![]() | About Does the "Fire only when fired at" law make sense? Page 3 |
![]() |
| | #21 | |
| | Quote:
No boom, no boom, no boom, Amen. | |
![]() | |
| |
| | #22 |
| |
Moded it..
|
| | #23 |
| |
Still isn't very understandable there, Jtf2. What kind of "ops" are you talking about?
|
| | #24 | |
| | Re: well infoQuote:
| |
| | #25 |
| |
The rule can be used in Nuclear warfare if it's needed
|
| | #26 | |
| | Re: well infoQuote:
| |
| | #27 |
| |
In Cambodia, in 92, the UN ROE was: don't shoot back unless fired upon....it meant "fired upon", not left or right but "upon"....that was basically fire back if you are not dead. Soon after deployment, a Dutch armed radio operator was escorting some UNMOs (Unarmed Military Observers That turned into a scandal and the poor Dutch guy was sent back home for over-use of violence!!! The UN lost credibility and enjoyed a non-stop wave of attacks on its people and looting of its warehouses for the duration of the mission... The UN did not show any resolve and lost face!!! He who has nothing to fight for, is a miserable creature kept free by better men than himself. |
| | #28 |
| | hey info
well as far as shooting the kid i would the only reason to point a gun at someone is to kill them with it i rather get in trouble for killing the kid then get killed thanks for the process for asking promission [/code]
|
| | #29 |
| |
that subject of fire when fired upon is quite good. if i see the enemy and he sees me, but does not fire i will pump him for what he is worth( which to me is nothing since his job is to kill me).
|
| | #30 | |
| | Quote:
| |
![]() |