NATO Award for 'Courageous Restraint'

[+column5]

As western society continues its slide into the slag heap of history, NATO considers decorating soldiers who avoid using force. This plan would have worked well in the Ardennes in 1944.

[Slartibartfast]

As an ex serviceman I am awaiting the moment they hand the key's over to the Terrorists...

 

Though on this I may be getting my wires crossed granted not killing a Civilian is a good idea but Afghanistan is a combat zone and a hot one at that... and how many times and how many wars have seen so called Civilians suddenly turn into the enemy???

[+DWCAce]

Damn, guess we won't be hearing of the 'Heads On a Stick' award anytime soon...

[+Ruggbutt]

NATO is a joke. Has been for quite some time.

[shotdown]

How long before the "Let them kill you award"?

[Capitaine Vengeur]

The problem is that it all works exactly as for "normal" warfare (I mean: endangering your own life and accepting possibility to kill other human beings speaking another language, and probably as unsure as you are about what they are here for): if you don't do it for your conscience, you won't do it for a medal. The measure seems to be expressly directed towards the medias.

[UnknownPilot]

The problem is that it all works exactly as for "normal" warfare (I mean: endangering your own life and accepting possibility to kill other human beings speaking another language, and probably as unsure as you are about what they are here for): if you don't do it for your conscience, you won't do it for a medal. The measure seems to be expressly directed towards the medias.

 

 

Wow, that was so touchy-feely I think I need a shower.

 

"to kill other human beings".... so melodramatic. You do realize it's all just a matter of internal perspective, right? Just like you swat a mosquito. That is the same carbon-based life made from stars that YOU are, but you are ok with that. You're not shooting your best friend or family members, they are the enemy.

 

Which is the other point, only an idiot would not know why they are there - to kill terrorists, or commies, or nazis.... as the case may be. (not that there's a WHOLE lot of different between any of them)

 

This medal and your post are expressly inter-twined. Demonstrations of the weakening of society (at least western society) on an alarming scale.

[Capitaine Vengeur]

Well so, you seem to be the proof that the Military doesn't need any cybernetical research to create an "Universal soldier" or even some evolved brainwash, as they'll ever find guys next door like you to have the job done. Give them a shiny weapon, tell them "The bad guys are there. Kill them and come back to report", and they'll do. No touchy-feely thoughts, and probably not that there's a WHOLE lot of different between any of them... and yourself.

[UnknownPilot]

and probably not that there's a WHOLE lot of different between any of them... and yourself.

 

 

 

Yep, that comment pretty much says it all.

[serverandenforcer]

Easy folks... everybody has a right to view things from a certain perspective. No need to go out on a crusade here.

Edited May 6, 2010 by serverandenforcer

[+JediMaster]

It hardly matters when people don't actually LISTEN to what the other guy is saying and instead "interpret" a couple of buzzwords as meaning "they see differently!" and going off on a rant....when if they bothered to listen they'd realize how close their viewpoints were in the first place.

But, I suppose feeling 1% different is the same as 100% different to them...the old "if you're not with me on EVERY issue to the SAME degree you're against me."

[ezlead]

The ONLY people trying to NOT kill civilians are the U.S. and the other Allies.

Al-Queada and the Taliban could care less.

If you really watch the reports,They are killing more of their own people than they are the military.

A medal for "restraint",I don't think so.

"Restraint" is all part of a soldiers job.

Otherwise:I want my MOH for NOT killing a couple thousand VC or NVA because civilians were nearby.

That's about how much sense it makes.

Edited May 7, 2010 by ezlead

[+JediMaster]

I fail to kill dozens of people daily that really irritate me. Where's my medal?

[+Ruggbutt]

Gee you mean there's another joke besides the clowns in the Light Blue Helmets

When I was shooting the SOF World Championship in '95 one of my teammates was psyching himself up for one of his rifle rounds. He kept saying outloud "they all have blue helmets". Kinda pissed off one of the other competitors who was from one of the nordic countries who had been on a UN op. I still remember dude's name, he was hostile to the point that I thought there was gonna be a fight. His name was Folke Myrvang.

 

Holy crap! This is the guy!!!!

Edited May 8, 2010 by Ruggbutt
found the guy with a google search

[GwynO]

The ONLY people trying to NOT kill civilians are the U.S. and the other Allies.

Al-Queada and the Taliban could care less.

If you really watch the reports,They are killing more of their own people than they are the military.

A medal for "restraint",I don't think so.

"Restraint" is all part of a soldiers job.

Otherwise:I want my MOH for NOT killing a couple thousand VC or NVA because civilians were nearby.

That's about how much sense it makes.

 

Righteous!!

[+hgbn]

Gee you mean there's another joke besides the clowns in the Light Blue Helmets

 

Well not every light blue helmets are a joke.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_B%C3%B8llebank

[Lexx_Luthor]

One amazing thing I once saw on CNN, in 1994, about Rwanda. After the UN troops were told to retreat from the mass slaughter, CNN showed video of guys taking their knives and cutting up there blue berets in disgust. The guys could have prevented alot of killing but were not allowed to apparently. CNN showed that only once that I noticed, and I *did* watch TV back then. Fascinating. That always stuck with me.

[Murphy'S]

One amazing thing I once saw on CNN, in 1994, about Rwanda. After the UN troops were told to retreat from the mass slaughter, CNN showed video of guys taking their knives and cutting up there blue berets in disgust. The guys could have prevented alot of killing but were not allowed to apparently. CNN showed that only once that I noticed, and I *did* watch TV back then. Fascinating. That always stuck with me.

 

 

saw this, it was a belgian paratrooper in a bus on homecoming.

[Murphy'S]

As western society continues its slide into the slag heap of history, NATO considers decorating soldiers who avoid using force. This plan would have worked well in the Ardennes in 1944.

 

 

the situation is far more complictated than in 1944

[+Gr.Viper]

Speaking of.. The US, British an French troops have just marched across the Red Square a few minutes ago

[+pcpilot]

I work in a jail...I should have a whole chest full, lol.

[shotdown]

Courageous Restraint. That's what we all practice every day here in Spain (and a lot more places in the world I guess) by not killing our politicians .

Edited May 9, 2010 by shotdown

[+Dave]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37137526/ns/politics

 

 

Going to fill a lot of body bags with this strategy.

[Gunrunner]

Dave, unfortunately that's the whole point of this war, you can't win it if by focusing on troops safety and killing/alienating the civilian population (we have neither the manpower, popular support nor moral ground to do so).

Soldiers are supposed to be expendable tools; you sign knowing your life will be used to achieved a goal, even if that means dying when this could have been avoided by sacrificing the core mission.

Once upon a time the general idea was that no soldier's life is worth losing the war... after the 60's and decolonisation wars (and Vietnam) and the meaningless losses they represented, we have shifted to a logic where protecting soldiers life comes before reaching the goals of war... that's nice for soldiers and their families, yet it is utterly ridiculous in this particular context.

 

If your goal is to avoid soldiers losses, then don't go to war...

[+Dave]

Dave, unfortunately that's the whole point of this war, you can't win it if by focusing on troops safety and killing/alienating the civilian population (we have neither the manpower, popular support nor moral ground to do so).

Soldiers are supposed to be expendable tools; you sign knowing your life will be used to achieved a goal, even if that means dying when this could have been avoided by sacrificing the core mission.

Once upon a time the general idea was that no soldier's life is worth losing the war... after the 60's and decolonisation wars (and Vietnam) and the meaningless losses they represented, we have shifted to a logic where protecting soldiers life comes before reaching the goals of war... that's nice for soldiers and their families, yet it is utterly ridiculous in this particular context.

 

If your goal is to avoid soldiers losses, then don't go to war...

 

You're missing the point completely. This policy will lead to poor choices that will lead to needless deaths of Soldiers, Airmen, Marines and Sailor's. They are forgetting the human factor. Some rookie LT or some LT Col who wants to make full bird is going to make a hesistant call and get someone killed that didn't need to be. I am all for the hearts and minds campaign but you can't do it at the expense of bad decisions. Been doing this for almost 20 years, no one needs to ever remind me what I signed up for.