"courageous restraint" medal?

[LaMidRighter]

personally, i don't see why a soldier should receive a medal for refraining from killing civilians.

Exactly, soldiers are supposed to refrain from unnecessary or willful killing of non-combatants according to the USMCJ and other rules of engagement anyway.

 

[Mell]

I am not sure what to think of it.

Hopefully, soldiers are trained on how to recognise reasonable risks, where they can refrain from shooting, as opposed to situations where they are sure to be killed if they dont shoot.

 

[LaMidRighter]

I am not sure what to think of it.

Hopefully, soldiers are trained on how to recognise reasonable risks, where they can refrain from shooting, as opposed to situations where they are sure to be killed if they dont shoot.

You don't have a lot of time in a combat zone, bullets travel much faster than we do and they always have the right of way.

 

[the makeout hobo]

Is it just me or does 95% of the **** you post come from left wing talking points?

It's just you.

No, cupcake...its not just you. Yes...I absolutely post anecdotal crap and heres why. This is an internet blog. You can believe it, not believe it...thats absolutely up to you. I COULD instead look through tons of articles and find JUST the **** that supports the point I am trying to make and pretend THATS actually factual...OR...I can post my opinion...and from my experience...you can read it...ignore it...offer your opinion...or whatever the **** you want to do. Now..the day we all get PAID for this we can all hold some very unbiased research studies and have all the answers. Of course...this place would then become more than just a diversion which it is now.

First of all, chill the **** out, it's just the internet. Stop being so pissy. The problem with personal anecdotes is that we have no way of knowing if you're just making them up or not, so they're pretty useless when as a discussion we're trying to figure something out or reach a conclusion about an issue. If i say "issue X should be legal and here's reasons why and here's evidence it'd help", that's something we know is true and can discuss. If you say "A moose once bit my sister", we have no way of knowing the details or whether its true or any surrounding circumstances. It leaves nothing to discuss.

I will repeat the important part...EVERYONE HERE posts **** that they find that supports their position. And if you think that makes it factual you are on that Cali medicinal marijuana. And those that post a LOT of **** that supports their position? You have entirely TOO MUCH time on your hands.

I think that evidence that backs up what I say makes it more likely to be more relevant and possibly factual than some anecdote

 

[Mell]

You don't have a lot of time in a combat zone, bullets travel much faster than we do and they always have the right of way.

Soldiers shouldnt be trigger happy, though.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Soldiers shouldnt be trigger happy, though.

I agree, but this is why they train to the ROE so heavily as to have the best chance of doing the right thing and leaving alive.

 

[Mell]

I agree, but this is why they train to the ROE so heavily as to have the best chance of doing the right thing and leaving alive.

They also have to stabilise the country, and take every precaution they can, to not make it worse. They would be better off not going there at all, if there are going to be a series of war crimes reported against them later.

 

[VanceMack]

It's just you.

No, cupcake...its not just you. Yes...I absolutely post anecdotal crap and heres why. This is an internet blog. You can believe it, not believe it...thats absolutely up to you. I COULD instead look through tons of articles and find JUST the **** that supports the point I am trying to make and pretend THATS actually factual...OR...I can post my opinion...and from my experience...you can read it...ignore it...offer your opinion...or whatever the **** you want to do. Now..the day we all get PAID for this we can all hold some very unbiased research studies and have all the answers. Of course...this place would then become more than just a diversion which it is now.

First of all, chill the **** out, it's just the internet. Stop being so pissy. The problem with personal anecdotes is that we have no way of knowing if you're just making them up or not, so they're pretty useless when as a discussion we're trying to figure something out or reach a conclusion about an issue. If i say "issue X should be legal and here's reasons why and here's evidence it'd help", that's something we know is true and can discuss. If you say "A moose once bit my sister", we have no way of knowing the details or whether its true or any surrounding circumstances. It leaves nothing to discuss.



I think that evidence that backs up what I say makes it more likely to be more relevant and possibly factual than some anecdote

:rofl Wait...did you just out of the bue randomly attack me, then after I responded say "chill out"??? :lamo

 

[the makeout hobo]

It's just you.

No, cupcake...its not just you. Yes...I absolutely post anecdotal crap and heres why. This is an internet blog. You can believe it, not believe it...thats absolutely up to you. I COULD instead look through tons of articles and find JUST the **** that supports the point I am trying to make and pretend THATS actually factual...OR...I can post my opinion...and from my experience...you can read it...ignore it...offer your opinion...or whatever the **** you want to do. Now..the day we all get PAID for this we can all hold some very unbiased research studies and have all the answers. Of course...this place would then become more than just a diversion which it is now.


:rofl Wait...did you just out of the bue randomly attack me, then after I responded say "chill out"??? :lamo

If you take anything someone says that remotely criticizes you as an attack, then yes. Otherwise, no.

 

[VanceMack]

It's just you.



If you take anything someone says that remotely criticizes you as an attack, then yes. Otherwise, no.

I see...so you didnt remotely 'attack me...you just out of nowhere remotely criticized me. Well thats totally different and I shouldnt have responded to you. My total apologies.

And for the record...I dont take any of this seriously. Id buy you a shot and give you a high five...no problem...

 

[mpg]

I know of a firefight where a soldier held fire even though he was getting shot at by a terrorist scumbag holding an old woman by the throat and using her for a shield.

Isn't that worthy of a medal?

 

[Orion]

My main issue with the medal is that it's just a PR stunt. There's no way to prove who didn't kill civilians, especially if they are operating big machinery like tanks or bombers.

I agree that this is PC non-sense. War is death and I don't really care if some soldiers wet their pants and didn't kill a few civies. The net effect of the whole operation is tens of thousands of civilians dead.

Is this supposed to make people want to support the army more or something?

 

[VanceMack]

Isn't that worthy of a medal?

IF it is then it would already be recognized with the current medal and recognition system.

 

[1069]

My main issue with the medal is that it's just a PR stunt. There's no way to prove who didn't kill civilians, especially if they are operating big machinery like tanks or bombers.

I agree that this is PC non-sense. War is death and I don't really care if some soldiers wet their pants and didn't kill a few civies. The net effect of the whole operation is tens of thousands of civilians dead.

Is this supposed to make people want to support the army more or something?

I agree. But could the purpose also be to keep morale up among the troops?
I mean, a lot of them believe that courage means action- fighting bad guys and winning- as it did in past wars.
A lot of civilians believe that about the military, too.
Maybe this is meant to be, like, an official recognition of the uncommon bravery it takes to hold one's fire, even when it places one's own life in grave danger.

 

[mpg]

IF it is then it would already be recognized with the current medal and recognition system.

I admit that I know nothing of the current system but one way or another, people who do that should get a medal.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I suppose I could be completely mistaken, but aren't soldiers trained to do everything in their power to avoid shooting civilians? Aren't they expected to avoid shooting civilians?

Getting a medal for doing exactly what you're supposed to be doing seems pretty absurd.

It feels good to agree with the Good Reverend. I know. impdaddy:

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

My main issue with the medal is that it's just a PR stunt. There's no way to prove who didn't kill civilians, especially if they are operating big machinery like tanks or bombers.

I agree that this is PC non-sense. War is death and I don't really care if some soldiers wet their pants and didn't kill a few civies. The net effect of the whole operation is tens of thousands of civilians dead.

Is this supposed to make people want to support the army more or something?

You would have to give it to everyone.... There were lots of situations where I didn't kill civillians. :doh:

 

[Glinda]

It feels good to agree with the Good Reverend. I know. impdaddy:

It keeps me awake at night. But not for the reasons you think.

 

[d0gbreath]

Medals are the last thing on a soldier's mind, if they register at all. This medal for restraint seems stupid (like maybe something that you might get teased about from your Purple Heart buddies), yet digging under the surface, it would seem to be much harder to enter a possibly hostile situation with the safety on than to jump in blazing like Rambo.

I see it as an unnecessary medal, but any situation requiring nerves of steel should be heralded, especially when you are armed to the teeth.

 

[spud_meister]

:rofl do you get one medal per civilian you don't shoot, i can imagine the conversations

"how many civies did you kill today?"
"none"
"well done, you get a medal, unlike that bloke over there, who killed 3"

:roll:

 

[digsbe]

How can you reward someone for "courageous restraint"? Essentially, are they trying to discourage soldiers from defending themselves by showing restraint in battle? I fear the award would be awarded at more funerals than given to living soldiers. This award is just foolish.