, classic imperialism seems kind of useless. But I do think that historically civilian casualties have gotten smaller and smaller as time has gone on. If you compare the civilian casualties of any other war I would bet that they are lower in the modern wars if you take into account the scale of conflict. I think civilians have always suffered the effects of war. I didn't read all of the posts you guys made so forgive me if I am ignorant of some of your points.

This is what I was trying to say to judge faust. Yes there are civilian casualties, but we try our best and have pretty good numbers to show when compared with past conflicts, hence proving weve made a serious effort to not hurt the good guys.

Look, if you "try [your] best" to avoid civilian casualties and kill thousands anyway, your "best" is just not good enough.

Nor does it help to argue that your methods are perfectly acceptable because, hey!, the Crusaders slaughtered more innocent civilians in their vile invasions of the Muslim world! Way to hold yourself to a low standard... :roll:

Oh, and a recent story to show you once more how wonderfully orchestrated and perfectly carried-out your airstrikes are:

http://www.thehimalayantimes.com/ful...e&NewsID=45527

Go, you.

But he insists we are an evil empire over there just to mow down civilians, which couldnt be further from the truth.

Enough with the misrepresentations already.

You're an empire. You're not evil - that is a meaningless term.

You are not in Afghanistan simply to massacre civilians.

You're in Afghanistan as part of an effort to establish a political/economic global hegemony by any means possible, both legal and illegal, up to and including wholesale massacres of civilians.

Please don't try to dumb down what I'm saying.

[sgreger1]

Look, if you "try [your] best" to avoid civilian casualties and kill thousands anyway, your "best" is just not good enough.

Nor does it help to argue that your methods are perfectly acceptable because, hey!, the Crusaders slaughtered more innocent civilians in their vile invasions of the Muslim world! Way to hold yourself to a low standard... :roll:

What would you expect us to do? How would the great Judge Faust conduct a war with no civilian casualties? This is what i'm talking about, our leaders think like you nowadays and it ends up with more of our guys getting killed. The enemy is not worried about civilian casualties. Hell, they've killed more of their own than they have of us. they'll blow up an entire checkpoint just to nail 2 soldiers.


How do you expect to win a war without having any casualties? You are in the typical liberal la la land, pie in the sky hippie peace can solve everything tip. It's not the real world. People get hurt in wars, this will never change.

Oh, and a recent story to show you once more how wonderfully orchestrated and perfectly carried-out your airstrikes are:

http://www.thehimalayantimes.com/ful...e&NewsID=45527

Go, you.

I don't think you realize how difficult it is to coordinate so many soldiers all doing their own operations at one time. Technology like the blue force tracker has helped but it's often times hard to know if another unit is operating in the same AO as you. Unfortunately, like civilian casualties, there will be collateral damage to one's own soldiers as well in a war.

Like I said, I wish things were all peachy super easy and no one got hurt, but that is not what war is. How do you not understand this?

You're in Afghanistan as part of an effort to establish a political/economic global hegemony by any means possible, both legal and illegal, up to and including wholesale massacres of civilians.

I don't disagree, and I think we shouldn't be in these wars right now. But in no way do we use "wholesale massacres of civilians" to accomplish our goals. unfortunately, when using indirect fire like air strikes/artillery etc, sometimes innocents get hurt. After someones property is messed up, we spend millions to rebuild the homes of these iraqis. Sure it would be better to not have done it in the first place, but at least we are making an attempt. More than any other army could say.


[/quote]


Hopefully someday we will be able to live in the utopia you speak of, in which there is no war and no one ever gets hurt. But it's not today Judge. You must fight to win today's battle, and save tomorrow's for tomorrow.

[Judge Faust]

What would you expect us to do? How would the great Judge Faust conduct a war with no civilian casualties? This is what i'm talking about, our leaders think like you nowadays and it ends up with more of our guys getting killed. The enemy is not worried about civilian casualties. Hell, they've killed more of their own than they have of us. they'll blow up an entire checkpoint just to nail 2 soldiers.


How do you expect to win a war without having any casualties? You are in the typical liberal la la land, pie in the sky hippie peace can solve everything tip. It's not the real world. People get hurt in wars, this will never change.

Once again, you attempt to craft an argument by misrepresenting my stance and by repeating discredited falsehoods.

We already established that "they" (i.e. the freedom fighters) do not kill more Afghanis than the occupiers do. Refer back to those numbers I cited.

So, how would I craft the rules of engagement in order to minimize civilian casualties? I'm glad you asked:

(1) No lethal force employed by any unmanned vehicle, ever.
(2) No explosive, missile, mortar, or grenade use in populated areas, ever.
(3) No demolition of any man-made inhabitable structures without making a full sweep of them first.
(4) No airstrikes outside of populated areas without line-of-sight confirmation of the targets' identities by at least 2 ground-based observers.
(5) No nighttime offensive maneuvers in populated areas.
(6) No soldier may fire his target at any human without (a) having the target in his direct sights and (b) being certain beyond a reasonable doubt that the target is armed, hostile, and an imminent threat to either the soldier, his comrades, or another friendly party.
(7) In any given situation, nonlethal force is to be given extreme preference over lethal force.


That should about cover it.

[Judge Faust]

Judge Faust, it's good to see you posting again. Na Zdorovye.

Spasibo, tovarisch!

[sgreger1]

So, how would I craft the rules of engagement in order to minimize civilian casualties? I'm glad you asked:

(1) No lethal force employed by any unmanned vehicle, ever.
(2) No explosive, missile, mortar, or grenade use in populated areas, ever.
(3) No demolition of any man-made inhabitable structures without making a full sweep of them first.
(4) No airstrikes outside of populated areas without line-of-sight confirmation of the targets' identities by at least 2 ground-based observers.
(5) No nighttime offensive maneuvers in populated areas.
(6) No soldier may fire his target at any human without (a) having the target in his direct sights and (b) being certain beyond a reasonable doubt that the target is armed, hostile, and an imminent threat to either the soldier, his comrades, or another friendly party.
(7) In any given situation, nonlethal force is to be given extreme preference over lethal force.


That should about cover it.

Omfg that is the biggest death wish ever. You cannot be seriouse? Thank God real military strategists don't follow ROE like this or the US casualties would have been historical.

Let me break these down one by one.

(1) No lethal force employed by any unmanned vehicle, ever.

Unmanned drones accomplish the offensive goal while virtually eliminating the posibility of collateral damage to US soldiers since it is just a robot. However, having worked closely with Predator drone operators, I can say that when you are not on the scene, and are just playing a video game involving killing people, bad decisions can often be made.

But they are a valueable asset none-the less.

(2) No explosive, missile, mortar, or grenade use in populated areas, ever.

Lol, this is for the most part the current policy in Iraq. As a forward observer everyone wanted to go to Afghanistan because at least there they are still using indirect fire. my job is close to useless in iraq. This has been the trend because we want to eliminate civilian casualties.

However... you can't say no using grenades or mortars. The enemy uses those things and we would be at a disadvantage if we went in with nothing but sticks and stones. Ususually we use bombs etc on specific targets, and a lot fo planning usually goes into making sure no good guys are around if we're going after a preset target. An AC130 spectre gunship can drop a jdam or 155 round into a trashcan from 20,000 feet.

The bad part happens when you are in a firefight and suddenly you are overrun and the only option is to call in a fire mission on the spot with whatever assets happen to be ing you AO at the time. Usually CCA helicopters midigate the risk of having to use explosives, but sometimes you gotta work with what you have.

The real problem with this one is that the terorrists know we have strict rules of engagement so they purposely fight in heavily populated areas. What other choice do we have? If your enemy fights in the jungle, than to the jungle you must send your soldiers.

(3) No demolition of any man-made inhabitable structures without making a full sweep of them first.

That would defeat the purpose of bombing it. If you could go in on the ground end take out the high value individuals than no need for bombs. This isn't always the case.

(4) No airstrikes outside of populated areas without line-of-sight confirmation of the targets' identities by at least 2 ground-based observers.

If not in a populated area, who the **** cares? Also, 90% of the time, the scenario you decribed is exactly what our current policy is. To call in a fire mission with close air support, especially with large ordinance, you are required to have one forward observer and one JTAC qualified observer (the jtac is like the army forward observer but they work for the air force and can interface with air force assets better). Both have to have line of sight targer. This is, if I recall corretly, a type 2 request for fire.

(5) No nighttime offensive maneuvers in populated areas.

This would be the biggest killer of them all. The US own's the night. We have such advanced night optics that this is the optimal time to strike, as the enemy often times does not have NODS or any night vision cabailities. the darkness provides a natural camoflauge, but you are able to see everything. Night time is when most of the good offensives happen, for exactly this reason.

(6) No soldier may fire his target at any human without (a) having the target in his direct sights and (b) being certain beyond a reasonable doubt that the target is armed, hostile, and an imminent threat to either the soldier, his comrades, or another friendly party.

As far as I am aware, this is the current ROE regarding contact. Infact, they take it one extra step and make you use elevation of force protocol as well. (Shout, shove, warning shot, shoot).

This is usually when in a crowd or when things are getting rowdy, someone is running towards the convoy looking suspiciouse etc. If someone is shooting at you, than shoot back.


See, this one shows me that you have no concept of how military strategy works. If you had to have the target directly in your line of sights, than it would render it illegal to use suppressing fire, the act of shooting in the enemies general direction to supress them (not hit them) so that others can come around from the side and flank the enemy, at which point you shift fire away form the target (but keep shooting) to make the illusion that they shoulds till not poke their heads out yet. As they remain suppressed, the flanking unit will come in and hit em off thier guard from the side.

If you were required to have them in your sights at all times when shooting, this strategy could not be employed, and it is an essential maneuver in any fire fight.

"(b) being certain beyond a reasonable doubt that the target is armed, hostile, and an imminent threat to either the soldier, his comrades, or another friendly party."

This is the current ROE. It is so strict that in some AO's if the insurgent pops off a few rounds and then drops their weapon and dissapears into a crowd, you are not allowed to engage them.

(7) In any given situation, nonlethal force is to be given extreme preference over lethal force.

This is a good one, and is currently the midnset down range, but the availability of nonlethal weapons is pretty small. They tend to not be long range, or require large mechanized support for them to be effective (xrays, sound cannons etc)

Not much nonlethal options out there. And why use nonlethal anyways? If we don't kill them than we have to detain them, and thenthe liberals will just scream untill we let them all out oncthey get to gitmo.

[tom502]

They should get 10 of their best men, and we do the same, and in a field with swords, the winner wins, and the loser must submit to defeat.

[sgreger1]

They should get 10 of their best men, and we do the same, and in a field with swords, the winner wins, and the loser must submit to defeat.

Lol, and we could throw in a little free enterprise and get the whole thing covered on pay-per-view!

[RRK]

Obviously we should build huge battle robots to fight it out gladiator style. Winner gets a a percentage of GDP.

[sgreger1]

Obviously we should build huge battle robots to fight it out gladiator style. Winner gets a a percentage of GDP.

Yah it's twenty- o nine, where the hell is our mechwarrior program. We shouldnt even be using soldiers any more, we should just have 5 story tall mechs go in and take shit out.

[RRK]

Obviously we should build huge battle robots to fight it out gladiator style. Winner gets a a percentage of GDP.

Yah it's twenty- o nine, where the hell is our mechwarrior program. We shouldnt even be using soldiers any more, we should just have 5 story tall mechs go in and take shit out.

Yeh, exactly. :wink:

[Judge Faust]

Omfg that is the biggest death wish ever. You cannot be seriouse? Thank God real military strategists don't follow ROE like this or the US casualties would have been historical.

Earlier in this discussion, you made the ridiculous assertion that the occupiers are already willing to sacrifice their own troops in order to minimize civilian casualties. I am simply calling you out on it; if what you claim is true, there should be no problem with implementing my suggestions.

Now let me address those points with which you disagree:

(2) No explosive, missile, mortar, or grenade use in populated areas, ever.

Lol, this is for the most part the current policy in Iraq. As a forward observer everyone wanted to go to Afghanistan because at least there they are still using indirect fire. my job is close to useless in iraq. This has been the trend because we want to eliminate civilian casualties.

However... you can't say no using grenades or mortars. The enemy uses those things and we would be at a disadvantage if we went in with nothing but sticks and stones. Ususually we use bombs etc on specific targets, and a lot fo planning usually goes into making sure no good guys are around if we're going after a preset target. An AC130 spectre gunship can drop a jdam or 155 round into a trashcan from 20,000 feet.

The bad part happens when you are in a firefight and suddenly you are overrun and the only option is to call in a fire mission on the spot with whatever assets happen to be ing you AO at the time. Usually CCA helicopters midigate the risk of having to use explosives, but sometimes you gotta work with what you have.

The real problem with this one is that the terorrists know we have strict rules of engagement so they purposely fight in heavily populated areas. What other choice do we have? If your enemy fights in the jungle, than to the jungle you must send your soldiers.

The freedom fighters fight wherever they can best utilize guerrilla tactics. This does not give you a right to go in guns blazing and level entire city blocks in the process.

The idea behind this prohibition is that mortars, bombs, and grenades are blind. What do you suppose happens when you launch artillery barrages into apartment complexes? Yeah, civilians die. So yes, I would rather require the occupiers to close in on the freedom fighters, at which point they would be far better equipped to differentiate enemy soldiers from innocent civilians.

(3) No demolition of any man-made inhabitable structures without making a full sweep of them first.

That would defeat the purpose of bombing it. If you could go in on the ground end take out the high value individuals than no need for bombs. This isn't always the case.

That is precisely the point. Currently, these scenarios play out thusly: Imperial forces receive fire from an unknown location, shell or bomb whatever buildings happen to be in the general vicinity of the incoming fire, and call it a day. Result: civilians die en masse.

My proposal would eliminate this vicious and barbarous behavior by requiring all structures to be inspected before demolition.

As a side effect, fewer structures will need to be destroyed. Result: fewer dead civilians, fewer homeless civilians.

(4) No airstrikes outside of populated areas without line-of-sight confirmation of the targets' identities by at least 2 ground-based observers.

If not in a populated area, who the **** cares? Also, 90% of the time, the scenario you decribed is exactly what our current policy is. To call in a fire mission with close air support, especially with large ordinance, you are required to have one forward observer and one JTAC qualified observer (the jtac is like the army forward observer but they work for the air force and can interface with air force assets better). Both have to have line of sight targer. This is, if I recall corretly, a type 2 request for fire.

"Who the **** cares?" The Afghani that doesn't want to have his outdoor wedding carpet-bombed by the Imperial minions, that's who cares. Until you people learn to distinguish weddings and funerals from roving militant bands, you don't get to bomb anyone without a ground-based go-ahead. Very simple, very effective.

(5) No nighttime offensive maneuvers in populated areas.

This would be the biggest killer of them all. The US own's the night. We have such advanced night optics that this is the optimal time to strike, as the enemy often times does not have NODS or any night vision cabailities. the darkness provides a natural camoflauge, but you are able to see everything. Night time is when most of the good offensives happen, for exactly this reason.

For some reason, nighttime and rowdy Imperial kids with hair-triggers simply don't mix well. This seems to be your proffered time for cold-blooded murder, rape, looting, and various other atrocities...

Maybe the kids are scared of the dark. Maybe they simply figure it makes them anonymous and their crimes unpunishable. Either way, this is unacceptable. Hence, I would simply make the night off-limits.

(6) No soldier may fire his target at any human without (a) having the target in his direct sights and (b) being certain beyond a reasonable doubt that the target is armed, hostile, and an imminent threat to either the soldier, his comrades, or another friendly party.

As far as I am aware, this is the current ROE regarding contact. Infact, they take it one extra step and make you use elevation of force protocol as well. (Shout, shove, warning shot, shoot).

This is usually when in a crowd or when things are getting rowdy, someone is running towards the convoy looking suspiciouse etc. If someone is shooting at you, than shoot back.


See, this one shows me that you have no concept of how military strategy works. If you had to have the target directly in your line of sights, than it would render it illegal to use suppressing fire, the act of shooting in the enemies general direction to supress them (not hit them) so that others can come around from the side and flank the enemy, at which point you shift fire away form the target (but keep shooting) to make the illusion that they shoulds till not poke their heads out yet. As they remain suppressed, the flanking unit will come in and hit em off thier guard from the side.

If you were required to have them in your sights at all times when shooting, this strategy could not be employed, and it is an essential maneuver in any fire fight.

[

You misunderstand. This prohibition only applies when you are actively trying to kill specific people. It is chiefly meant to keep you cowboys from blowing away unarmed civilians and saying, "Meh, everyone looks like a freedom fighter from a kilometer away." When in doubt, don't press the trigger. You get paid to have people shoot at you; the civilians do not.

Suppressing fire is not primarily intended to kill anyone, and hence would not be covered. Suppress all you want.

(7) In any given situation, nonlethal force is to be given extreme preference over lethal force.

This is a good one, and is currently the midnset down range, but the availability of nonlethal weapons is pretty small. They tend to not be long range, or require large mechanized support for them to be effective (xrays, sound cannons etc)

Not much nonlethal options out there. And why use nonlethal anyways? If we don't kill them than we have to detain them, and thenthe liberals will just scream untill we let them all out oncthey get to gitmo.

The point of this one is not x-rays and other futuristic devices; the point is caution.

If you're on patrol and a car comes towards, chances are it's not a danger. If you absolutely must shoot, shoot so as not to kill. That is, go out of your way to target the mechanical parts and not the occupants.

Oh, and your last paragraph betrays your real mindset. You're not out there to minimize any casualties; you want to slaughter anyone that you can. Finally it's all coming out into the open...

[MasterGuns]

While this topic seems to have taken a bit of a turn, I'll comment on the original post, since I'm too jacked on snus and Jameson's too keep writing my paper....
I go to a private university so most of my aid comes from scholarships. What government funding I do receive comes from the state lottery and federal need based aid.
My aid has yet to take a hit, but since the student in question is going to a California school, a state which is in a monstrous amount of debt, I can see why my situation is very different.
It's ridiculous, she should not be affected by the whims of the economy. Her aid should have been locked in at the economic status which the state of CA was in before the recession hit.
It's BS, and as a junior, I can only hope the same thing doesn't happen to me, otherwise I may be doing construction work year round while applying to the Nashville metro PD at a pay grade substantially lower than it would be had I completed my degree.
The best of luck to your sister.

[sgreger1]

Earlier in this discussion, you made the ridiculous assertion that the occupiers are already willing to sacrifice their own troops in order to minimize civilian casualties. I am simply calling you out on it; if what you claim is true, there should be no problem with implementing my suggestions.

It is not rediculous. You know nothing about the subject and all you know is what you get from the mainstream media or wikipedia. This is why you have the opinion that we are an empire out killing people en masse for fun or something, and that we take no measures to ensure safety of the civilians. This is an uninformed opinion and could not be further from the truth.

That is precisely the point. Currently, these scenarios play out thusly: Imperial forces receive fire from an unknown location, shell or bomb whatever buildings happen to be in the general vicinity of the incoming fire, and call it a day. Result: civilians die en masse.

I've never seen more fail in one sentence than this one. Getting indirect-fire assets even in afghanistan is extremely difficult today. Your understanding of current policy is comin out of your ass and is not base din reality. As soon as we recieve fire we don't just cal in a fire for effect on the whole town. If this was the case, the war would have been over already.

Seriousely you don't have any idea what you are talking about and have already subscribed to the meme that we are fighting this thing like Vietnam, which we are not.

My proposal would eliminate this vicious and barbarous behavior by requiring all structures to be inspected before demolition.

As a side effect, fewer structures will need to be destroyed. Result: fewer dead civilians, fewer homeless civilians.

If they are "inspected (read as, "cleared") than there is no reason to clal in fire on it. We are not a demolitionj company remodeling houses or something. Also, if civilian houses are damaged we pay top dollar to construct new better ones. We compensate the civilians with rediculous amounts of money for any monetary loss that occurs should a firefight break out and we damage something during the battle.

"Who the **** cares?" The Afghani that doesn't want to have his outdoor wedding carpet-bombed by the Imperial minions, that's who cares. Until you people learn to distinguish weddings and funerals from roving militant bands, you don't get to bomb anyone without a ground-based go-ahead. Very simple, very effective.

Sigh... they are already required the ground based go-ahead for the majority of all fire missions.

For some reason, nighttime and rowdy Imperial kids with hair-triggers simply don't mix well. This seems to be your proffered time for cold-blooded murder, rape, looting, and various other atrocities...

Maybe the kids are scared of the dark. Maybe they simply figure it makes them anonymous and their crimes unpunishable. Either way, this is unacceptable. Hence, I would simply make the night off-limits.

What ****ing reality do you live in Judge. Night time operations are more effective and result in a low casualty rate because we have a huge advantage due to our ability to be able to see clearly during the night time. Why would you rob our troops of this vital advantage?

You misunderstand. This prohibition only applies when you are actively trying to kill specific people. It is chiefly meant to keep you cowboys from blowing away unarmed civilians and saying, "Meh, everyone looks like a freedom fighter from a kilometer away." When in doubt, don't press the trigger. You get paid to have people shoot at you; the civilians do not.

Well youll be happy to know that the current policy is that you have to have confirmed contact before you are able to return fire or engage. Unarmed civilians usually only get shot when they are doing something stupid like running up to a convoy and throwing a shoe at it, at which point the turret gunner mistakes it for a grenade and offs the guy.

If you're on patrol and a car comes towards, chances are it's not a danger. If you absolutely must shoot, shoot so as not to kill. That is, go out of your way to target the mechanical parts and not the occupants.

When you are at a checkpoint, which are bombed quite often, you must always be on the ready, beign miticulous with the inspections and coming at it with the mindset that at any time a terrorist could strike. The current policy is that if a car is approaching at a quick pace towards the checkpoint or convoy, the 50 cal gunner is to fire a 3-5 second burst into the engine block, so as to neutralize the vehicle and further investigation can occur. So waht you speak of is current policy.

Oh, and your last paragraph betrays your real mindset. You're not out there to minimize any casualties; you want to slaughter anyone that you can. Finally it's all coming out into the open...

No, I said

Not much nonlethal options out there. And why use nonlethal anyways? If we don't kill them than we have to detain them, and thenthe liberals will just scream untill we let them all out oncthey get to gitmo.

Meaning that we are in a war, and that means you shoot to kill. If we just detain them than some liberal will protest fo rtheir freedom and their lawyer will find a loophole, they will be released and attacking american soldiers like has happened SO MANY TIMES in the past.

These are bad people who are going to continue being combative untill they are killed. We are in a war. We want to minimize CIVILIAN casualties, not casualties of those we are fighting, we want to increase those. It is the whole concept of going to war.





In closing, I would just like to thank god/fsm that when this country was first formed and we fought against the queen, that in WW| and WW|| we didn't have naive thinkers like you, too weak to accomplish said mission. We would still be a territory of the brits if people like you with no mindset from strategy, and no will to be victorious had ruled us.

While our country is flawed in more ways than I can list, we still have a good thing going here, and your ability to sit at your computer and bitch about it is a testament to the sacrafice and tough decisions many have had to make in the past in order to establish this easy life we are able to enjoy in America.



I understand you not liking the war because people get hurt, I agree and I don't think this war is worth fighting. But for you to slander the military as an empire that doens't care who they shoo/rape/loot etc could not be further from the trooth. there are hundres of thousands of soldiers wearing the flag on their arm that are people just like you, who are placed in some foreign country by politicians to do their biding, and they are just trying to survive untill their tour is over. Not evil serial killer baby raping looters like you would like to believe.

[sgreger1]

While this topic seems to have taken a bit of a turn, I'll comment on the original post, since I'm too jacked on snus and Jameson's too keep writing my paper....
I go to a private university so most of my aid comes from scholarships. What government funding I do receive comes from the state lottery and federal need based aid.
My aid has yet to take a hit, but since the student in question is going to a California school, a state which is in a monstrous amount of debt, I can see why my situation is very different.
It's ridiculous, she should not be affected by the whims of the economy. Her aid should have been locked in at the economic status which the state of CA was in before the recession hit.
It's BS, and as a junior, I can only hope the same thing doesn't happen to me, otherwise I may be doing construction work year round while applying to the Nashville metro PD at a pay grade substantially lower than it would be had I completed my degree.
The best of luck to your sister.

Lol my wife actually, but yah it's just upsetting because they come at her mid year when she only needs 8 more credits and are like "yah you better pay $8,000 or no BA for you. I understand cuts, but what pisses me off is that they won't cut the wastefull thigns like rediculous salaries for sub par teachers before they cut aid for students. It's like companies where the CEO's get paid million dollar bonuses, meanwhile 2,000 employees just got offed.

[Judge Faust]

Earlier in this discussion, you made the ridiculous assertion that the occupiers are already willing to sacrifice their own troops in order to minimize civilian casualties. I am simply calling you out on it; if what you claim is true, there should be no problem with implementing my suggestions.

It is not rediculous. You know nothing about the subject and all you know is what you get from the mainstream media or wikipedia. This is why you have the opinion that we are an empire out killing people en masse for fun or something, and that we take no measures to ensure safety of the civilians. This is an uninformed opinion and could not be further from the truth.

Let's not stoop to petty insults, please. I assume that you are intelligent and informed; I simply ask that you do the same for me. I would like us to debate this issue on the merits - ad hominem attacks are neither welcome not effective.

My proposal would eliminate this vicious and barbarous behavior by requiring all structures to be inspected before demolition.

As a side effect, fewer structures will need to be destroyed. Result: fewer dead civilians, fewer homeless civilians.

If they are "inspected (read as, "cleared") than there is no reason to clal in fire on it. We are not a demolitionj company remodeling houses or something. Also, if civilian houses are damaged we pay top dollar to construct new better ones. We compensate the civilians with rediculous amounts of money for any monetary loss that occurs should a firefight break out and we damage something during the battle.

That's nice. Unfortunately, this discussion is about human lives, not damage to buildings. Can you put a price on human life? If a young ignorant foreigner came into your dwelling and killed your wife in cold blood, would any amount of money really make you whole again? I hope not. Would it make you take up arms against the foreign invaders? I hope so. Now you know where the brave Afghani and Iraqi freedom fighters are coming from.

If you're on patrol and a car comes towards, chances are it's not a danger. If you absolutely must shoot, shoot so as not to kill. That is, go out of your way to target the mechanical parts and not the occupants.

When you are at a checkpoint, which are bombed quite often, you must always be on the ready, beign miticulous with the inspections and coming at it with the mindset that at any time a terrorist could strike. The current policy is that if a car is approaching at a quick pace towards the checkpoint or convoy, the 50 cal gunner is to fire a 3-5 second burst into the engine block, so as to neutralize the vehicle and further investigation can occur. So waht you speak of is current policy.

"Current policy?" Policies are cute and all, but they don't always translate to reality. Imperial forces slaughter innocent civilians in this manner on a daily basis. Either your beloved gunners are incompetent morons, or they would much rather take a human life than to pump rounds into a car engine.

Meaning that we are in a war, and that means you shoot to kill. If we just detain them than some liberal will protest fo rtheir freedom and their lawyer will find a loophole, they will be released and attacking american soldiers like has happened SO MANY TIMES in the past.

These are bad people who are going to continue being combative untill they are killed. We are in a war. We want to minimize CIVILIAN casualties, not casualties of those we are fighting, we want to increase those. It is the whole concept of going to war.

No, the meaning of war is to win, not to massacre the people on the other side. You may want to read up on the Geneva Conventions, to which the Empire is a signatory.

I understand you not liking the war because people get hurt, I agree and I don't think this war is worth fighting. But for you to slander the military as an empire that doens't care who they shoo/rape/loot etc could not be further from the trooth. there are hundres of thousands of soldiers wearing the flag on their arm that are people just like you, who are placed in some foreign country by politicians to do their biding, and they are just trying to survive untill their tour is over. Not evil serial killer baby raping looters like you would like to believe.

Well, pardon me for not sharing your unrestrained adoration for the Empire's armed forces.

These gun-toting, ignorant, uneducated rednecks are doing absolutely nothing to keep you or me safe. What they're doing is making sure that the rest of the world hates the Empire enough to seriously entertain the idea of attacking its denizens on its own soil. Do you think that the 9/11 individuals picked the US at random? No, they picked it because they were fed up with the arrogant imperialism of your barbaric nation. And now they have even more reason to attack again.

So, yeah. Thanks for keeping me "safe." You rock.