Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
#1 "Proof that Military puts media messagepoliticans before troops' lives"
Posted by Bright Pebbles 2012-06-01 10:39||
#2 The cross is offensive to mooslims. MEDIVAC helo's with red crosses.... good to go. MRAP's and other vehciles that transit haji villages....not so much.
Posted by Besoeker 2012-06-01 10:57||
#3 Put the Red Crescent on the medivac helos. Problem solved.
Posted by Steve White 2012-06-01 11:23||
#4 "The cross is offensive..."
Filed under "tough shit"
Posted by mojo 2012-06-01 11:38||
#5 "The MNC-I SJA recommends against using the M249 on MRAP ambulances marked with a red cross. Though not a technical violation of international law, using an M249 on a vehicle marked with a medical symbol would have negative IO implications in the ITO."
See, shiite like that makes me wish I'd stayed in. Commanders are the client and it is the lawyer's job to get to yes. NOTHING forbids tactical self-defense, which is in fact explicitly authorized by Geneva and everything else.
However: I note that it only bars only crew-served weapons from the cupola. Surely there are other types of weapons that could be suitably employed?
Posted by RandomJD 2012-06-01 11:40||
#6 However: I note that it only bars only crew-served weapons from the cupola. Surely there are other types of weapons that could be suitably employed?
A forward air controller and a B1B loitering nearby?