3 ms·

No, you have misinterpreted. The US does not declare that US forces should just go and kill anyone, rather, 'anyone' can be considered a target, which is perfe

No, you have misinterpreted. The US does not declare that US forces should just go and kill anyone, rather, 'anyone' can be considered a target, which is perfectly reasonable policy while fighting an insurgency. In normal rules of engagement, the women and children running out of the village are obviously out of bounds. They are civilians. You can't fire at them for any reason. In a 'free fire' zone, anyone can be considered an enemy combatant if the situation indicates as such. The woman running out of the village with an AK-47 - is 'in bounds' as an enemy combatant in an area where villagers are considered on the side of the insurgents. Obviously, random civilians are not. The misinterpretation of 'free fire' or the 'loose application' of it are considered 'war crimes' by the US and it was absolutely never intended that the policy be used by soldiers to just shoot up people - your implication that it was used this way is completely false. The My Lai massacre was a war crime, not an intentional act sanctioned by US forces. Also: war is dirty. There are no wars without war crimes. Once the bad genie comes out ... it spills all around, the best we can do is contain it. FYI that's one of the hardest things to do, i.e. make those kinds of calls in the field - often it's not obvious. Go and watch one of the documentaries that delve into US forces wrangling over a decision to drop munitions, and consider how tricky those decisions are ... so many factors.

stcredzero 8y ago
> The US does not declare that US forces should just go and kill anyone, rather, 'anyone' can be considered a target "There are no friendlies," one lieutenant told his men. "Shoot anything that moves." Over a seven-month period, they killed scores of unarmed civilians. Among their victims were two blind brothers; an elderly Buddhist monk; women, children, and old people hiding in underground shelters; and three farmers trying to plant rice. All were reported as "enemy... killed in action." > In normal rules of engagement, the women and children running out of the village are obviously out of bounds. They are civilians. You can't fire at them for any reason. During the Korean War, my grandmother had her life saved by a wad of cash (large, because of wartime inflation) hidden in a secret pocket in her skirt. It stopped a piece of shrapnel produced by strafing from a US Douglas A-1 Skyraider. Was she "in bounds?" > The misinterpretation of 'free fire' or the 'loose application' of it are considered 'war crimes' by the US and it was absolutely never intended that the policy be used by soldiers to just shoot up people Can you see how using Body Count as a metric would tend to produce "targeting" of the metric which would result in the targeting of people to turn into corpses? That is my whole point here.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  "It stopped a piece of shrapnel produced by strafing from a US Douglas A-1 Skyraider. Was she "in bounds?"" Civilian casualties are generally avoided if possible. I'm happy that your grandmother was saved, but it's not relevant. "Can you see how using Body Count as a metric would tend to produce "targeting" of the metric which would result in the targeting of people to turn into corpses?" No. 'Body count' is used in every war and has been since the dawn of time, and we continue to use it today as one of many metrics. Using this metric will not encourage professional soldiers to arbitrarily murder civilians.

stcredzero 8y ago

> The US does not declare that US forces should just go and kill anyone, rather, 'anyone' can be considered a target "There are no friendlies," one lieutenant told his men. "Shoot anything that moves." Over a seven-month period, they killed scores of unarmed civilians. Among their victims were two blind brothers; an elderly Buddhist monk; women, children, and old people hiding in underground shelters; and three farmers trying to plant rice. All were reported as "enemy... killed in action." > In normal rules of engagement, the women and children running out of the village are obviously out of bounds. They are civilians. You can't fire at them for any reason. During the Korean War, my grandmother had her life saved by a wad of cash (large, because of wartime inflation) hidden in a secret pocket in her skirt. It stopped a piece of shrapnel produced by strafing from a US Douglas A-1 Skyraider. Was she "in bounds?" > The misinterpretation of 'free fire' or the 'loose application' of it are considered 'war crimes' by the US and it was absolutely never intended that the policy be used by soldiers to just shoot up people Can you see how using Body Count as a metric would tend to produce "targeting" of the metric which would result in the targeting of people to turn into corpses? That is my whole point here.

sonnyblarney 8y ago
"It stopped a piece of shrapnel produced by strafing from a US Douglas A-1 Skyraider. Was she "in bounds?"" Civilian casualties are generally avoided if possible. I'm happy that your grandmother was saved, but it's not relevant. "Can you see how using Body Count as a metric would tend to produce "targeting" of the metric which would result in the targeting of people to turn into corpses?" No. 'Body count' is used in every war and has been since the dawn of time, and we continue to use it today as one of many metrics. Using this metric will not encourage professional soldiers to arbitrarily murder civilians.