I want honest opinion of all, (in warfare) does the ends really justify the means?

What would be considered acceptable?

If the Geneva Convention is of any use anymore?

theres an old saying
"you say the value of the mission outways the value of the men . but if we dont have any men then how can we exspect to complete the mission."
if we lower our selves to terrorist or inhuman standards then we are no better than them.

Only if you're talking about breast implants.

Yes, the ends justifies the means. The point that is being missed is the control or discipline aspect.

Would I kill 1, 10, 100, 1000 civilians to protect my Marines?

You damn right I would.

Would I butcher them or claw out their eyes or chop off the heads off their dead bodies?

No.

There are limits. But for mission completion, just about anything can be acceptable.

Originally posted by .E3.
Yes, the ends justifies the means. The point that is being missed is the control or discipline aspect.

Would I kill 1, 10, 100, 1000 civilians to protect my Marines?

You damn right I would.

Would I butcher them or claw out their eyes or chop off the heads off their dead bodies?

No.

There are limits. But for mission completion, just about anything can be acceptable.

man that aint right no marine should shoot a civie every marine is thier to protect thier civies not to kill other civies
i respect how u care more about your men but those marines would rather die than butcher civies

Question:

If I'm in a defensive position and there is a civilian crowd in my field of view and there are shots fired from that crowd towards my position, am I authorized to return fire?

Answer, depending on ROE's, sometimes yes, sometimes no. Has it been done? Yes.

Question:

If I am on a reac to rescue downed pilots or retrieve a pinned unit, am I authorized to run over civilians to achieve my objectives?

Answer, yes. It is authorized.

The point is, the orders are to avoid civilian loss, but if mission accomplishment is impeded or the threat of the loss of life on US military side, collateral civilian casualties are unavoidable.

want references? Mog, UNOSOM I 93 (more commonly known as Restore Hope).
Haiti, JTF-180, (we called it Haitian Vacation)

Bet you didn't know US troops protect our borders during times of peace in violation of border defense laws? Guess what JTF-6, it's stationed out of Davis-Monthan Air Force Base. Want pictures?

Philosophical question:

If the ends don't justify the means, what does?

Originally posted by Esoterica
Philosophical question:

If the ends don't justify the means, what does?

Originally posted by .E3.
Question:

If I'm in a defensive position and there is a civilian crowd in my field of view and there are shots fired from that crowd towards my position, am I authorized to return fire?

Answer, depending on ROE's, sometimes yes, sometimes no. Has it been done? Yes.

Question:

If I am on a reac to rescue downed pilots or retrieve a pinned unit, am I authorized to run over civilians to achieve my objectives?

Answer, yes. It is authorized.

The point is, the orders are to avoid civilian loss, but if mission accomplishment is impeded or the threat of the loss of life on US military side, collateral civilian casualties are unavoidable.

want references? Mog, UNOSOM I 93 (more commonly known as Restore Hope).
Haiti, JTF-180, (we called it Haitian Vacation)

Bet you didn't know US troops protect our borders during times of peace in violation of border defense laws? Guess what JTF-6, it's stationed out of Davis-Monthan Air Force Base. Want pictures?

what the hell! if i ever become a marine then am i hell serving with US forces if thats thier view on colateral damage
oh and 1 point if they start firing they tur from civilain to hostiles

[Edited on 5-5-2004 by devilwasp]

"The point is, the orders are to avoid civilian loss, but if mission accomplishment is impeded or the threat of the loss of life on US military side, collateral civilian casualties are unavoidable."

You missed that part. Are we authorized to blatantly go out and start shooting at anything that moves, no. We have to target discriminate and assess the threat.